Semantics

[sambosteve]

Here is an example of the "mixing things" point:

I regularly get e-mails, member applications, etc, at the Sambo Association or the Coalition to legalize MMA in NY, that speak to this. I have seen countless example of TMA+TMA+TMA = MMA.

Here is an example I got recently (author's name redacted):

How can I help? I've been doing/teaching MMA for 40 yrs. You can check me out on the net as...

Look the guy up and the guy has taken many years of TMA in a few different styles and transitioned that to MMA. Totally misleading if one looks at the term MMA in it's sporting context. The rationalization of "Teach a mix of martial arts" to "I teach MMA" is a leap. Forget the fact that MMA as a sport has not even existed 20 years...less if you discount the NHB days.

[Vieux Normand]

MMA is a current name used for a relatively-open-ruleset combat sport (one which, in the past, has used other names such as NHB). Some--like many on this site--will state that this is the only 'legitimate' use of the term MMA.

Others--whether many on this site like it or not--will will say things like "mixing Kyokushin and Judo is mixed-martial-arts--whether or not participants ever step into an octagon".

The former side will claim the term "MMA" based on their notions of legitimacy, perceived propriety or whatever.

The latter will base their claim on the semantics of the words "mixed martial arts".

Yeah, so...who's right, and by what logic?

[Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs]

MMA is a current name used for a relatively-open-ruleset combat sport (one which, in the past, has used other names such as NHB). Some--like many on this site--will state that this is the only 'legitimate' use of the term MMA.

Others--whether many on this site like it or not--will will say things like "mixing Kyokushin and Judo is mixed-martial-arts--whether or not participants ever step into an octagon".

The former side will claim the term "MMA" based on their notions of legitimacy, perceived propriety or whatever.

The latter will base their claim on the semantics of the words "mixed martial arts".

Yeah, so...who's right, and by what logic?

Depending on which logic you use, both can be correct, but I think that the first right of usage of "MMA" would connect it to "relative open-ruleset combat sport" instead of someone mixing up some different MAs without having classes under that ruleset or competitors.

[Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs]

My previous post brings up another problem, maybe semantic wordplay.

A club that has Krav Maga classes and BJJ classes as their normal business and then some 'MMA' classes (using the UFC ruleset) to put it all together, but doesn't have a real fighting team (maybe one or two guys who try there hand in a very local tournement).

Does such a club falls under a MMA club or a TMA club that wants to cash off on the MMA bandwagon? (serious question)

[sambosteve]

My previous post brings up another problem, maybe semantic wordplay.

A club that has Krav Maga classes and BJJ classes as their normal business and then some 'MMA' classes (using the UFC ruleset) to put it all together, but doesn't have a real fighting team (maybe one or two guys who try there hand in a very local tournement).

Does such a club falls under a MMA club or a TMA club that wants to cash off on the MMA bandwagon? (serious question)

Using the sport definition (which I believe is the proper one), I think one can teach/learn "MMA" or train MMA even if they never fight. This does not mean it would be a great place to train MMA if one wanted to fight. It also does not mean the club could not become with time, training and experience, a place where one could train for a fight.

For example: Many people play baseball; games with friends, etc. They never will play on a league. Are they playing baseball? Yes. Would they be capable of coaching a minor or major league team? Probably not without training and experience. Same with MMA I suppose. People can train it, spar in house using the rule set, practice technique that would fit the rule set, etc. It is MMA. Now, is it "good" MMA, would someone go there to train for an actual amateur or pro fight? That is an entirely different question. The other question regards the integrity of that club...do they present themselves as a recreational, non-competative club or not?

The problem is that the sport of MMA evolved out of, and has a sprirtual connection to non-sport martial arts. Notwithstanding the similarity in name, techniques, etc. While the two are no longer the same, many of the latter will associate with the former because of this; uncorrectly IMO. For some who do, it may be a semantic argument that they use to justify calling what they do "MMA" - one they actually believe. For others it may be an unethical marketing choice - they know they are non-MMA, but advertise as such anyway.

In the end the term "MMA" came about because of the development of the sport and that is how the majority of non-martial artists (an martial artists I believe) view the term. Not the other way around. IMO, if a club is saying they teach an MMA class or have an MMA program, it should be in the sporting context. If they are simply a club teaching a patchwork of non-intergated martial arts, or never practice the sport, they are simply riding the coat tails of a popular sport.

[jnp]

Here at Bullshido, we generally use participation in open competitions/tournaments as a baseline for judging an individual gym/dojo/dojang/kwoon's etc. efficacy.

Using this metric for a MMA gym, it's not so important what the instructor's core arts are, as opposed to how successful he and/or his students are in MMA matches.

Or is that too simple and wide open of a definition for you semantically inclined types?

[Vieux Normand]

I think that the first right of usage of "MMA" would connect it to "relative open-ruleset combat sport" instead of someone mixing up some different MAs without having classes under that ruleset or competitors.

I am aware that many think this to be the 'correct' definition of MMA. What I am asking is, what is the basis (legal or otherwise) for this claim. I, myself, do no think of an aikido/chun combination when the term "MMA" is used...but I recognise that this is my opinion, which I do not trot out as some kind of "sole correct and legitimate usage".

If Dana and the TapflictionDouche crowd decide that only NHL ice-hockey can be called "hockey", only Honda Civics can be called "cars" and only wife-beaters can be called "shirts", how can they try to "enforce" what is, essentially, their opinion? Holler and howl "That's the way it is because we say so!!!!"?

[Tom Kagan]

Or is that too simple and wide open of a definition for you semantically inclined types?

For what it's worth, I think it's too restrictive.

... and I still keep reading 'MMA' as 'Miami Military Academy', anyway.

[Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs]

I am aware that many think this to be the 'correct' definition of MMA. What I am asking is, what is the basis (legal or otherwise) for this claim. I, myself, do no think of an aikido/chun combination when the term "MMA" is used...but I recognise that this is my opinion, which I do not trot out as some kind of "sole correct and legitimate usage".

If Dana and the TapflictionDouche crowd decide that only NHL ice-hockey can be called "hockey", only Honda Civics can be called "cars" and only wife-beaters can be called "shirts", how can they try to "enforce" what is, essentially, their opinion? Holler and howl "That's the way it is because we say so!!!!"?

Matt knows more about the UFC and other 'MMA' promotions (Strikeforce, Pride, etc...), but did the term 'MMA' not first appeared in connection to these promotions? Especially the early UFC's?

If so the sport has the right of usage, because they were first in using that term.

[It is Fake]

No.

That's the flaw when arguing semantics. You guys are about to delve into rhetoric, coined phrases, and the issue of context. If you really want to get technical, the UFC used the term in the old context.