What IS MMA?

[JohnnyB]

To me it's more 'Marriaged Martial Arts' than Mixed.

Mixed is more catchy though. MMA gyms are the new trend that many people choose in favor of TMA dojos.

Depending on the instructors employed in the Gym results may vary a lot!

As with any MA school/dojo/dojang the same McDojo approach must be taken before commiting.

I would advise taking it slow instead, establishing a solid base in one MA before starting another to complement the gaps of the first.

If not... all the MMA fights would be very dull, with fighters of quite similar skill sets fighting against each other while there are so many MA combinations that can be 'marriaged' to create a very interesting individual fighting style for each fighter.

[Harkon72]

Yes, a marriage sound more apt than a mix. I suppose the elements of each ingredient in your fighting style will change to give a rounded system that works for you. Concentrating on your strengths and minimizing weakness.

[shango]

I have a problem with this whole fad. I cannot think of a single battlefield system which would not already feature what this Johnie-come-lately has claimed to have invented/reinvented: grappling with striking. In fact, lacking weapons training, I would argue that the MMA fad is not really "MMA" enough.

[MasterPain]

I have a problem with this whole fad. I cannot think of a single battlefield system which would not already feature what this Johnie-come-lately has claimed to have invented/reinvented: grappling with striking. In fact, lacking weapons training, I would argue that the MMA fad is not really "MMA" enough.

I think you're about 20 years too late to call it a fad. However, based on what you've said, you should look into Dog Brothers' material. Though it is only fair to warn you that they have had a heavy MMA influence.

[tallgeese]

I have a problem with this whole fad. I cannot think of a single battlefield system which would not already feature what this Johnie-come-lately has claimed to have invented/reinvented: grappling with striking. In fact, lacking weapons training, I would argue that the MMA fad is not really "MMA" enough.

I'll second others. Two decades is quite a bit of time for a fad to run.

You have to remember that it's a combat art designed for a narrow set of parameters where weapons aren't allowed. It'd be a waste of training time for them to worry about it.

As for battlefield arts already having what MMA currently has I disagree. Regardless of the theory behind several arts, you didn't see any of them do well in early UFCs. Zip. No traditional "battlefield art" despite it's claims of supremacy in a single range or those claiming "grappling" as part of their art managed to come away well represented.

Some of this has to do with training methods. I've argued this before (respectfully) that most trad arts are behind (or were) the curve compared to the direction that MMA took with it's very high value on live training. So many battlefield dirivitive systems lack the level of live training associated with MMA gyms. This makes a difference.

MMA, fad or system, probably has it's biggest, lasting influence in the realm of martial arts in this aspect.

[jaypo]

I'd argue that MMA hasn't been around as it is today for 2 decades. The first UFC event was in 1993, and it was basically "Bloodsport" for real. I remember watching it and hating Royce Gracie because he was boring to me. I wanted to see knockouts!

The sport evolved to "MMA" when fighters realized that their Wing Chun, Karate, or Wrestling wasn't enough. They needed to be well rounded in striking, grappling, and submissions. I'm not sure of the exact time frame, but it evolved slowly, and I consider people like Matt Hughes and Tito Ortiz as early type "MMA" guys.

I don't think it's a fad, because the "sport" has taken the world by storm. But if you ask me about a true Mixed Martial ART, I'm going to point to JKD. Bruce took concepts from 26 different styles and meshed them together into what he though was the perfect street fighting form. As for "MMA" vs. "TMA", I'd pick TMA every time. TMA will allow eye gouges, groin strikes, throat strikes, bone breaks. I feel more confident that learning those techniques will be more practical to me than learning the perfect way to do a double leg takedown and transitioning into full mount!

[bushido_man96]

With respect to the Fad which is no longer a Fad and is here to stay, What exactly is MMA?

Now we see MMA schools popping up all over ther place, with students flocking to train there. But what does it consist of. what makes a valid MMA school.

If an Instructor did say TaeKwonDo and did a bit of J-JJ or B-JJ does this make him qualified to teach MMA, is it just not TKD with a bit of JJ thrown into the mix

Or is it a Muay Thai Teacher and BJJ Blackbelt that allows someone to "create" an MMA school

I can't work out WHAT the differences are to justify it being MMA and not just X-style with extra stuff added.

