20 posts / 0 new
Last post
Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture
What IS MMA?

I put this on another forum and got some excellent informative responses and I thought I would pass it to you guys

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.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Black Tiger wrote:
What exactly is MMA? ....  I can't work out WHAT the differences are to justify it being MMA and not just X-style with extra stuff added.

That’s a really interesting question and I look forward to seeking what comes out of the resulting discussion. To throw some thoughts into the mix:

MMA is not alone here; just try getting a group of karateka to give a common definition of what makes karate “karate”! It’s harder to do that it would seem.

One MMA coach I know once told me that, “MMA is not a style: it’s a set of rules”. So could the “rules of engagement” be the defining factor as opposed to where the skills used with in that context originate? If you train for, and fight to, MMA rules then it is MMA?

Looking forward to hearing everyone’s thoughts on this one!

All the best,

Iain

Gavin J Poffley
Gavin J Poffley's picture

I have always prefered to think of competitive rules sets as "systems" in and of themselves. Of course there is room to favour different approaches (styles) within those rules.

Points based karate tournaments ostensibly feature competitors from different "classical" styles but the reality is that everyone just uses what works best for that format and the successful ones are those who can work that out and train it most effectively. 

I dont see it being any different for MMA or indeed any combat sport. Someone who does tae kwon do or savate can easily adapt to karate tournament rules just as sambo grapplers or even wrestlers can adapt their skills to judo or Brazillian jujutsu formats. There are many tales told in Japan of various kyokushin and other full contact karate people travelling to Thailand to compete in muay thai and I dont think that a single one of them was under any illusion about having to alter their guard to defend against punches and elbows to the head etc.

So I would say that firstly, whatever background you have you can still call yourself a legitimate MMA instructor. The question then is how good what you teach is. In this case we have a firm context to judge against and that is how effectively your students can win fights under fixed rules. It just so happens that the core skills needed for most MMA rules sets are well covered by Brazillian jujutsu and muay thai syllabi and that is why people from those backgrounds tend to dominate. If you look at kudo which is essentially MMA wearing a dogi that has a more limited ground game then the core skills from judo are a lot more applicable.

For example I know of one very successful Irish MMA instructor from a classical jujutsu background but what he teaches for competition is clearly tailored to that and is not mixed up with other elements from his "parent" style which would not be suitable.

James Ellen
James Ellen's picture

It's fighting with a certain set of rules, and over the short amount of time there seems to be a consensus that to be good at MMA, you should have a good knowledge of Boxing/Muay Thai/Wrestling/BJJ.  Although I guess theoretically, you could open a MMA class and teach Kenpo/Aikido/Sumo/Capoiera or any mix of martial arts that you believed would be successful in an MMA match.

I guess the difference in the guy that knows BJJ and TKD that opens "Mike's MMA Gym" and the same guy that opens "Mike Jitsu" is the MMA Mike is using the techniques in those martial arts and teaching how they can be used effectively in an MMA match.  

The "Mike Jitsu" mike is opening his class because he wants to use the techniques in these 2 martial arts and maybe keep the tradition or spiritual side of the 'arts' and teach other areas, like self defence.  He also maybe wants to steer clear of the 'Gym' aspect of MMA Gyms as 'MMA Mike' is probably offering strength training and conditioning, as he's solely focused on getting students ready for MMA matches or competitions or whatever.

I'm not sure if that makes things clearer or more confusing...

Tau
Tau's picture

I could discuss numerous experiences and thoughts here but I lack time and I'm not sure of what use or interest they would outside of more specific context. Instead I'll keep to this notion that I've been expounding for a while and despite how many people have disagreed with me seems more prophetic now.

Today, MMA has transcended a combination of styles. MMA, now possibly more correctly "ememay" is now a style in it's self. Yes you can (and many professionals still do) go to a a Muay Thai club, a BJJ club and a boxing gym and then have one core instructor to tie them all together. Now, increasingly all of this is offered under one roof and sometimes by one instructor.

Now, you may think that no one person can get skilled sufficiently in all domains to be able to instruct all of them at sufficiently high a level as to compete or instruct in MMA, but when you strip all of these skill sets to ring-only I don't think that's the case anymore.

