MMA

[adamb]

wot do you guys think of MMA? is it something you would like to try or do u just think its mindless violence?

[pasmith]

I love MMA.
No matter how much trad people complain about it or argue about it on the net MMA has given martial arts a much needed kick up the arse.
So many trad people say that the MMA way is the way they have always trained. But clearly a MASSIVE number of trad people have never trained that way (and sadly never will).

These days I don't tend to label stuff quite as much but MMA and traditional MA still serves as a useful guide as to how people train.
Ask an instructor if he incorporates MMA or MMA drills or structure into what he does and see what reply you get.
If he says "Eh?" then I'd not go to his classes.

[random]

I quite enjoy watching and it and have done enough of a variety to have a go, if I was twenty-five years younger. What annoys me is the idea that it is the be all and end all of MA, which clearly it isn’t, but it has brought MA in general to the for front.

I have a concern about longevity, I stopped Thai Boxing as I couldn’t see how I could still be doing it now, 25 years later, I am still however still training in what some would consider Traditional MA.

It does seem quite uncontrolled; jumping on an opponent who is obviously unconscious shows a lack of discipline and control. Has anybody actually died taking part in this sport?

[AngelaG]

pasmith said:

Ask an instructor if he incorporates MMA or MMA drills or structure into what he does and see what reply you get.
If he says "Eh?" then I'd not go to his classes.

Really? What's a "MMA drill" then? It seems to me that you might well miss out on good tuition with that kind of approach, purely because of different ways of labelling what we do.

We don't do "MMA drills", although we do various other karate drills that may or may not be the same,, and to be honest as MMA stands for "Mixed Martial Arts" I would question what these dills are are, and whever MMA is actually a style within it's own right or rather just an almalgamation of several styles, and therefore bears very little difference from cross training.

My personal view is that cross training may actually be more beneficial than MMA as think you are more likely to get a deeper understanding of each aspect, rather than touching lightly on various bits without actually ever mastering any of them.

The few pure MMA people I have met have failed to impress me much (although granted they might well attend a crap school), whereas I have met some brilliant martial artists that have chosen a couple of arts to concentrate on.

[pasmith]

Sorry should have clarified my point better.
What I was trying to get at was that "MMA" has made such an impact on the arts that if an instructor doesn't know what it is suggests that he's not as knowledgable as I think he should be.
It's not a comment about individula arts or teachers but the environment that MA now exists in.
I'm not suggesting that everyone trains in an MMA way but merely that an instructor should know what it's about and know how the art that he teaches compares. If they don't train in an "MMA way" I want a good reason why. If they don't touch on ground fighting at all I need a DAMN good reason why before I'd consider training with them.
To not have any knowledge about MMA is a level of ignorance that I don't find acceptable in this day and age, even if ultimately the instructor rejects what it's about and what it can illustrate..
IMHO MMA poses some fundamental questions that TMA (I don't like using those terms but you get my drift?) MUST have an answer for. Groundfighting, clinching, conditioning, blending of ranges (another term I don't like!)...all sorts of stuff.
I believe that the answer to the question "What do you think of MMA?" can tell you a lot about an instructor.
If he doesn't even know what it is where has he been for the last 13 years?

[AngelaG]

On the other hand, how many MMA people have any REAL understanding of karate? From my experiences, not many. So many MMA people judge what the TMA people do, and yet their understanding of why they do it is completely skewed.

It's works both ways.

I truly believe that karate can be a complete system in itself, in a manner very similar to MMA. The amount of instructors teaching it like that have been few and far between, but I do think they are growing. In the future I see a clearer division between the sports style, primarily striking karate, and the more rounded application and principle led self-defence karate. I'd imagine the self-defence side will be less competition orientated... perhaps even less so than the MMA phase which appears, to me, to be going more and more in that direction. The McMMA centres are already out there.

[pasmith]

"On the other hand, how many MMA people have any REAL understanding of karate?"

You'd be surprised. Many, many MMA people in the UK have (some quite high) grades from trad arts (not just Karate). I suppose it depends on how you judge REAL understanding?
I have a BB in TAGB TKD.
Does that give me a REAL understanding of TKD?
Personally I feel it gives me enough of an understanding to judge what TKD does or doesn't offer and a fairly good idea of what the vast majority of TKD clubs offer.

Do you have REAL understanding of Karate?
If so how do you judge that?
Grade?
Something more intangible?
If it IS intangible how do you judge it to be lacking in others?

