MMA: Style, or rule set?

[bushido_man96]

The thought for this thread stemmed from some thoughts that came up between MMA_Jim and myself in this thread: http://www.karateforums.com/ufc-versus-pure-combat-vt33967.html

Instead of bogging down another thread, I felt that this subject was worthy of its own topic. So, my question is this: Do you think that MMA is its own style, or do you think that it is a rule set?

Personally, I think that the MMA is a style. The reason I say this is because I think it has evolved into such. You can now go to an MMA gym, and learn the MMA fighting ways, without previous experience in other styles, and you don't have to compete in MMA competitions to be an MMAer. I like to look at it like Pankration; I feel that it is a style, as well.

What are everyone else's thoughts on this?

[tallgeese]

In response to the reuleset v. system question posted a slightly lenghty bit. I'll copy it over to here:

I see Jim's point and I really do think that in the early days that was entirly true. It was merely a rules set.

I think that right now, were in a transitionary period were it is developing into it's own art as bushido man stated. It will be interesting to see where it comes out. I think in 10 years or so, it will be clearly definded as it's own system.

Anytime a systematic fighting proctice functions under a specific set of rules, for long enough, it begins to become it's own animal. Movements are dropped from the cirriculum that don't work within the ruleset it's functioning under. Others are added to capitalize on the rules. This becomes kind of a standard for the "system" if you will.

MMA has already come into it's own in regard to training methodology, conditionng, and event specific tactics. This will only continue. It is really not unlike (nor is it entirely like, I understnad that) the process by which Funikoshi brought modern karate into being. Different skills, of course. But the process of change and additions of sparring and such that Funikoshi began teaching seemed to do much the same to the karate world as mma has done for the ma world in general.

System gets a bad rap from lots of circles, including one's i've been party to over the years. It can become a constraining factor in learning new skills and it does add an artifical element to an entirely chaotic event (unarmed combat). However, we have to look at "system" for what it really should be, nothing more than a systemized method of teaching one to fight. A system should grow with the addition of new knowledge to it's practitioners, and this is where so many have gone wrong over the years, IMO. But at it's core, it's merely about an organized pattern of training.

Under this criteria, mma has certainly come a long way during it's short lifespan. Not only is the training higly "systemized" but is also very effective for producing combatants quickly with a moderate level of skill. As you can see, under this viewpoint, becomeing a "system" is not a bad thing.

So is it an art? Maybe not yet. But it's certainly showing the signs of becoming one.

[MMA_Jim]

If you really wanted to push the envelope, you could argue this both ways. MMA can be considered both a ruleset and a style, should you argue it correctly.

First off, it is a ruleset, if for nothing else the rules were established before the fighting game began to evolve. Not only that, but while MMA is widely regarded as pretty much being muay thai, bjj, and wrestling, its not exclusive to those styles. Furthermore, there are no rules that limit techniques, only striking areas for the safety of the fighters' careers. It is indeed open to people who train from all styles of fighting.

Another reason I would argue against it being a style is that styles are one way to categorize a persons fighting preferences. There are, for example, 3 types of fighters you'll see in MMA competition. Sprawl and brawl kickboxers, ground and pound wrestlers, and submission fighters. What you are now dealing with is three different sorts of techniques which share almost no similarities in techniques, much less strategy. If MMA were indeed a style, fighters would tend to have similar strategies, but this isnt the case. Some fighters argue for the point of keeping the fight on the feet. Other argue the effectiveness of the submissions game, and still others argue for the simplicity of the ground and pound game.

The strategy for striking is to be quick, powerfull, and aggressive. Unleash everything on your opponent when he gives an opening. Overkill if you will.

The strategy for ground and pound wrestlers is similar- lots of strength, lots of power, but a bit more controlled- beat your opponent, but first put him in a place you can hit him much more effectively than he can hit you- on his back.

Finally, the strategy for the submission oriented fighters is to be patient. Strength, speed, and aggression are of less importance than patience and technique. Take advantage of your opportunities, but dont rush the fight.

Now, if you wanted to argue for MMA being a style, I could understand that line, but its still shortsighted. Its only its own style in the sense that overall, one is taught the same basic range of effective techniques from muay thai, wrestling, and jiu jitsu. However, it is the attention to detail that makes each of those styles effective, and less the techniques themselves. In other words, just because its being taught in the cirriculum doesnt qualify you as being that particular style of fighter. There are joint locks and throws taught in karate just as there are elbows and knees taught in bjj, but a BJJ fighter is no more an expert in muay thai than a karate fighter is an expert in grappling.

