MMA vs. Other Martial Arts. What's your opinion?

Question

How do you compare Mixed Martial Arts to the more traditional arts that are out there (Karate, Aikido, Wushu, etc.) Personally, I can't stand "MMA" or the UFC. The thing about Mixed Martial Arts (an appropriate term considering it's like what hot dogs are to real meat) is that it relies completely on overpowering and bludgeoning your opponent into submission. A true martial arts master can overcome such an opponent by knowing where to strike him- a place that no amount of conditioning can fortify. Instead of overpowering him, he can use the other's strength and momentum against him, transfer his energy. There is no thought or technique put into MMA, really. Is it effective? Sure, against other MMA fighters. I hardly feel, however, it deserves to be called an "Art." That's my opinion. What's yours?

P.S.- I'm not looking to start a posting war with a bunch of MMA die hards who have no legitimate argument but would rather hurl obscenities and derisive remarks about everything non-MMA.

Answer 1

My friend it sounds like you are delusional. I've studied and done classical martial arts, combatives, and MMA for over 30 years. The answer to your question is there is no superior martial art or MMA...only superior martial artists. The potential "effectiveness" of any styles/MMA always has to do with context. The reason the classical martial arts nearly always get detroyed in the MMA by even amatuers is context. They allowed themselves to come out of their circle of balance. Remember my two rules to MMA context, it works best when: In a limited unarmed environment, 2. Both participants know it is happening. Take MMA out of that environment, and it's stylistic advanteges diminish significantly. That's not to say one can overcome an MMA practitioner, because as I said earlier it's not the art...it's the artist. The combative that has the widest range of contextual advantage (besides high technology) is the sniper.

Answer 2

Do you remember the first UFC competitions? They actually were comprised of world class "Martial Artists" from around the world. It was set up as the ultimate test to see the effectiveness of different styles. The reason you don't see Karate, Aikido, and Wushu in MMA is because they could not compete on the ground. That's why Royce Gracie dominiated the first events. He only weighed 180 pounds and absolutley destroyed more muscular competitors that weighed up to 260. He did exactly what your talking about, he used their momentum against them.It had nothing to do with beating people into submission. His techniques were just better. MMA is an evolution of martial arts. It takes what is effective and doesnt bother with what's not. Traditional "Artists" hated Bruce Lee for doing the same thing in the early 70's. Just because you're doing a technique that's 1000 years old doesn't mean its the best technique. You still have to be open minded. MMA has changed Martial Arts in a positive way. It has opened the debates on what is effective and brought more interest to martial arts as a whole. Traditional arts are wonderful, but not for everyone. Some people have no interest in tradition. I respect your opinion but it sounds defensive. Why do you even care about MMA if your style is so much more effective? I don't think you would have a problem with it if it wasn't challenging your way of thinking about what works.

Answer 3

In short, I believe Traditional Martial Arts uses physical skills and training as a means to an end. MMA uses the physical skills as a end unto themselves.

Effectiveness is a matter of opinion. A traditional artist would say that avoiding conflict is the highest form of self defense while the MM artist would say that being able to defeat all attackers is the highest form.

It depends what you are looking for in your training.

Answer 4

In a small studio with no cameras - or on ESPN2 at 3 am - watching martial arts master's in a human-chess match will certainly be interesting to those learning the specific art or for people who can't get to sleep.

I remember the early years of what now has become MMA and there were experts in specific disciplines who got destroyed in the octagon - and with it, much credibility to the martial art they were promoting. I believe that is why the sport has evolved into its current form...with no change in the foseeable future.

The top MMA competitors are true athletes who have mental/physical skills that are unbelievable......and I respect them for those key issues. That one can quibble on the "legitimacy" of the art verges on silliness.

Answer 5

Each unto there own really, in my opinion it comes down to the individual, if your young and aggressive and wanna fight yeah go for it MMA, but if you want to learn self-control id choose something from the traditional line up, when it comes down to it The Fight is only a fraction of what a True Art has to offer.

Answer 6

Without hurling obscenities, allow me to put it very clearly and succinctly: "MMA" is not a martial art, it is exactly what the acronym stands for, Mixed Martial Arts. Ie., it is not an art of it's own form, it is merely a phrase/acronym to describe those who have meshed more than one art. That said, MMA is not UFC, anymore than it is PRIDE, WEC, KotC, H'n'S, or any other event that showcases MMA style fights. Anyone, everyone who trains in more than one artform and mixes the two is a Mixed Martial artist.

Furthermore, catering to the lowest common denominator isn't the point of MMA. Proving the effectiveness of striking, grappling, and defensive techniques is. I don't know about those who despise MMA, but for those of us who enjoy it, we like knowing that everything we train is USEFUL. I don't train flying kicks, toe kicks, punches from the hip, or any other useless, inefficient strike, nor do I train in techniques that, as I've heard far too many American traditionalists say, "can only be used effectively after decades of study and proper meditation." Frankly, I meditate. I am well read on subjects as diverse as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Zen, Ch'an, the Uppanishads, and many other asian religious and philosophical works. I do not need my self-defense and martial art to make wild claims that only through it's own doctrine and system of religious/philosophical belief can I achieve perfection. If that were true, for all artforms, then Kiaijutsu masters would actually be able to kill with only their voice, after 20 years of perfecting the technique. It isn't true. It does not happen.