"So many MMA people judge what the TMA people do, and yet their understanding of why they do it is completely skewed."

I think "completely" skewed is a bit of an exaggeration. Perhaps a little off kilter?

"The amount of instructors teaching it like that have been few and far between"

Which is EXACTLY why MMA people hold the views that they do with regards to many trad arts. In contrast Kyukoshin always seems to get grudging respect even from die-hard MMA guys. That becaue it has always been a hard style. There is no need for Kyokushin to re-invent itself in order to become more widely respected (as is happening with other froms of Karate with Shotokan being no exception).

With the utmost respect Angela when did you start Karate?

Many MMA people did Karate pre-1993 (time of the first UFC) so judge Karate on their experiences of that time. Trad arts have evolved imeasurably over the last few years. That change has been partly due to the UFC starting.

[AngelaG]

Urgh the UFC argument.

Te last time I checked the UFC was a competition. People training for the UFC are still training for competition, no matter how intense the training.

I also stand by my "completely skewed" comment, and please note I am not referring to the top guys in MMA... they have a lot more exposure to a lot more information. constantly referring to the"famous" of the martial arts world does little for debate, as their general training and knowledge is far in advance of what the average person does.

The people I have spoken to have little knowledge of why we do what we do. One example being "hikite" hand... I know that on the whole karateka are their own worst enemies as there are still groups teaching poor applications, and bad habits, but that does not mean that people should wipe out a whole style.

As for reinventing, I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way around... it's more about returning to the ORIGINAL roots.

[pasmith]

Sorry don't know what the UFC argument is. Please elaborate.

I'm not refferring to the top guys at all. Don't think I mentioned any of them in fact. Top guys will always negate most arguments pro or con.
I'm talking about the run of the mill MMA coaches in the UK now.
Many, MANY of them are graded in trad arts, got very disillusioned with them and were shown a new direction by the UFC. That is a fact.
My old BJJ instructor for example was a TKD 3rd Dan before ditching that and getting into MMA and BJJ. That is very, very common across the board. From Karate, TKD, Jiu jitsu all sorts of backgrounds. Very few got straight into MMA as it is still quite young.

It seems to me that you train at (and have always trained at?) a very good shotokan school and so quite rightly get a bit narked when people criticise shotokan or karate. For all I know you started training at that school after the UFC had happened and so perhaps don't have the full picture of what "before" was like?
I'm no old hand but let me tell you it wasn't pleasant.

Surely you see that it is not a coincidence that people like Iain Abernathy weren't very prominent before the UFC?
Someone like him getting exposure is in part due to the UFC. The UFC is part of the evolution of modern karate (and martial arts as a whole) whether you like it or not.

I'd like to think that your instructor trained exactly the same way pre-1993 as he does now. That his Karate has always been the same and was passed to him in the same way he passes it to you. But...I have a sneaking suspicion that that is not the case.
I understand he posts here occasionally?
Perhaps he can tell us how he taught Karate in 1990 and now how he teaches it in 2006?

"As for reinventing, I'm afraid you've got it the wrong way around... it's more about returning to the ORIGINAL roots."



Well that's another topic entirely.

[random]

Part of the problem with the knowledge of Traditional MA and the UFC MMA stuff is that there isn’t a great cross over; people who train for these events are rarely well versed in any particular art. This doesn’t take anything away from the skill, training, and dedication of the people practising this sport. Sometimes it can look as rubbish as the wrestling that used to be on Saturday afternoon (sorry to those not A: old enough B: not in England) I leant to ground and pound in the play ground a long time ago! We need to look at MMA for what it is…although my opinion of what it is will differ. As for rolling around on the floor fighting…see another post…a daft idea!

Also I have been involved in Karate since before Angela was born, or at least in nappies…can someone pass me my slippers, and there are not that many MMA UFC fighters my age, so I am not sure when the cross over took place.

[whitewarlock]

I believe that the answer to the question "What do you think of MMA?" can tell you a lot about an instructor.

A good opening.

I think of MMA as a fully misunderstood acronym, as is TMA.

MMA initially referred to the competitions that existed in South America, and later in the U.S. (in the form of UFC). Specifically, it referred to competitions in which different martial art styles competed in a ruleset that 'tried' to provide no distinctive style advantages. Eventually, this acronym was extended to the participants of said competitions and even later changed the meaning of it to refer to MMA competitors who are 'eclectic' practitioners (i.e., persons who studied more than one system and merged said systems) applying conditioning techniques from such sports as boxing, wrestling, and muay thai.