I've seen grades awarded in MMA. As someone that holds a grade in Kickboxing (a sport Martial Art) I don't have a problem with this. However I have huge problems with the credibility of some of those now awarding MMA Dan grades.

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

Also to be a valid MMA Gym do they have to have Students have to compete in the ring/cage or as with Muay Thai Camps, only the Core Students compete, the rest train for fitness etc?

For example can one have an MMA gym where no one competes in the Cage? or is this what validates it as an MMA gym?

Thank you for your responses

Gavin J Poffley
Gavin J Poffley's picture

In response to the above points, I am personally not against the idea of having all the aspects of MMA taught under one roof or taught in an integrated way by one instructor, or even against having a formal grading system. In fact these look to be very beneficial if you have the right quality of instruction. There are plenty of experienced competitiors, ex-competitors and coaches out there who can and do quite easily do this. 

I think the validity of grade awarding bodies is also a matter of quality control and you have exactly the same issues in all other martial arts and sports that have any kind of ranking system. The one advantage a primarily compeititve discipline like MMA has though is that it is pretty obvious who is better than whom in the ring/cage so big dan numbers dont really have the same scope for abuse.

Perhaps the name "Mixed Martial Arts" is no longer really appropriate in such a system however and an alternative like "Integrated Martial Arts" or "All Ranges Combat" would be better. Still, at the end of the day it is just a name.

Incidentally the Japanese have two terms, "ishu kakutogi" which literally means "cross discipline combat methods" and "sogo budo" meaning comprehensive martial arts, bothof which I feel are better than MMA at expressing the concept discussed above.

nielmag
nielmag's picture

Great Post!

Technically, I suppose any art that "mixes" with another art could be a "Mixed Martial Art'.  (I love Iain's article on Karate a Complete System).  I personally would argue Karate in and of itself should be a Mixed Martial Art.  However, from an advertising, and mainstream culture standpoint, it would be a gym that would help people in the competitve sport known as MMA.  So itcould have a base such as Muay Thai, BJJ, wrestling, etc, and have other "coaches" who teach the other disciplines.  And yes, you could have the Cardio Kickboxing stuff for fitness.  If nothing else, I believe and appreciate MMA for destroying the "martial myth": style X is the greatest of all styles, no style X3 is even greater, etc.  I believe it caused people to look at what they practiced and realize no style is foolproof, there are things to learn from every style.   

karate10
karate10's picture

It comes to shows that Martial arts in general is developing every decade, let alone century....Long before "MMA" was used as a name, Greco-Roman style was very common along with Pankration, later was used in pro wrestling, Shoot, Barton-Wright created "Bartitsu" which was indeed "MMA" long before the name was utilise in todays society.

While mixed martial arts was initially practised almost exclusively by competitive fighters, this is no longer the case. As the sport has become more mainstream and more widely taught, it has become accessible to wider range of practitioners of all ages. Proponents of this sort of training  is safe for anyone, of any age, with varying levels of competitiveness and fitness.

dogtail71
dogtail71's picture

When I first started seeing MMA it was actually one style against another and not one person using a bit from here and a bit from there. It seems like with everything these days some bright spark decides to re-brand something with a term that already exists but doesn't necessarily fit, but tell enough people enough of the time and it sticks then add the media and something that meant one thing now means something else.

nielmag
nielmag's picture

"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own."  - Bruce Lee

I know its cliche, but I love that quote!

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

nielmag wrote:

"Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own."  - Bruce Lee

I know its cliche, but I love that quote!

Yeah, I think Sifu Bruce was the First "modern" MMA practitioner

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Black Tiger wrote:
What exactly is MMA? ....  I can't work out WHAT the differences are to justify it being MMA and not just X-style with extra stuff added.

One MMA coach I know once told me that, “MMA is not a style: it’s a set of rules”. So could the “rules of engagement” be the defining factor as opposed to where the skills used with in that context originate? If you train for, and fight to, MMA rules then it is MMA?

