What IS MMA?

[shango]

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.

Agreed that there are quite a few martial arts which do not feature weapons work. My point, first of all, is that the newbie MMA is not inventing the wheel, so to speak. Most martial arts feature the varied ranges of combat MMA is supposed to have invented/reinvented. Perhaps folks need to study longer, or find qualified instructors to teach the complete curriculum.

As for swords, I said nothing about them. My exact words were bladed weapons: which means knives/daggers and such which can be translated into the usage of other sharp implements-razors, keys, etc.

More people have access to knives than guns; certainly guns are a prominent factor. That said, MMA is primarily a display of personal martial bravado, not much art. To me, it is a gladitorial brawl. There are more to martial arts than physical prowes. There is the use of techniques for self-defense, the defense of ones community, and the life long lessons one gains from a responsible teacher (whom, in effect, should be like a father).

But, that's another matter. MA has not reinvented the wheel. If you have practiced a traditional form of Kung Fu, for example, and have not reached a level of self defense to thwart an attack, reexamine your training, instructor, or version of the system you have learned. Traditional arts for the most part contain all you need to meet most confrontational situations.

[bushido_man96]

As for swords, I said nothing about them. My exact words were bladed weapons: which means knives/daggers and such which can be translated into the usage of other sharp implements-razors, keys, etc.

Your previous response below reads:

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.

Here, you said "swords." That is what prompted the wording of my response.

My point, first of all, is that the newbie MMA is not inventing the wheel, so to speak. Most martial arts feature the varied ranges of combat MMA is supposed to have invented/reinvented. Perhaps folks need to study longer, or find qualified instructors to teach the complete curriculum.

I don't think anyone is claiming that MMA has reinvented the wheel of Martial Arts. What MMA has done, however, is look at the way training is done, and how it can be done to focus on Martial success in the competitive environment, as well as in self-defense.

That said, MMA is primarily a display of personal martial bravado, not much art. To me, it is a gladitorial brawl. There are more to martial arts than physical prowes. There is the use of techniques for self-defense, the defense of ones community, and the life long lessons one gains from a responsible teacher (whom, in effect, should be like a father).

I disagree once again. I don't think the lack of a forms curriculum in MMA, or other more "traditional" training aspects degrades to mere brawling. The athletes involved spend way to much time training for it to be considered brawling. The reality of combat is chaos, and this is seen in the competitive MMA environment; its rarely pretty, in either sense. The beauty is in the intricacies of subtle movements that shift weight, targets, and hence strategy just enough to tip the balance of a fight to the favor of the victor. Another important point is the need to realize that in the higher levels of MMA, the competitors are so advanced that the lay person may not understand the intricacies of what the combatants are doing in order to get an advantage on the other.

I would also note that there is no reason the techniques MMA fighters learn wouldn't work for self-defense; there have been several articles posted about demonstrating how some fighters have defended themselves successfully.

As far as teachers being like fathers goes...that's up to the interpretation of each individual for themselves. I don't really want a father figure as a teacher; I'm a grown man who doesn't really need to have my views and philosophies on life altered by another. I want a competent teacher that teaches well, and knows his stuff, and is an above-board type of person.

[Dobbersky]

I found one of the original MMA's

Its quite a good find and I'm sure has been overlooked by almost everyone.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Jukado-Self-defence-Bruce-Tegner/dp/0552084565

Not too sure if its still practiced, just like Bartitsu is no longer a practiced art.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sherlock-Holmes-School-Self-defence-Professor/dp/1907332731/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349800621&sr=1-1

Good thread has begotten from my orignal post, thank you so much. there's been some excellent points of view added from all angles of the discussion

Thanks

[bushido_man96]

Great topic, Dobbersky.

[Samuel Jeferson]

It will have a big fight with my countryman Anderson Silva, Spider, on Saturday!!

[shango]

As for swords, I said nothing about them. My exact words were bladed weapons: which means knives/daggers and such which can be translated into the usage of other sharp implements-razors, keys, etc.

Your previous response below reads:

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.

Here, you said "swords." That is what prompted the wording of my response.

My point, first of all, is that the newbie MMA is not inventing the wheel, so to speak. Most martial arts feature the varied ranges of combat MMA is supposed to have invented/reinvented. Perhaps folks need to study longer, or find qualified instructors to teach the complete curriculum.

