yamesu Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 I understand where your coming from and I probably should not have used the term "game", but honestly I personally disagree (personal opinion only) that the UFC is better now than it was. As one single example a karate-ka or jodo-ka cannot even wear their chosen uniform into the ring. To me that can be termed exclusion.Your right, money rules. I cant argue that, Im an Environmental Scientist and see it all the time in that line of work. Money and development gets put before conservation of the very things that give us quality of life. In any given situation it seems like economics will dominate.Better athletes. Quite possibly.But I think that that in itself is deviating away from the original intention of the UFC. An analogy I would draw would be K1. When it started K1 was for Kyokushin and Kickboxers to test their mettle against each other while accounting for as many of the strong points from standup striking as possible. This is still true today.The UFC however, has shifted to allow certain training methods to prevale under the set rules. In some of the earlier UFC there was insane fights. A 'normal' sized man (karate-ka) dropping a full blown sumo wrestler with a single hit, and a kendo-ka continuously pounding the temple of his downed opponent until he was literally carried out on a stretcher... This cannot be seen anymore, and instead of the UFC drawing in a range of people like it used to, it appears there is only a certain type of personality that enters nowdays (yes I understand that some fighters are techers and have various occupations etc, but thats not really what im getting at).If you look up Kimbo Slice's videos one would find it does not appear he has lost a great amount of street or backyard fights... but has lost numerous times in the UFCIs it because he is facing what you may deem "real" athletes in the UFC?... Quite possibly, or it may be because he cannot do what he instinctively wants to in a violent manner to overcome an opponent in the ring.I would like to see what would happen with fighters such as this if they were allowed to actually go "no-holds-barred", not what the term has apparrently come to mean presently.To me the UFC has become overrated, and now the general populous use it as an excuse to act tough. Like if someone trains at an MMA gym for six months they are automatically apparrently ready to tackle any violent situation. It has become a false sense of security and this to me is not morally correct.Dont get me wrong, I still thoroughly enjoy watching the UFC, I just think it has left its roots and become somewhat biased. "We did not inherit this earth from our parents. We are borrowing it from our children."
Sokusen Posted December 3, 2010 Posted December 3, 2010 What I think is interesting is that we may actually be seeing the birth and evolution of an American (western) Martial art known as MMA. 99% of the fighters in the UFC all label themselves as an MMA fighter. They are all training in approximately the same way, and they are all learning approximately the same techniques, and this is because of the rule base that the UFC has stated. Because of this you now have a "style" called MMA. I predict years from now you will have schools all over the world teaching American MMA. Some may give it a new name so that they can teach their own brand, much like goju, kyoshukin, shotokan, uechi or shohei ryu. You'll have schools that water it down so that they can attract the soccer moms, and after school programs. Then you'll have the schools that are more hard core "because that’s how they use to teach it in the old days!" You'll have political issues on who invented it as well as stories of the masters like Randy Couture who fought until he was 80 and defeated competitors who were as old as his grand children.What we are seeing today isn't much different then what went on in China when Kung fu experts would have public displays of there skills. Teachers would fight, they would learn from each other, adopted what worked and create "new" styles. Then you have foreigners coming to China learning the styles, adopting what works, bringing it back to their country and creating a new martial art. That is MMA, right now. This would actually make for an interesting paper.
rmurray Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 Interesting post Sokusen. That could easily be a whole new thread. What exactly does MMA mean. Is it a formal set of rules that martial artists from different styles agree to before they fight? I think that was the original meaning and certainly the intention. Basically a full contact match where you bring your own training but agree not to do this or that. I think that the popularity of MMA spawned the creation of new Brazillian Jiu Jitsu schools all over the country. I think these schools placed a greater emphasis on striking than traditional BJJ to win MMA matches. I think the style that is being taught now in "MMA" schools is mostly BJJ combined with muay thai kickboxing. I think most people over 30 think of "MMA" as a set of rules first and people under 20 consider MMA a style of fighting. As time goes on, I think MMA will more and more be considered its own style. I'm a UFC fan but personally I prefer the tradition in traditional martial arts. Unending Love,Amazing Grace
yamesu Posted December 4, 2010 Posted December 4, 2010 rmurray and sokusen, interesting points and well put.particularly the point about under 20's percieving it as a style and older gen's percieving it as a rule set. I am under 30 and over 20, so this gave me a bit to contemplate.I think it would be very interesting to see something evolve from UFC that eventually becomes a stylised artform in itself. But agree that personally there is more attraction for me to train in traditional arts personally. Just personal preference really. I was watching "Fearless" with Jet Li (again) yesterday and that really enforces the whole aspect of honour and respect in Martial Arts. For me that is what its really about - self fulfillment and making one a better person.OSU. "We did not inherit this earth from our parents. We are borrowing it from our children."
Sokusen Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 I don't think I ever really considered MMA as an explanation of a set of rules, but more of a description of a type of fighter. When the UFC first began the basic rules are the same as today, though there are a few major differences today. The fighters in the beginning never called them selves a Mixed Martial Artists, because they weren't. Now after finding out what works in the octagon fighters started mixing in other styles to there repitoir to give them the best chane to win. Today you have a style of fighting that is fairly well defined not just in the techniques used but in the training methods as well. Whats funny is that most martial arts were once a "mixed" martial art but then became defined over the years as a particular style. The ironic thing is the longer MMA is around the less it's going to be a mixed martial art but more of a particular style.
rmurray Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 I guess it depends if the term "MMA" is describing a fighter or is it describing the bout. In the beginning it was always describing the bout. The fighters were trained in different styles. For example a muay thai kickboxer would never have to defend against a choke at a muay thai tournament and a collegiate wrestler never had to face a head kick in his competition. But when they came against eachother, they would have to follow the same rules of the MMA bout. As would a karateka, BJJ, ninja, streetfighter, etc. The set of rules or lack thereof was MMA. Now it is also used to describe the fighter. Some evolution has obviously taken place over the last 15 or so years. I'm not denying MMA as a style. If schools are teaching it and students are learning it. It has to be something. Unending Love,Amazing Grace
bushido_man96 Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 The changes that the UFC has gone through is what has allowed it stick around for as long as it has. Whether the clothing allowed has a huge deterence on other fighters, I don't know. Plenty of Karate stylists have fought in the UFC without their gi on, and I don't know that the lack thereof effected their performance. I'm not sure about Judoka, as they rely a lot on grabbing the gi. But, BJJ did too, but you see both gi and no-gi BJJ. Judo just needs to adjust.I don't think the UFC has shifted to allow certain training methods to prevail under the set rules. Quite the opposite. Fighters started to realize that they needed to cover certain aspects of the fight in order to compete. So, their training changed. Over the years, a pattern has emerged that has proven successful, and so it has been more or less clinged to by many of the camps. As mentioned earlier, its part of the evolution that we are seeing in which a new "style" may have emerged. https://www.haysgym.comhttp://www.sunyis.com/https://www.aikidoofnorthwestkansas.com
brickshooter Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 If we use a cement floor and put people in gi, I think that Judo will have a major impact in MMA. If we remove gloves, I think fighters will change the way they punch.
Lupin1 Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 The gym teacher at my school thinks they should have more boxing in MMA. Of course, he also thinks we should start teaching boxing in school and when kids have problems we should have them fight it out in the ring. Actually, I kinda like the idea...
pinoy_1 Posted December 14, 2010 Posted December 14, 2010 .. I just doesnt like MMA when they are fighting on the floor.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now