MMA: Style, or rule set?

[bushido_man96]

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.

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".

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.

Taking these quotes in mind, this is my opinion: Yes, early on, it was different styles, and the mixing of styles has caused the evolution to take place. Now, you can go to gyms whose exact goal is to teach the style of fighting that now takes place in MMA competitions like the UFC and ExtremeXC. There are Thai gyms to learn Muay Thai fighting. There are Boxing gyms to learn Boxing. Each is considered its own style. Now, with the first generation of MMA champions becoming coaches and trainers, we have gyms popping up that teach the MMA style.

[The BB of C]

I think that Mixed Martial Arts is a type of style but it can also be a rule set when it comes to competitions. Things like Ultimate Fighting Championship and K-1.

[bushido_man96]

I think that Mixed Martial Arts is a type of style but it can also be a rule set when it comes to competitions. Things like Ultimate Fighting Championship and K-1.

We see this with many different styles, though. In TKD, for instance, you go to many different tourneys, but lets take the WTF and the ITF, as an example. The rule sets are different for both, even down to the protective equipment worn. However, they are both still TKD. UFC and EliteXC, and the former PrideFC are just different sanctioning competitions for the MMA style. There are even various Submission Grappling tourneys that are used for BJJers, Wrestlers, etc.

[straightblast]

I find that this is a really great topic, there are good posts on both sides. As for me, I do not know, I really need to think about what a style means to me. It kinda reminds me of the old JKD is not a style argument.

For now I will just think of it as a sport.

[The BB of C]

I think that Mixed Martial Arts is a type of style but it can also be a rule set when it comes to competitions. Things like Ultimate Fighting Championship and K-1.

We see this with many different styles, though. In TKD, for instance, you go to many different tourneys, but lets take the WTF and the ITF, as an example. The rule sets are different for both, even down to the protective equipment worn. However, they are both still TKD. UFC and EliteXC, and the former PrideFC are just different sanctioning competitions for the MMA style. There are even various Submission Grappling tourneys that are used for BJJers, Wrestlers, etc.

I understand. Good point.

[bushido_man96]

I wonder if the ancient Greeks had this same kind of discussion in their day, during the various Olympiads, considering the Pankration. At times, there would be individuals that would enter in multiples of the "heavy games," as they were called.

The Pankration would have been viewed as a cross between their Hellenic Boxing and Wrestling, and therefore, the athletes of the time would surely have demonstrated some of the same traits that we see in the Martial Artists of today, involved with MMA. There would have likely been those who favored their Boxing to their Wrestling, and vise versa. It would have been interesting to hear if spectators, trainers, and athletes of that era felt many of the same things we feel today, and if they had some of the same arguements.

[tallgeese]

I concur, it would be an interesting discussion to set in on.

During hte course of this thread, I've also wondered if similar debates were being had at the time of Goju's founding and Funikoshi's overhaul of karate for the mainland. Probibly I would guess.

I bet there were similar events taking place during the time span in which Bruce Lee was demonstraing his development of JKD around the circuit in the 70's. Probibly even when the Gracies even first took JJ to the ground.

Anytime there is a major evolutionary development in the arts you're probibly going to have talks like this. They probibily do have their place in everyone coming to terms with new developments, regardless of the era.

[bushido_man96]

I think that you are right there, tallgeese. It helps us all come to better understand what we see happening.

Its kind of cool, I think, because we have seen some major evolution take place right before our eyes.

[ps1]

I believe it is a sport with rule sets that change from venue to venue.

1. The best fighters tend to change the way they fight and tailor it to the opponent they will face. Randy Couture is the best example of this. Sometimes he wrestles them, other times he stays standing, and sometimes he pins them to the cage in the clinch. I believe that these changes go farther than the average martial art does in "situation dictates" types of tactics. The fighters study tapes of the opponent and create a game plan to defeat them. They concentrate on defending the opponents strengths and exposing their weaknesses. They do this in MMA, Boxing, Football, Ice Skating, Tennis and every other sport you can imagine. That is...they play the rules to their advantage...it's part of the overall strategy.

Ok. so I've determined it's a sport...but I realize that's not really the question.

2. Most of the athletes in MMA tout that they study a particular style. Machida has Shotokan and BJJ, GSP has kyokushin and BJJ, Forest Griffin has Muay Thai, Couture and Hughes have wrestling and so on. The announcers, when calling the fight, often refer to what their doing by saying things like, "his jiujitsu is good, so and so doesn't want this to hit the ground," or "so and so is a world class muay thai guy, he wants to keep this standing as long as possible."

Styles of anything... suits, writing, software, exercise and so on... all have lingo that is specific to their particular arena. MMA does not have that...yet. Some guys call a move a low line round house, others call it gedan mawashi geri still others simply call it shin kick. I realize that's a subtle difference. But an important one none the less. The language will need to be uniform for it to be a style.

I do concede opinions can vary on this as even in Karate many no longer find it necessary to teach the Japanese or Okinawan in their schools. That's another debate however. But ask for a double breasted coat and you will always get the same thing...ask a good pool player to put english on a ball and it will always look the same...you get my point here I'm sure.

3. Each style of martial art has a doctrine. That is, a particular governing principle and collection of specific teachings. MMA does not have that. Two people can go into the same school and one may come out thinking that ground and pound is the best strategy while the other comes out thinking that sprawl and brawl is the best. This is very common in sport...but not in a style. Even in boxing, a combat sport for sure, you have the same thing. But this is why you end up with 3 and 4 coaches for one fighter. You'll have one guy shouting stand up advice...another shouting what to do on the ground...and yet another talking about wrestling. In most martial art styles, competitions do not allow any coaches at all! Which leads me to point 4.

4. In a style there should be at least one person that knows the entire curriculum. There's not anyone in MMA that knows every technique from every style. There's just too much information. So people take only what will work in the particular situation they are facing. Which is very effective...but not a style.

Overall, I see it as being a sport that changes to fit into different rule sets. There is just not enough cohesiveness and consistency across the entire mold to call it a style. They say that Frank Sinatra had style. That meant that every time you saw him, he was the same. Cool, collected, and women loved him and men wanted to be him. Fighters aren't that way...they will change from fight to fight...no consistency. Now, you could get into the Bruce Lee "no style as a style" stuff...but that's just circular logic and can't be reasoned with. Anyway, most of the mma guys I know...don't want to have a style. That's why they picked MMA in the first place. They wanted to only learn "what works" for them without having to learn forms and drills they feel are useless.

[bushido_man96]

Those are good points, ps1. Well argued.