Is MMA a style now?

[gregaquaman]

MMA is a style. bjj ,boxing, kickboxing, wrestling are drills. UFC,Pride. your classes (I fought a C class fight different rule set) are rule sets.

There are dedicated MMA instructors. Who teach learn and fight MMA. If MMA is not a style what do they do exactly?

Subtle changes in guard movements and tactics changes what you are doing. (Badly explained)
Eg. I have trained with bjj guy who used to teach MMA wrestling differently to BJJ. If there are enough difference to make a point of it. Then it is different.

Striking while in guard and striking a downed opponant would be the the most obvious tactical and technical sepparation.

Mabye wall grappling as well.

[Goju - Joe]

How about techniques not mentioned:
Rear Naked Choke
Back Fist
knee bar
ankle lock

And then your use of:
Escape from mount as a defense position
The Thai Plum and body lock as stand up grappling


But that's just me being an elitist snob.

Ehhh I was going to forget stuff, that's what I invited people to add things, I don't train MMA.

The point though is we can come up with a list of techniques that are essential to MMA.

[Omega Supreme]

Ehhh I was going to forget stuff, that's what I invited people to add things, I don't train MMA.

The point though is we can come up with a list of techniques that are essential to MMA.

Impossible!

[Gezere]

You're only stating half of the equation. A kickboxer participating in UFC 1 could have possibly been called an MMA fighter as he had participated in a "Mixed Martial Arts Competition". However, MMA isn't limited to that lone definition anymore.

James Toney. Is he or his he not listed as a MMA fighter now? Answer he is.

Someone can train in "MMA", never compete, not once, and yet it is more correct to say that they do MMA than it would be for a boxer in UFC 1 to say that they "do MMA".

I think you missed the "training method" part.

A boxer could compete in a karate tournament, following the hand striking rules and not kicking at all, and for him to refer to himself as a karate fighter wouldn't be correct.
A gymnast could cartwheel her way through the Boston Marathon, even completing it, & yet to call herself a marathon runner would be ludicrous.

Has nothing to do with what I said. There is nothing in MMA that says one has to be a well rounded to be an MMA fighter.

Stop being wrong.

Let me know when I start.

I think this has changed a lot and will continue more so, we are starting to see guys in the UFC like Rory Macdonald who have only ever focused on MMA, that's not to say he doesn't cross train with BJJ and wrestling experts an others, but his whole focus from day one has been MMA, and he's very good at it.

He does crosstrain with BJJ and wrestling. Tristar has training from BJJ and Kickboxing to Karate. He is training in all of those to compete. So it supports what I said earlier.

MMA is a ruleset and training method that people train for and compete in. They do this generally by studying/training in aspects of various MAs that pertain to MMA.

So it doesn't mean MMA is a style because he focuses on it.

Jim, I will continue being right.

[battlefields]

I might be missing something, probably because I see MMA as a very broad term, as in it is a sport with several rulesets. So it IS a sport, but it IS also a ruleset. I liken it to "footy" in Australia. My friends play "footy" on several levels, some play touch footy, some play club footy and others play first grade footy. Each level there is differences in rules, however slight (particularly between club and first grade). "Touch footy" (tag rugby) is a ruleset where people aren't tackling the guy with the ball. Club and first grade tackle those with the ball, but the principles of offside, the 10 metre rule, and scoring remain similar to touch. There are slight differences between club and first grade, mainly due to the technology afforded in first grade to assist in refs decisions. It's still all "footy", as Aussies call the sport, but there are different rulesets.

Different levels of footy players train different things for the sport. A touch footy player doesn't need to tackle a bag over and over, but what he might want to do is endurance running with explosive sprints and working with his team on good ball movement (ha!). A club footy player might hit the gym a couple of times a week, but might focus on tackling a bag at training and possibly some wrestling with his teammates to work on getting people to the ground with and without a ball and a couple of standard "plays". A first grade player spends all his time doing endurance running, sprints, weights, set "plays", ball-handling (lol), wrestling, tackling, etc. Most rugby league clubs have a wrestling or BJJ coach now, as they probably have someone who looks after nutrition, "plays" and other specific exercises. He's "mixing" them but still playing footy.

They'll all say they play "footy" which I suppose corresponds with the "style" idea, even though one guy does it for fun and to socialise on a Monday night, one does it to socialise and for the love of the game and the other does it for a living. But they all are mixing certain elements in order to play the game.

MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts, as in learning or training in several disciplines to mix so as to compete in the sport. I don't have a conclusion, it's a sport, it's a ruleset and it's a style. I don't know why we need a discussion on this, really. Does anyone really feel we need to come to a conclusion on this topic?

[Azatdawn]

Yes. The conclusion would be that BrotherDaniel is still an idiot who shouldn't have the privilege to start threads.