Modern interpretation of MMA now is posed to actual 'styles' of study that regularly enter into MMA competitions (Brazilian jujutsu), or eclectic 'styles' developed by eclectic practitioners applying the above-stated conditioning techniques. Moreso the latter.

I'm an eclectic practitioner, and have been even prior to the UFC. In fact, i've been an eclectic practitioner that applied conditioning techniques from the sports of boxing, wrestling, and muay thai. However, i only marginally participated in MMA competitions, so i suppose that makes me 'not' an MMAer.

I'm actually fine with that. When those competitions came out, i was already beyond 30 and was recovering from yet another accident-injury. But i appreciated when UFC came out back in the early 90's. It was an affirmation to me, and i agree with pasmith (why do i want to call you pez, eh?) in that it was a swift kick in the behind to the complacent martial arts community that had degenerated into a bunch of theorists and test-tube competitors (TTCs).

TTCs are my own little title. They refer to people who compete in competitions that are single-system oriented. It also refers to those types of competitions (i.e., test tube competitions), and will be how i will refer to them for the remainder of this post.

TTCs were the mainstream, prior to UFC. Even prominent 'condition-oriented' systems, such as boxing, muay thai, judo, and kyokushin karate had (and still have) deeply ingrained single-system oriented competitions, geared to enhance the applicability of their particular style, whilst providing a distinct disadvantage to any other styles. One problem here is that while competitors of said competitions can refine their arts to a higher degree, some of what they refine is simply not all that effective in a 'real' confrontation against an experienced fighter. Great for their TTC, but otherwise not a good idea. Another problem is that such competition focus fails to subject a practitioner to 'alternative' approaches, thus keeping them in the dark on so many things. This, in turn, leaves a huge exploit, the element of surprise.

Unfortunately, this is now the state of MMA competitions. It has been modified to a point it no longer resembles the ol' South American MMA competitions. Rules define the competition format, and it is these rules that define how a competition favors, or disfavors, one or more 'styles' of fighting. And with it, we have an overemphasis on, "what works in an MMA competition," with a backhanded dismissal to, "what works in a real encounter."

Yet, even before these changes, in the time where South American MMA competitions were just about all there was in this format, such competitions are not altogether realistic. The environment is controlled, the element of initial surprise is virtually eliminated, and there were always 'some' rules so as to discourage serious injury or death.

Closing comments:

In many respects i am happy for the inclusion of MMA, but i am also unhappy. It has fostered a re-assessment of studies, away from theory and into application. It has encouraged practitioners to re-examine their studies and to question their instructors. These are the good things, but the bad things are in the misinterpretation of the arts and the virtual dissolve of soft skills (as coined by someone else in this forum).

In this article i wrote ( www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=15940 ), i bring to point the idolizing of MMA youngsters, as opposed to 80 year old masters. This trend is an ignorant one, and damaging to the arts as a whole. The present trend is to adhere to what is, "easy to learn" and, "applicable to mma competition." This... is where the arts are breaking down, with the finer aspects of the arts slowly being shelved.

[pasmith]

"Part of the problem with the knowledge of Traditional MA and the UFC MMA stuff is that there isn’t a great cross over; people who train for these events are rarely well versed in any particular art."

You see that's just not true. Just from my own very small experience...
Someone like Ian Butlin. A well respected Amateur boxing record now does MMA.
A guy called Neil Hall I trained with a couple of times. Regional rep for the self defence federation and fairly high graded in Goshinkwai. Now into MMA.
Heard of Neil Macleod? JKD guy, stick fighter and very respected MMA competitor?
Karl Tanswell? Started in Karate? Got to about 3rd - 4th dan and is now the regional rep for the straight blast gym and coaching people in MMA?

These sorts of people not "well versed"?
Do me a favour!

And that's just people I've seen in the short time I did BJJ to any level.

Look at MANY, MANY MMA fighters (particularly of a few years ago) and you will see grades in trad arts. Some quite high grades in fact.

Dismissig the UFC as just a rule set or competition format is like saying that Judo is just Olympic randori or Karate just Kumite.
Not only is it wrong but it is also just as ignorant of MMA as the MMA guys that don't know about the hikite hand are of Karate.

MMA is as much about a mindset as anything. A systemised way of cross training with a recognised sporting test bed. A way of defining the minimum that people need to know in order to fight effectively. MMA people are not bound by that minimum nor do they only train to reach that minimum.

