What Is The Martial Arts communitys Perception Of MMA????

[JusticeZero]

What it does not take is the stuff you don't want to use in a fight. Horse stance? Spear hand? Tornado kick? They're all awesome, and they all got a purpose. But maybe their purpose is not to be used in a fight.

MMA takes the most proven techniques. Not necessarily the -best-, but the ones used by the people who fight, who learned from people who fight. This creates an effect that we planners call "path dependency"; essentially, you're good at something because you started out good in it, and you're bad at something else because you early on chose to be good in the other thing and arranged everything to support A, not B.

What we have NOT seen is any conclusive demonstration that A actually IS better than B, simply because all the people who intend to get good do A because that's what their peers are doing.

After all, some of the techniques that are well known and loved by MMA stylists are the ones that even TMA people thought were a bit goofy and impractical before someone tried them on one of the proto-MMA guys and took them out. Suddenly, that technique is "practical, duh!" and no longer in the slowly dwindling set of "ridiculous and impractical" techniques that TMA people haven't yet floored an MMA guy in an octagon with.

Eventually what worked stayed and what didn't got weeded out (sumo guys, for example).

Though it is important to note that it was pretty easy to see who was staying in and who was losing out - the people who trained against resisting opponents who move in a variety of ways and take real hits? Stayed. The guys who do empty vacuous forms by rote or ultra-stylized touch sparring, while thinking that that was in and of itself sufficient to go against fighters who specialize in ring matches? Went away.

[bushido_man96]

Martial arts is all about honor, respect and humility.

I don't think that this is true. Certain personal philosophies are all about these things; it just so happens that certain people, who studied the Martial Arts, decided to mix their personal philosophies into their MA classes, in an attempt to bring their students on board with them. Funakoshi and Ueshiba come to mind here. It just so happens that many practitioners like the idea, and bring it along, regardless of previously "clean living" or not.

If TMA has taught me anything it is that no matter how good you are, there is ALWAYS someone better. You might win 9/10 fights, but sooner or later you will lose.

I think that MMA teaches this, too. In fact, when someone better does come along, it becomes common knowledge, and goes on their professional record. Not many MMA fighters will go the path of a Rocky Marciano. Even Machida, as good as he is, will eventually lose, too.

[the beast]

III)

IV) MMA is the result of pitting MA's against each other.

UFC began as a brutal bloodsport-wannabe tournament. Boxers, sumo guys, karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, wrestling, representatives of all of these arts and even some less practiced such as savate took part.

Eventually what worked stayed and what didn't got weeded out (sumo guys, for example).

We must also remember that the cage and rules set up for MMA were created by the Gracies to showcase and accommodate their style over others.

[tallgeese]

That's a bold post, RW. It's also one that I tend to agree with a majority of the time. No, it's not always true, there are a great many trad schools out there that turn out guys who can really take care of themselves. But mma does offer a reality check in many cases that some other school never offer their students. Note again, I didn't say all.

To the early Gracie bent, we've moved away from those initial rules, and that movement started very early on. I think that time limits might have been the first thing to get added that probably wasn't int he best interest of the Gracie clan. The format has continued to evolve to this day.

I also agree with bushido man, martial arts are about fighting. That's it. It can be covered in the trappings of whatever you like, but at it's core, it's a fighting system of some sort. Let's not forget that in most cases the actual systematization and moral trappings came later, after the initial use of whatever was being done in combat.

With respect Justice, I'm not entirely certain as to what movements we're talking about in your post. Your argument might have merit, but I guess I'm just not seeing a set of examples.

I think it's a valid discussion we're having. And probably with less sniping than any other board you'd find it on. Good thoughts.

[JusticeZero]

Things like back fists, high kicks in general were both seen as somewhat dubious by TMA's and as completely silly by the MMA crowd.. then one day, the MMA people adopted them, and instantly they became "practical". The set of "Practical, MMA tested" techniques has changed over time, generally by adopting techniques that were a mere day before considered to be absolutely ridiculous impractical fluff.

MMA seems to me to be a big exercise in path dependency and personal history edits, all working toward development of a specific martial art style with it's own blind spots and pre-packaged assumptions and doctrines. They're pounding hard to work out their style right now, just like so many martial arts that they dismiss pounded hard in their formative years. They aren't inherently DIFFERENT, though; their history dictated a number of elements go into their development that are dictated by the well-forged tools available to them at this unique moment in the world's history.

One day, MMA people are going to be teaching the kids class, and will look up in surprise to hear that the world dismisses them as formulaic and impractical, just like the Karate guys down the street and the Kung Fu forms school next door. Don't go there, they'll hear, those MMA sports guys aren't realistic or practical like *insert the latest new thing here* is...

[tallgeese]

High kickers have been around since the beginning, you just didn't see them start to be really effective until you have some skilled kickers figure out the best ways to set the kicks up until more recently. Additionally, they also had to figure out what types of opponents they could use them against and not get taken down. It's part of the evolution of the art.

Yes, there is defiantly and "art" all to itself. And it serves it's purpose very well. There's nothing wrong with that. The tools might not be different, but the methodology in which they are taught is drastically different than most ma classes. As is the reliance on live training. It's the matter in which it's put together that is different.

What we are seeing is the birth of a new, popular art based on those thing that do make it different. It's one that's focused around practical application in an unarmed venue. It's exciting. It will continue to evolve and grow as it goes. It's probably like witnessing the birth of JKD back in the 70's.

