Semantics

[Matt Phillips]

Discussions about how of terms and their meanings are frequently seen as derails by many. I'm creating this thread as a venue where such discussions can relocate, be culled, or be initiated.

Since it's in MABS obviously you're going to have to bring it around to the martial arts (as opposed to say politics), but I hope Staff will allow discussions of the subject in general as long as they inform and do not distract from questions pertaining to the martial arts.

[Matt Phillips]

Here's a short list of games people play all the time:

Insisting that MMA requires 'mixing things'

Dude, you do just Judo... I don't care who you are, if you get in the cage you're likely going to get hurt

Insisting that things that are mixed are MMA

I've been practicing Judo and Karate for over 40 years; I saw the value of MMA before most of you were ever born.

Failing to distinguish between a martial art and a format (sport) created to enable competitions to take place between its practitioners

Judo never had any twisting footlocks; they've never been legal in Judo.

Assuming the techniques from a martial art should be the only techniques used in a competition format, simply because the martial art and the format share the same name.

I don't care if you got the sweep or not; this is Wrestling!

Failing to distinguish between a combat sport as defined by its rules, and the body of techniques that are commonly used when competing

My coach told me the rear hook is not part of Boxing; do that again and I'm telling the ref

LOL sorry :) How about this instead...

Muaythai was founded in the 1920's; don't try to tell me the Teep is thousands of years old.

Assuming that two things named with the same word are, in fact, related or identical

Judo is Judo and Jiu-jitsu is Jiu-jitsu; BJJ is Jiu-jitsu not Judo

or

Of course I am qualified to teach the training secrets of Chinese Boxing; I coached the 1996 and 2000 Chinese Olympic Boxing teams.


Assuming that one thing with multiple names is, in fact, not one thing at all

You're claiming to be a San Shou champion but all I see are Draka titles

Of course there will be others, but these are some of the most popular.

These might all look easy enough to spot but think about how many times an argument has flared up because one person was using 'MMA' to refer to the sport, and another to refer to the hybrid style that is common for competitors to use. If you tried to point it out I bet they both stopped fighting just long enough to shout "You're just arguing semantics!" before ripping back into each other

;)

[PointyShinyBurn]

Insisting that MMA requires 'mixing things'

Dude, you do just Judo... I don't care who you are, if you get in the cage you're likely going to get hurt

That's not a semantic issue, that's an (accurate) factual statement.

[Matt Phillips]

That's not a semantic issue, that's an (accurate) factual statement.

Failing to distinguish between a combat sport as defined by its rules, and the body of techniques that are commonly used when competing

You can prepare for an MMA match however you wish. You do not have to 'mix' anything if you don't want to. The fact that that's probably stupid is irrelevant.

Of course you are correct to point out that the various hybrid training methods popular (and effective) in winning contests under an MMA ruleset absolutely do require mixing things (they're hybrid), but it's clear in my example that 'MMA' refers to the sport itself and not the common training method.

Well, maybe it's not clear; nobody's perfect :)

Just because the word 'mixed' is in the name doesn't mean anything, any more than the name 'NHB' meant you had to do something with 'holds'. It's just a name.

Edit: not that it's relevant, but historically the term 'mixed' was introduced into the name of the sport to mean that the rules allowed for a 'mixed match' between fighters of different backgrounds. It just turned out that hybrid ('mixed') backgrounds won more matches.

[PointyShinyBurn]

Fine, I understand all that, but the example sentence you invented did not evidence semantic confusion. A relevant one would have been:

"You're not allowed to fight MMA, you only know Judo!"

[Tom Kagan]

One of the semantic arguments I see happening a lot has to do with the reasons a person studies martial arts in the first place.

When it all gets boiled down - at least in some people's pots - there are five basic focuses to martial art study (shamelessly lifted from No Nonsense Self Defense):

1. Self-defense/professional use of force
2. Tradition/physical art/self-discipline
3. Spiritual/health/personal growth
4. Sport/tournament/competitive aspect
5. Demonstration/performance/beauty (art)

The semantic argument starts when people proclaim what is and is not a martial art without first establishing the correct focus in the context of the discussion.

[Rene "Zendokan" Gysenbergs]

Here's a short list of games people play all the time:

Insisting that MMA requires 'mixing things'

Dude, you do just Combat SAMBO... I don't care who you are, if you get in the cage you're likely going to get hurt

Insisting that things that are mixed are MMA

I think that this would be a better example, since it's already a 'hybrid' style and yet there would be people still arguing that without crosstraining in Muay Thai, the SAMBOist's striking would be inferior.
Mostly argued by the TapOut crowd, who think that 'MMA' automatically translate to Muay Thai + Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

[Matt Phillips]

Fine, I understand all that, but the example sentence you invented did not evidence semantic confusion. A relevant one would have been:

"You're not allowed to fight MMA, you only know Judo!"

That works. I was trying to ape the kinds of things posters say, as opposed to someone from the commission.

[Matt Phillips]

I think that this would be a better example, since it's already a 'hybrid' style and yet there would be people still arguing that without crosstraining in Muay Thai, the SAMBOist's striking would be inferior.
Mostly argued by the TapOut crowd, who think that 'MMA' automatically translate to Muay Thai + Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

Yes. This is one that I forgot to put up:

That's not MMA! One guy does Combat Sambo and the other is a damn Daidojuku guy. Single styles don't work in MMA.

This one covers both assuming that "MMA" requires any specific mix, and assuming that a single style can not already be 'mixed'

I suppose it also covers the misguided idea that the efficacy of a thing determines whether or not it gets to be called by a certain name. If one is going to define 'MMA' simply as 'all the good stuff that works' from the outset, then there is not much for the other guy to say.

There is something similar that comes from the BJJ crowd (more often than not the GJJ camp) that goes something like this:

You can not defeat Gracie Jiu-Jitsu because every effective technique is in our system, so if you defeat me you either did it with no technique at all, or you used Gracie Jiu-Jitsu to do it. Gracie Jiu-Jitsu can not be defeated.

Bundling infallibility in to the definition of a term trivializes any discussion of contests involving that thing.

[Tom Kagan]

I think that this would be a better example, since it's already a 'hybrid' style and yet there would be people still arguing that without crosstraining in Muay Thai, the SAMBOist's striking would be inferior.
Mostly argued by the TapOut crowd, who think that 'MMA' automatically translate to Muay Thai + Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.

I think we should try to stick to the semantic argument traps without getting into issues which are merely ignorant stupidity - those might require other tactics more suited to YMAS.