[cualltaigh]

I might be missing something, probably because I see MMA as a very broad term, as in it is a sport with several rulesets. So it IS a sport, but it IS also a ruleset. I liken it to "footy" in Australia. My friends play "footy" on several levels, some play touch footy, some play club footy and others play first grade footy. Each level there is differences in rules, however slight (particularly between club and first grade). "Touch footy" (tag rugby) is a ruleset where people aren't tackling the guy with the ball. Club and first grade tackle those with the ball, but the principles of offside, the 10 metre rule, and scoring remain similar to touch. There are slight differences between club and first grade, mainly due to the technology afforded in first grade to assist in refs decisions. It's still all "footy", as Aussies call the sport, but there are different rulesets.

Different levels of footy players train different things for the sport. A touch footy player doesn't need to tackle a bag over and over, but what he might want to do is endurance running with explosive sprints and working with his team on good ball movement (ha!). A club footy player might hit the gym a couple of times a week, but might focus on tackling a bag at training and possibly some wrestling with his teammates to work on getting people to the ground with and without a ball and a couple of standard "plays". A first grade player spends all his time doing endurance running, sprints, weights, set "plays", ball-handling (lol), wrestling, tackling, etc. Most rugby league clubs have a wrestling or BJJ coach now, as they probably have someone who looks after nutrition, "plays" and other specific exercises. He's "mixing" them but still playing footy.

They'll all say they play "footy" which I suppose corresponds with the "style" idea, even though one guy does it for fun and to socialise on a Monday night, one does it to socialise and for the love of the game and the other does it for a living. But they all are mixing certain elements in order to play the game.

MMA stands for Mixed Martial Arts, as in learning or training in several disciplines to mix so as to compete in the sport. I don't have a conclusion, it's a sport, it's a ruleset and it's a style. I don't know why we need a discussion on this, really. Does anyone really feel we need to come to a conclusion on this topic?

+1 for the footy analogy!

Though we can take it further, using the best footy of all (union of course ;-)).

Starting at the top you have breakdown specialists (forwards) who may not have impressive ball handling skills but are adept clearing the breakdown[grappling]. Some achieve this better through rucking and some mauling which could be a further sub-analogy for BJJ/wrestling.

This can be contrasted with open play specialists/backs. Again the various means of advancing the ball (running, kicking, passing) can be analogous for the various striking arts.

Now at a first-grade/professional level it is entirely possible to only have skills in either breakdown or open play. However, it is far more likely and common at this level for players to be competent across the skillets though specializing in a particular set.

Moving down the chain to the social levels the competency is not as broad so players, although proably carrying an understaning across them, tend to specialize in one or the other skillsets with not much crossover.

Moving again to 7-a-side rugby where, given the changes in rules (re the no. of players on the field) there is a greater benefit to open play than breakdown work players here tend to focus on attacking and open play with little if not rudimentary level breakdown incorporated into the training. [think striking focus MA like kickboxing/Boxing/San da].

Follow that with touch where all breakdown work is expressly prohibited and even open play is restricted to remove any contact [point sparring anyone?]

[battlefields]

+1 for the footy analogy!

Though we can take it further, using the best footy of all (union of course ;-)).

Starting at the top you have breakdown specialists (forwards) who may not have impressive ball handling skills but are adept clearing the breakdown[grappling]. Some achieve this better through rucking and some mauling which could be a further sub-analogy for BJJ/wrestling.

This can be contrasted with open play specialists/backs. Again the various means of advancing the ball (running, kicking, passing) can be analogous for the various striking arts.

Now at a first-grade/professional level it is entirely possible to only have skills in either breakdown or open play. However, it is far more likely and common at this level for players to be competent across the skillets though specializing in a particular set.

Moving down the chain to the social levels the competency is not as broad so players, although proably carrying an understaning across them, tend to specialize in one or the other skillsets with not much crossover.

Moving again to 7-a-side rugby where, given the changes in rules (re the no. of players on the field) there is a greater benefit to open play than breakdown work players here tend to focus on attacking and open play with little if not rudimentary level breakdown incorporated into the training. [think striking focus MA like kickboxing/Boxing/San da].

Follow that with touch where all breakdown work is expressly prohibited and even open play is restricted to remove any contact [point sparring anyone?]

Holy ****! My analogy has been UNION'd!

Nice work, push ups, you crush you. Union is indeed a better game and the analogy of striking and grappling correlating to the backs and forwards is so spot on that I actually began thinking of what type of play was a jab and what was a head hunting kick (my answer: half back side step from the back of the ruck/maul is a jab and spreading the ball to the winger is a the kick).

PM coming to you, as well, cualltaigh.

[Mannetosen]

+1 for the footy analogy!

Starting at the top you have breakdown specialists (forwards) who may not have impressive ball handling skills but are adept clearing the breakdown[grappling]. Some achieve this better through rucking and some mauling which could be a further sub-analogy for BJJ/wrestling.

I find it very offensive that you slight the ball handling skills of grapplers.

[BrotherDaniel]

Yes. The conclusion would be that BrotherDaniel is still an idiot who shouldn't have the privilege to start threads.

Handbags at dawn, LOL you little girl!