I think Iain has it exactly right, MMA is a rule set. What we see as the "style" of MMA is a result of the combination of trial & error and dogma.

At first MMA was fighters from recognized disciplines fighting under rules that supposedly allowed all styles to compete. As the Gracie's kicked bottom to a disproportionate degree folk started to adapt. Then the likes of Ken Shamrock wrestled their way to victory and so more adaptation and so on. At every stage the driving force was winning the game. So to keep focussed on what wins we start getting dogma: You HAVE to have a strong ground game, You HAVE to learn to box, ONLY Muay Thai kicking is effective etc etc. And so a style is born. After all any MA style is just a set of do's and don't's regarding technique and strategy.

MMA stops short of becoming a fighting style in it's own right to my estimation, only because as time passes folks find out over and over again that their limited dogmatic ideas of what works are peeled away by fighters who dare to break the mold (Machida using sport karate tactics is the obvious example). It all works if you use it when and how it should be used. That said, the rules will always limit MMA to a certain degree, ie there will never be a right way to eye gouge. Since those rules are the ultimate deciding factor as to what one does or does not do in the fight, and since the fighters continually define their own fighting styles within the bounds of those rules, MMA cannot for me at least, ever be other than a challenging sport.

nielmag
nielmag's picture

Black Tiger wrote:
Yeah, I think Sifu Bruce was the First "modern" MMA practitioner

Dana White: "Father Of MMA Is Bruce Lee"

Well, for what its worth, the president of UFC feels that way.

Tau
Tau's picture

No disrespect to Bruce Lee but no way was he the first. The most public and most effective, yes. Spirit Combat (which is the Jujitsu that I teach) was doing what Bruce Lee did seven years before he did. 

Jigoro Kano mixed the primarily-throwing style of Kito Ryu with the primarily joint locking style of Tenshin Sinyo Ryu. That's got to count. 

Kevin73
Kevin73's picture

MMA as in mixing different martial arts has been around a LONG time.

Pankration (original greek sport) combined boxing and wrestling

Shito-Ryu is a combination of Naha and Shuri styles

Wado-Ryu combined karate and juijitsu

Isshin-Ryu combined Goju and Shorin Ryu

Kajukenbo combined karate/kenpo/judo/kung fu into a style

The list goes on and on.  Therefore "MMA" is in reference to a ruleset and approach to a specific combat sport.  Look at how Pride used to differ from the UFC in types of techniques that you saw.  One allowed for stomp kicks etc. and was fought in a ring, and the other didn't allow kicking a downed opponent and was fought in a fenced area.

Tau
Tau's picture

So what ruleset is MMA and what isn't? If you don't follow the Unified Rules, are you still doing MMA? If so, then when does what you're doing stop being MMA?

Tau
Tau's picture

DaveB wrote:
At first MMA was fighters from recognized disciplines fighting under rules that supposedly allowed all styles to compete.

I'm saying I agree or disagree with the notion, but retrospectively, the early UFCs are now NOT considered to be MMA. they were style vs style, not "mixed." Now fighters are "mixed" in the styles in which they enter the Octagon.

Black Tiger
Black Tiger's picture

Tau wrote:
I'm saying I agree or disagree with the notion, but retrospectively, the early UFCs are now NOT considered to be MMA. they were style vs style, not "mixed." Now fighters are "mixed" in the styles in which they enter the Octagon.

Agreed, I got the DVD of UFC 1 & 2 and it was still style verses style with the rules heavily bias towards BJJ but that's what you would expect from Gracie's brainchild.

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Tau wrote:

DaveB wrote:
At first MMA was fighters from recognized disciplines fighting under rules that supposedly allowed all styles to compete.

I'm saying I agree or disagree with the notion, but retrospectively, the early UFCs are now NOT considered to be MMA. they were style vs style...

Precisely, the competition was mixed, different styles competing together. MMA is a ruleset, a type of tournament. There is nothing to stop a style purist competing and becoming world UFC champion other than a dogmatic belief in the need to adopt certain methods. A dogma that is slowly being eroded.

If the next 10 UFC title bouts were style v style a new dogma about what wins would come in, but the UFC would still be an MMA tournament.