I think its kind of tough to say what the deciding factors are that make the distinction between MMA and a "this with a bit of that thrown in" type of place. I think what you have to do is look at the credentials of the person running the place and/or teaching. By and large, the place will train for competition; I'm sure there are some that aren't soley dedicated to comp training, but that's where they will make their money for the most part. That said, there could be one guy running the show, with experience in stand-up and ground fighting, or one guy who has brought together several coaches to teach each facet of the fight game. Either way would mark the place a "legit" MMA school in my opinion.

Now, if I had my own school right now, I would be doing what I can to teach a combination of TKD and Combat Hapkido. Would that make me an MMA school? No, I don't believe so, and I wouldn't tout it as such, either. I'm still up in the air as to whether I would make the two styles requirements for everyone in the school, or whether I would allow advancement in one over the other. I haven't dinked around with the curriculum enough yet to decide, but my goal would be for each student to attain black belt rank in both styles upon completion of black belt testing.....anyway, back to the topic at hand.

I think the other distinguishing factor to refer to a school as an MMA school is how the stand-up and ground factors are incorporated. If you are learning to transition from one to the other, and not just being taught stand-up on Mondays and grappling on Thursdays, and never bringing the two together until you have a fight. That, in my mind, is the kicker; am I learning it all more or less together, as equal parts of the same kind of fight, or am I being given the doses separately, to figure out to bring them together myself.

My 2 cents.

[bushido_man96]

Plenty of arts have a competitive side. Most times, an art moves from being an "art" or combat form and then transitions to the competitive arena. In the case of MMA, we started with the evolution of sport and now people are using it for more than just fighting in a cage and as prep for self defense, fitness, ect.

It's kind of gone backwards in the case of MMA. We started seeing what established art beat what, then codified rules led us to RELATIVE standardized product. Then, this product went from being taught exclusively for fighters to compete and went more mainstream where people use it as a base for whatever they are doing ma's for.

Just because it's not the traditional progression does not make it less of a "martial art"

I agree with tallgeese here. I know there are a lot of people out there, many that might be referred to as "traditionalists," that are vehemently opposed to the idea that MMA is its own style or art. Every style had to evolve in some way to become what it is; be it Karate, TKD (which came from Karate), or MMA (which can be compared to TKD in how it came from an already established style, and added some different influences). To me, the cool thing about MMA is that our generation got to see it be born and evolve into what it has become.

[shango]

I have a problem with this whole fad. I cannot think of a single battlefield system which would not already feature what this Johnie-come-lately has claimed to have invented/reinvented: grappling with striking. In fact, lacking weapons training, I would argue that the MMA fad is not really "MMA" enough.

I'll second others. Two decades is quite a bit of time for a fad to run.

You have to remember that it's a combat art designed for a narrow set of parameters where weapons aren't allowed. It'd be a waste of training time for them to worry about it.

As for battlefield arts already having what MMA currently has I disagree. Regardless of the theory behind several arts, you didn't see any of them do well in early UFCs. Zip. No traditional "battlefield art" despite it's claims of supremacy in a single range or those claiming "grappling" as part of their art managed to come away well represented.

Some of this has to do with training methods. I've argued this before (respectfully) that most trad arts are behind (or were) the curve compared to the direction that MMA took with it's very high value on live training. So many battlefield dirivitive systems lack the level of live training associated with MMA gyms. This makes a difference.

MMA, fad or system, probably has it's biggest, lasting influence in the realm of martial arts in this aspect.

You're talking about a sport, not lethal combat. Lethal combat is no holds barred. That means swords, knives, daggers and techniques that would be illegal in any MMA confrontation. If you do not train to cut flesh with a sharp, bladed weapon then you will not be prepared to face one in a real confrontation where there are no rounds to end the conflict.

I am not arguing the power of the art in the ring, but it cannot be called MMA if it does not include all ranges and dynamics of combat, and if these ranges have already existed (they have and had), then it did not invent the wheel. This is my point.

[bushido_man96]

I don't agree with you here, Shango. There are quite a few systems that don't use weapons, but I would still consider them Martial Arts. And swords can hardly be considered as a practical self-defense option in today's world. Not many people conduct muggings with swords. Hand guns are going to be more popular weapons for both self-defense and crime perpetration than other Kobudo style weapons.