I also don't think that the distinction between training for sport and training for real is as distinct as some people (Angela in this case) makes out.
If you fight someone and they roundhouse kick you in the guts has that kick been trained in a MMA gym where the emphasis is on Athletic endeavour or has it been trained in a dojo where the emphasis is on reality?
Doesn't really matter does it?
You still got kicked in the guts!
An arm dislocated by a BJJ armbar is just as dislocated as one done with a "reality" or non-sporting armbar.

I really don't make any distinctions like that. MMA to me merely encapsulates a training environment and a mind set. I use TMA in the same way. Karate can be trained with a TMA mindset or a MMA mindset. To me they offer "models" of training.

[AngelaG]

MMA is another martial arts, it's not the be all and end all. What EXACTLY is MMA? Where is a MMA syllabus for me to study? What makes an advanced MMA student?

Surely MMA, as a hybrid of other arts, is different from place to place, because different people will have different priorities as to what is important, and various instructors will have cross trained in different arts.

Surely MMA is taking what one instructor thinks is important and discarding the rest? How does this differ from JKD?

What are MMA drills? Who defines them. What makes them specifically MMA drills as opposed to, karate drills, ju jutsu drills etc? Won't different clubs do different drills?

Why would you go to a karate instructor and ask them if they do MMA drills? Would you go to a MMA instructor and ask them if they do karate drills?

By the way, just read this through and it may sound a bit confrontational... it's not made in that spirit, I am genuinely interested in your responses/reasonings.

[pasmith]

I though that about my post but wasn't as polite as you.
As long as we both know the spirit intended here you can say or ask whatever you want.
I'm no MMA expert but I've seen a bit, trained even less and looked a lot.

What EXACTLY is MMA?

MMA is the name given to the modern form of Vale Tudo or NHB fighting. It refers to the competitions themselves and the training involved. Rules vary and the arts that make up the mix vary.

Where is a MMA syllabus for me to study?

Nowhere. Although ALL gyms will cover stand up, clinch and ground, spar in all of those environments and so that informs what is taught.

What makes an advanced MMA student?

Personal performance. Nothing else. If you can regularly beat someone of the same size, tap them out, land a punch, throw them etc then you're more advanced than they are. It could be that you have a great ground game but a weak stand up game. In which case someone that you can tap with ease on the floor may be able to help with your stand up if they are good in that area. People that can no longer perform well (because of age, injury etc) are given due respect if they could perform at some point (and proved it) and can pass on knowledge.

Surely MMA, as a hybrid of other arts, is different from place to place, because different people will have different priorities as to what is important, and various instructors will have cross trained in different arts?

To a degree yes. BUT there will be a lot in common. You'll almost definately get taught a jab and a cross for example. Ground positions like the mount and the guard (amongst others) will be known throughout (although what you get taught to do from there will vary). The techniques will be drilled in much the same way. Gentle introduction, gradual increase in resistance followed by all out sparring. The continual testing nature of MMA competition and sparring means that the same (high percentage) techniques come out again and again and will commonly be seen in the majority of gyms.

Surely MMA is taking what one instructor thinks is important and discarding the rest? How does this differ from JKD?

That is what MMA is yes. As I explained above common techniques come out (due to pressure testing) so instructors will tend to end up teaching the same stuff. They might call it different things or under different names but they will be broadly similar. How this differs from JKD is that MMA has a sporting outlet. Without that JKD tends to be less picky about what it keeps and what it doesn't. Their criteria for keeping something can be different to a MMA place.
That said MMA has shown JKD the way to some degree. You see far less JKD guys doing Kali, Silat and Jun Fan gng fu and quite a few doing BJJ and Thai these days.
JKD and MMA have a large degree of cross over. As JKD is far less concerned with competition they tend to focus on weapons and such like. MMA gyms rarely touch on weapons.

What are MMA drills? Who defines them. What makes them specifically MMA drills as opposed to, karate drills, ju jutsu drills etc? Won't different clubs do different drills?

It's not so much the content of the drills as the way they are done. Again it's that progressive resistance thing. If you drill in that way then I call what you do "MMA drilling" as I don't really have a better term for it. Give me one and I'll use it. Basically not drilling in a static or overly contrived way. That's the MMA way.

Why would you go to a karate instructor and ask them if they do MMA drills? Would you go to a MMA instructor and ask them if they do karate drills?

Again my bad definition sorry about that. It's about the training environment and knowing the difference between the MMA model of traiing and the old trad model of training. I want my instructor to know the difference.

[AngelaG]

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

I agree with you on a lot you say!