I don't think anyone is claiming that MMA has reinvented the wheel of Martial Arts. What MMA has done, however, is look at the way training is done, and how it can be done to focus on Martial success in the competitive environment, as well as in self-defense.

That said, MMA is primarily a display of personal martial bravado, not much art. To me, it is a gladitorial brawl. There are more to martial arts than physical prowes. There is the use of techniques for self-defense, the defense of ones community, and the life long lessons one gains from a responsible teacher (whom, in effect, should be like a father).

I disagree once again. I don't think the lack of a forms curriculum in MMA, or other more "traditional" training aspects degrades to mere brawling. The athletes involved spend way to much time training for it to be considered brawling. The reality of combat is chaos, and this is seen in the competitive MMA environment; its rarely pretty, in either sense. The beauty is in the intricacies of subtle movements that shift weight, targets, and hence strategy just enough to tip the balance of a fight to the favor of the victor. Another important point is the need to realize that in the higher levels of MMA, the competitors are so advanced that the lay person may not understand the intricacies of what the combatants are doing in order to get an advantage on the other.

I would also note that there is no reason the techniques MMA fighters learn wouldn't work for self-defense; there have been several articles posted about demonstrating how some fighters have defended themselves successfully.

As far as teachers being like fathers goes...that's up to the interpretation of each individual for themselves. I don't really want a father figure as a teacher; I'm a grown man who doesn't really need to have my views and philosophies on life altered by another. I want a competent teacher that teaches well, and knows his stuff, and is an above-board type of person.

All of the aspects of traditional training have actual applications in contemporary confrontations. At the advanced level of the training process, any similar object can be used for self-defense purposes. Kalaripayattu, Thang Ta, the African art of the Kadiang society, that of the Kako of Central African Republic, Libanda and the traditional forms of Chinese Nei/Wu Shu are complete forms of combat which have effective self-defense applications. Sword and knife study have extremely lethal applications, at least that of which I am familiar.

All of the systems I have noted above contain the full range of combat scenarios, one need only study them properly and at the length an individual requires in order to learn these.

As far as learning from a father figure, that is part of the guidance of a seasoned exponent. Most cultures understand that experts in the field will represent the wisdom on the battlefield experienced by older veterans of combat, something not likely partaken by junior members of a society. It's not enough to be proficient in how to use a technique in a "friendly" atmosphere, but when to use it that is just as ( if not more) important as regards fighting. Many times more injury then needed to be has been inflicted on someone because an exponent lacked the maturity in properly evaluating when to use a technique, a factor that seems to come more out of the Western/U.S mindset then from anywhere else.

Ones manhood relative to combat is only important as it regards actual experience. It has little to do with ego. Most younger people lack the patience to see the whole picture of combat, looking forward to, instead, a victorious outcome. Few have the wisdom to be proficient beyond the x-y and zs of combat. This last factor is a part of the art of combat, not just the "hows," but the "whys" of it.

Thank you for the discourse.

[bushido_man96]

Many times more injury then needed to be has been inflicted on someone because an exponent lacked the maturity in properly evaluating when to use a technique, a factor that seems to come more out of the Western/U.S mindset then from anywhere else.

You're going to have to point to some examples for me here. I'm not sure what it is that the Western styles that is so different that the Eastern styles are set head and shoulders above them.

Also, I don't disagree that other styles don't cover the gamut of combat situations. I do think some styles have perhaps helped to improve the learning curve of the process.

[straightblast]

MMA is a combat sport, Judo is a combat sport, boxing is a combat sport, Fencing is a combat sport.

Are they useful as self defense? YES!

Each of these sports if used with correct tatics will work on the street.

[JohnnyB]

I disagree with the statement that years or training in a traditional martial art that gives you some self defence tools can help you fight in the cage.

Many TMA are not made to counter the popular combative martial arts like Kick Boxing and Muai Thai. That's the main reason these 2 are the top striking art choices for MMA fighters.

Unless of course you start changing your TMA in a non-TMA fashion so that you incorporate stuff that actually work in the cage.

[bushido_man96]

I disagree with the statement that years or training in a traditional martial art that gives you some self defence tools can help you fight in the cage.

Many TMA are not made to counter the popular combative martial arts like Kick Boxing and Muai Thai. That's the main reason these 2 are the top striking art choices for MMA fighters.

I'm kind of confused by this. I don't think Karate's techniques has any inability to counter these other styles. I don't think it has to do with that. I think it has more to do with the training methodologies.