Now, that being said, muay thai, wrestling, and BJJ are their own styles. The only thing is that they were able to effectively adopt to the ruleset of MMA. Theres more to BJJ than just fighting in a cage- it is its own martial art. These styles were not devised for cage fighting- they were simply adopted to it

[tallgeese]

Adopted by it, yes. Hence, evolution.

Most guys are cross trining in all that stuff. I don't see it as incorrect, still it's only my opinon.

[BLueDevil]

Ive always considered it a style, by definition its mixed martial arts. So your putting together different MA to create a whole or to patch something you consider a weakness maybe.

I mean you could put Kyokushin sparring rules to an MMA practitioner, he would still use MMA right? Now youve just limited what the MMA practitioner can do. Or flip it, Kyokushin fighter fights under MMA rules, he's still Kyokushin, just now he's limited to MMA rules.

Basically I'm saying slapping rules on a match doesnt change the mother art in my opinion. an MMAer is going to use his style of fighting because thats what he was taught, effectively making it into a style in itself.

[bushido_man96]

Good arguement, MMA_Jim. You make your points very well.

I do agree that there are 3 different types of fighters that you mention in MMA. I view those as different strategies to be applied under the rule set. The rule set of MMA competitions are unique in that the comprehensivness of the rules allows for more different fighters and styles than many other combat sports allow. Take Boxing, for example. All of them are going to punch, but you have inside fighters and outside fighters. Different strategies, like you point out in MMA, but it is just harder to deliniate it, due to the more restricted rule set. In my opinion, anyway.

Now, I think that MMA is the style, and UFC is the rule set; just like ExtremeXC, PrideFC used to be, etc.

[Throwdown0850]

I wouldn't call MMA a style by no means.. its called MIXED martial arts. and personally, I would be upset that they would take that away from the people who developed them. Muay Thai will be called Muay Thai, BJJ will be called BJJ, ETC.. Nothing else.

[tallgeese]

Yeah but my point is that everything is always changing and moving forward.

As to the MT, BJJ movements used in MMA, I'm sure that the aspects that Yamaguchi took out of pau kau to use in goju were always thought of as kung fu before that. And the hard elements that he took out of karate probibly were always thought of as being Japaneese. These things happen as arts evolve.

You can call it whatever you want, but mma is coming into its own as something that is taught exclusiveley at schools around the country. Focus may be give to one aspect or another on any given night, but it's all coming together. Remember, I said that it's evoloving into an art, not that it's there yet.

Of course not all mma fighters will look the same. Each will have certain aspects of his game that his physiology is more adept at performing. This is the case across the gambut of ma's. The differences may be more profound in mma, but the core idea is the same.

Again, just my thoughts. Sorry if I got some of the goju history wrong, I haven't been involved directly with it for some time.

[Throwdown0850]

Yeah but my point is that everything is always changing and moving forward.

As to the MT, BJJ movements used in MMA, I'm sure that the aspects that Yamaguchi took out of pau kau to use in goju were always thought of as kung fu before that. And the hard elements that he took out of karate probibly were always thought of as being Japaneese. These things happen as arts evolve.

You can call it whatever you want, but mma is coming into its own as something that is taught exclusiveley at schools around the country. Focus may be give to one aspect or another on any given night, but it's all coming together. Remember, I said that it's evoloving into an art, not that it's there yet.

Of course not all mma fighters will look the same. Each will have certain aspects of his game that his physiology is more adept at performing. This is the case across the gambut of ma's. The differences may be more profound in mma, but the core idea is the same.

Again, just my thoughts. Sorry if I got some of the goju history wrong, I haven't been involved directly with it for some time.

If someone says "I am doing Muay Thai and BJJ" then they should say just that. People did not develop their martial arts so it can be called something else in the future when to me, nothing in the those arts have changed to make it into a "new" one. mma is NOT an art. in my opinion, its a fad if anything. Also, I believe its not evolving, it just took something like the UFC to get them out into the open. before that, nobody really even heard of BJJ.

[tallgeese]

I can understand where you're coming from, and I respectfully disagree.

The game has evolved considerably since it's inception. Take a look at the first few UFC's. The skill level of the athletes was nowhere near as good as it is now. No one was cross-training and everyone was preaching "their style".

Now, we have fighters training in JJ, MT, wrestling, ect. Now, someone will naturally have a range they excel in, but they are also versed in other aspects of the fight game. If nothing else, it has shown everyone the value of cross-training. Even the most die-hard BJJ'er will practice with a MT coach.

I agree, i f someone is doing BJJ or MT, then they should just say it. If they are practicing all aspects of the game, and training to integrate them, then they should say they are training MMA.

Something has changed when you put those arts together within a methodogy of training. It's now a different animal than when each functioned alone.