Okay, I guess I was just confused.
Okay, I guess I was just confused.
I say no! if you implement a belt or ranking system then you will inevitably have a pissing match over who is the “godfather” or who’s lineage is true. It is all crap! MMA is mixed martial arts and it is what it is. People have to study the arts for what they are individually and mold them into what fits them. There is no way that anyone can take one system and make it fit whoever. That is why MMA works. You pick what works for you and no one else.
Let the belts, stripes, or whatever be decided the good old fashioned way in MMA, by having the best one win. Period.
Each student would have to meet each core art ranking (for clarity of use) of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc in each art. MT, BJJ, Wrestling, Kickboxing, crochet, whatever before meeting the the criteria for advancement to the 1st rank of an MMA ranking. Five 1st belts + appliable skill perfomance = 1st mma rank advance
Think about your own MMA training, if any. How many arts have you trained in? How many do you currently train on an at least once a week basis? More than two? What is your ranking in each art and are you compensated to teach? In the other arts (beyond your core two), do you train the art entirely or just the techniques of the art which are high percentage or comfortable for you?
How many of you train wrestling, MT, bjj weekly?, each month? Are you a black belt or rank equivalent in each?
If MMA look at your own fighting style. How many different techniques do you use from each art in practice?, in competition?
Look at George St. Pierre.
You use the techniques with the highest percentage of success from each art you have in a by on a declining scale. The fights you watch are mostly the same. High percentage of success techniques against fighters doing the same thing. Punch, kick, flying knee, knees, takedowns, GnP(punching on ground), submissions.
So far based on the comments, the arguments offered against the idea of a systematized approach strcutured program of of training which would allow a ranking system for MMA (which also allows for substitutions of some arts and inclusion of techniques/forms from lower marginal percentage arts as electives), fail. Repeated for fun: The arguments against the idea fail.
Hey, I am only playing devil's advocate. The only real foreseeable problem with a systematized approach to MMA is that even though the arts are learned as separate system and then practiced in toto, eventually a unified or completly integrated art would evolve at which point it is no longer MMA but a new martial art.
The other real problem is, it would take a long, long, long time to reach an MMA black belt or hello kitty patch competency. The third problem is that the OP would have to set up and support and organization in the present that would not have more than a few MMA black belt/hello kitty patches for the first 5, 7 to 10 years.
PM me for deliverables and consulting rates :)
i dont see any need in it. we already have ranking. this list goes from worst to best.
guy who trains and doesnt fight
ammy fighter with losing record
ammy with winning record
pro with losing record
pro with winning
coach of losing ammys
coach of winning ammys
coach of losing pros
coach of winning pros
Wait, flying knees are high percentage?
And the military doctrine of acceptable losses might be good for the group, but is always a disaster for the individual. The civilian idea that any injury is a personal failure might make you a sissy, a ruthless sissy that will stop at (almost) nothing to avoid them.
So yes, marines being marines are impressive. But marines being martial artists, disregarding all the other things they have to do, are impressive compared to bullshidokas and mcdojos. But are they really impressive against that civilian with Darth Maul skills?
you capitalized the word "arts", yet it seems like you want to ignore the fact that there are more than 5 martial arts in the world, beyond boxing, mt, bjj, judo, wrestling. the most notable example of this is the dragon machida, whose striking base is karate and grappling base is sumo, even if he has a bb in bjj. having a standard curriculum would discourage people from trying out other arts and adapting those to mma. hell, i'm curious to see if a football line-of-scrimmage stance can be integrated to mma.
the second part of my objection is that it limits where people can get their training from. sure, fighters usually train with teams (ATT, AKA, MFS, etc.), but they also have the freedom to move their training camps and get additional outside coaching. plus, some fighters, such as gegard mousasi, don't have a base camp at all, and travel round the world for discipline specific training, and mousasi is doing well for himself.
the benefit of this liberty to the mma community is that if an instructor is not good, his students will not be good, and the fights will show the results. conversely, people will see the results of good coaching, and this would allow their work to stand out. for example, if a striking coach from the Chute Boxe academy sets up a MT gym, do you think people would want to train there? i'd bet a paycheck on it. and fighters would also get the freedom to train with top notch grappling instructors regardless of who their striking coaches are, or other grappling instructors, ftm.
Call it what you will, anything full contact is self-regulating.
So yeah sure, give them belts that will match the bruises on their faces.