I don't compare Mixed Martial Arts to "traditional" arts, that is like comparing an apple to a seven course meal. While the meal may include apples, to compare a full meal to an object which is but a single aspect of the meal is silly. Hot dogs to real meat? You're thinking of one of the "traditional" martial arts made up in the 50's by Asian and American entrepreneurs who wished to capitalize on the American public, choosing to mix different artforms at their leisure to lend credibility to their artform.

The ultimate crux of this entire dispute, the sticking point that keeps bringing me and others back to the battle which traditionalists have made of this, is that most of us really could not care less if anyone practices a traditional martial art. I say more power to you who do. I practice now, and have practiced over the years, a number of arts, and will continue to do so in the future.

But when anyone, from the lowest student to the highest instructor, of a traditional art chooses to dismiss MMA as nothing more than a waste, I direct any of you to the people who have worked hard in the arts to be at this, the pinnacle of their lives in MMA. Bruce Lee could, quite possibly, be looked at as the first Mixed Martial Artist in the US, at the very least, the first one of any notability or notoriety. He was cocky, yes. He was sure of himself, yes. He took the best of all the arts he had trained, tossing out the old, the antiquated, the useless traditions, and made them better. How many of you traditionalists, specifically Americans, would step up and say pointedly that he and his Jeet Kune Do were ineffective, without thought, and not an "Art"? I'd hazard very few.

So before you become one of the many elitist traditional martial arts practicioners, think about what you're doing to yourself, your reputation, and the so called honor and benevolence that almost any martial trains into it's students. It is far from honorable or benevolent to malign another who is just trying to train as much as you. You wouldn't do it to a fellow student in your own art, so why do it to hard-working mixed martial artists?

Answer 7

OK, here's my two cents.

I have nothing against MMA or against the UFC/IFL/Pride (or whatever other competition they've come up with nowadays), or against its proponents. Those people have trained for literally years to get where they are now, and I wouldn't be so quick to disparage their skill.

And personally, I see the value in training in different styles (eg., training in one striking art and one grappling art) in order to give yourself a better understanding of body mechanics, martial application, etc. You aren't really growing as a martial artist if you limit yourself only to one kind of martial art. For example, if you took TKD, then Muay Thai, then karate, then American kickboxing, and so on... then the only thing you're really learning is more different ways of hitting people.

What I don't like, however, is the attitude that is prevalent in the MMA camp. It essentially boils down to "oog oog, look how tuff I am!" Many MMAs also display a disturbing ignorance about the realities of using MMA outside of the ring.
Hence, I am not very forgiving of some of the dangerous ideas that many MMAs like to promote. Most namely, the idea that MMA is useful for self-defense or streetfighting.

First of all, MMA is geared toward "winning" not "surviving." If you try to apply this anywhere outside of the ring, you will open a whole can of worms. You could very well end up in prison for assaulting your opponent or attacker, which is illegal. (As soon as you cross the fine line of "reasonable force," I think it falls in the legal definition of assault. Unfortunately, with MMA, that's pretty easy to do.)
Or, you could end up dead/wounded, because your attacker wasn't interested in fighting, but only in hurting you in order to get what he wants. At this point I would like to intone that MMAs do not train to counter or guard against certain attacks (such as eye gouges and chin jabs) because those techniques were deemed too lethal to be allowed, and thus were banned from the ring. They also do not train you on how to fight multiple opponents, or tell you what to do if the attacker pulls a gun/knife on you, etc. There are too many factors in the real world that MMA _cannot_ address.

I also dislike the approach that many MMAs take to martial arts. They are often into martial arts solely to learn how to "fight better." As I said, there is very little practical application for MMA outside of the ring-- at least whatever application that will not get you killed or thrown into prison.
So learning how to "fight better" would benefit you only within the ring. And, what about arts like Tai Chi, or capoeria, or wushu? Why do we need to bastardize those arts for a purely "fighting" application? Many people take them for health, spiritual, and entertainment reasons, and those are very real and legitimate benefits. Why should we change that??

Bottom line: MMA has its time and place. So does TMA. The problem comes when people try to use one or the other as a catch-all solution to whatever problem they're facing. Or they try to use one against the other; as one other user said, it's like comparing apples to a 7-course meal.

*edit* that last remark could be interpreted either way-- in a competition/fighting context, TMA would be the apples and MMA would be the 7-course meal.
In a more pragmatic context, TMA would be the 7-course meal and MMA would be the apples.

Answer 8

I don't care for MMA, either.

MMA is geared toward the lowest common denominator in martial arts- actual fighting. MMA propagates a bullies mentality. That mindset is not in line with the spirit of martial arts. True Martial Artists don't have to fight as they are confident and have nothing to prove. MMA proponents will loudly claim that they're willing to prove their art. You know, the last time I checked, assaulting people was against the law. No one cares how billy-bad *** a mixed martial artist is. It's a skill set that's got only one legitimate outlet- the ring. Practice it elsewhere and go to jail. We can make up masturbatory scenarios about getting jumped and how "anyone with any training would destroy a TMA". Mixed Martial Artists live in a fantasy world where there are no consequences or repercussions for attacking people on the street.

Having said that, I will add this, I do enjoy watching UFC every couple of years or so. There's nothing wrong with good clean competition (even if they do look like homo's rolling around groping each other on the mat).