Will mma continue to be outrageously popular? Maybe and maybe not, but it's impact will continue to be felt even if it wanes on ppv sales. Just look at the impact it's methods have had on even trad schools at this point and the amount of cross training it's generated. Will it go away? I doubt it. No more than JKD has.

[RW]

What it does not take is the stuff you don't want to use in a fight. Horse stance? Spear hand? Tornado kick? They're all awesome, and they all got a purpose. But maybe their purpose is not to be used in a fight.

MMA takes the most proven techniques. Not necessarily the -best-, but the ones used by the people who fight, who learned from people who fight. This creates an effect that we planners call "path dependency"; essentially, you're good at something because you started out good in it, and you're bad at something else because you early on chose to be good in the other thing and arranged everything to support A, not B.

What we have NOT seen is any conclusive demonstration that A actually IS better than B, simply because all the people who intend to get good do A because that's what their peers are doing.

After all, some of the techniques that are well known and loved by MMA stylists are the ones that even TMA people thought were a bit goofy and impractical before someone tried them on one of the proto-MMA guys and took them out. Suddenly, that technique is "practical, duh!" and no longer in the slowly dwindling set of "ridiculous and impractical" techniques that TMA people haven't yet floored an MMA guy in an octagon with.

Eventually what worked stayed and what didn't got weeded out (sumo guys, for example).

Though it is important to note that it was pretty easy to see who was staying in and who was losing out - the people who trained against resisting opponents who move in a variety of ways and take real hits? Stayed. The guys who do empty vacuous forms by rote or ultra-stylized touch sparring, while thinking that that was in and of itself sufficient to go against fighters who specialize in ring matches? Went away.

I agree. Moves like those high leg kicks were supposed to be goofy and impractical, until... people proved otherwise. Suddenly, "practical, duh!"

It's almost scary how so many "point spar-rers" thought they could get into MMA...

[RW]

That's a bold post, RW. It's also one that I tend to agree with a majority of the time. No, it's not always true, there are a great many trad schools out there that turn out guys who can really take care of themselves. But mma does offer a reality check in many cases that some other school never offer their students. Note again, I didn't say all.

To the early Gracie bent, we've moved away from those initial rules, and that movement started very early on. I think that time limits might have been the first thing to get added that probably wasn't int he best interest of the Gracie clan. The format has continued to evolve to this day.

I also agree with bushido man, martial arts are about fighting. That's it. It can be covered in the trappings of whatever you like, but at it's core, it's a fighting system of some sort. Let's not forget that in most cases the actual systematization and moral trappings came later, after the initial use of whatever was being done in combat.

With respect Justice, I'm not entirely certain as to what movements we're talking about in your post. Your argument might have merit, but I guess I'm just not seeing a set of examples.

I think it's a valid discussion we're having. And probably with less sniping than any other board you'd find it on. Good thoughts.

Yeah.. I was actually considering not making the post at all, but I figure out that if there was any place in the WWW I could post it, it'd be here because people are civilized

I agree with you completely on the Gracie thing. Even though that has changed I still feel strikers are in a disadvantage. When I saw the Tales Leites vs Silva fight I was so mad. Dude would just drop to the floor and spread his legs when touched and Silva couldn't do a thing... because of all those rules. Or Nick Diaz, who put one knee on the ground on purpose just so he couldn't be kicked/kneed. What about restricting some of the grappling? hehe

[RW]

III)

IV) MMA is the result of pitting MA's against each other.

UFC began as a brutal bloodsport-wannabe tournament. Boxers, sumo guys, karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Kickboxing, wrestling, representatives of all of these arts and even some less practiced such as savate took part.

Eventually what worked stayed and what didn't got weeded out (sumo guys, for example).

We must also remember that the cage and rules set up for MMA were created by the Gracies to showcase and accommodate their style over others.

Yeah... it's designed to favor grappling so much, it kind of upsets me...

[RW]

Things like back fists, high kicks in general were both seen as somewhat dubious by TMA's and as completely silly by the MMA crowd.. then one day, the MMA people adopted them, and instantly they became "practical". The set of "Practical, MMA tested" techniques has changed over time, generally by adopting techniques that were a mere day before considered to be absolutely ridiculous impractical fluff.

MMA seems to me to be a big exercise in path dependency and personal history edits, all working toward development of a specific martial art style with it's own blind spots and pre-packaged assumptions and doctrines. They're pounding hard to work out their style right now, just like so many martial arts that they dismiss pounded hard in their formative years. They aren't inherently DIFFERENT, though; their history dictated a number of elements go into their development that are dictated by the well-forged tools available to them at this unique moment in the world's history.

One day, MMA people are going to be teaching the kids class, and will look up in surprise to hear that the world dismisses them as formulaic and impractical, just like the Karate guys down the street and the Kung Fu forms school next door. Don't go there, they'll hear, those MMA sports guys aren't realistic or practical like *insert the latest new thing here* is...

I agree partially.

You see, karate and TKD for instance, had elbow, knee and ground techniques. They are no longer applied in sparring, relegated only to kata and drills.

I have seen some people now learn "MMA" (lol!). I am sure we will also see MMA mcdojos (if they don't exist already).

However...

MMA is more like boxing. There is a pro-sport based on it. Theoretically, a superb amateur boxing dude in a dirty gym somewhere can get very good, escalate, etc and maybe even go pro. This has forced boxing to stay real. The same can happen to MMA. Even if it became its own style, and gets formulaic, there will always be the pro-MMA people, KO'ing others with shin kicks, superman punches and so on, keeping it all realistic.