Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Official MMA curriculum, good idea or not?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Official MMA curriculum, good idea or not?

    This is a something I've been thinking about lately, and may sound noobish on my part, but still...

    I glanced over this thread:

    http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66023

    And this one:

    http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show....php?p=2224311

    And it seems there is no official governing body for MMA. This means that there's no official MMA curriculum neither.

    I don't know about other countries, but in Spain there is no official MMA federation. That means there aren't officialy appointed instructors and in most of the gyms that claimed to teach MMA I've seen, instructors fell in one of these cathegories:

    -Somebody with a stand-up background in kickboxing or MT with a blue or purple belt in BJJ tops.

    -Somebody with a background in BJJ, this time maybe even a black belt, with a little striking training.

    That means the curriculum of what you're learning greatly varies depending on the place you're training. Well, there are a few quality gyms out there, mind you.

    I was wondering if having an official federation and a sanctioned, methodized curriculum would benefit the quality of MMA teaching. Provided that it wouldn't prevent students and instructor from corsstraining to improve their game, of course.

    Of course, an official curriculum woould eventually weed out some techniques, and depending on where you're training, it could mean less overall arsenal.

    But on the other hand, a methodized step-by-step program would improve the teaching quality, instead of throwing in a bunch of stuff together, that seems to be the norm around here.

    Now, mind you, I'm not advocating the use of "belts" or "ranks" in MMA, if I were to made it, I'd just put two ranks: "student" and "instructor". To attain the "instructor" rank, there could be a test on skill and ophysical attributres, like, I don't know, x mins of jump rope, x timed push ups, x timed jumping jacks and x timed pull ups, for example. Much like the physical tests they put in the police, military and firefighter bodies.

    And to top it off, a sparring match with protections in which the testees should demostrate skill in stand-up and groundfighting.

    So, to sum it up, I have arguments por and against this:

    Pros:
    -An official sanctioned curriculum would standarize the basic teaching. That wouldn't prevent people to crosstraing to improve their game.
    -That would also prevent ex-kickboxers who recently started BJJ to teach "MMA" usually with sub-par grappling... or the other way around.
    -Since not everybody can spot bullshit when it comes to MA when they see it at first, a federate instructor would ensue quality teaching, if properly done, of course.

    Cons:
    -That would lead MMA open for "lineage wars" and politics awarding ranks and the like. Expect several federations splitting up, altrough this usually happens more in TMA, at least, in Spain.
    -It is not an easy task to make a curriculum out of the wide array of techniques available for MMA, probably much would be left out, specially regarding grappling, how many and which submissions would be part of it? RNC, triangle, armbar an kimura? More? Less? Leglocks too? How many and which throws and takedowns?
    -As I said, that wouldn't prevent students and instructors to crosstrain to improve their game. In this circumstance, wouldn't that leave an official MMA curriculum pointless?
    -Of course, I'm not saying that the curriculum should be cast in stone. It could be open to evolve an incorporate new techniques. But in this case, again, not only it would be pointless, but expect over-priced "recycling" seminars and the like.

    And I guess there's many more pros and cons to this.

    I've still yet to make my mind on this. It all sums up to me thinking that and official federation and official curriculum would help spread MMA and standarize the teaching quality, but I beleive there are some risks to it actually favoring McDojo-ism practices, and weeding out too much of what currently is being taught.

    I'm interested in hearing everybody's thoughts on this.

    #2
    Oh my God its all sound a bit Jeet Kune Do!!!!!!!!

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Da Pope View Post
      Oh my God its all sound a bit Jeet Kune Do!!!!!!!!
      WHAT?????

      Comment


        #4
        MMA has the best verification system out there. You get in a cage and test it. No belts, no bullshit, no federation needed.

        Comment


          #5
          what he said

          :-)

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Tom .C View Post
            MMA has the best verification system out there. You get in a cage and test it. No belts, no bullshit, no federation needed.

            You have a point, but that was not exactly what I was talking about.

            "Boxing/kickboxing/MT has the best verification system out there. You get in a ring and test is. No belts, no bullshit, no federation needed".

            See what I mean? I'm not saying you have to chose one over the other.

            I was wondering if a federation and an official curriculum would benefit of hurt MMA, in terms of spreading and standarizing the teaching.

            There ara a bunch of styles out there with a standarized curriculum and so far, it hasn't hurt them.

            I guess, what i'm basically saying is: would it be good to standarize MMA as a style inestead of it being a way of training, in terms of spreading and getting some guarantee about the teaching quality? Or are things just as good as they are now?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Lights Out View Post
              I guess, what i'm basically saying is: would it be good to standarize MMA as a style inestead of it being a way of training, in terms of spreading and getting some guarantee about the teaching quality? Or are things just as good as they are now?
              But MMA isn't a style, nor is it a training method. It's a rule-set.

              You can use whatever training methodology you like, and whatever techniques fall within the rules, and your record will draw in the people worth teaching. As long as your training is effective nothing else really matters.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Eudemic View Post
                But MMA isn't a style, nor is it a training method. It's a rule-set.
                Yeah, but you could say that boxing is also a ruleset. Nobody prevents, say, karate practitioners from entering a boxing match, as long as they abide by the rules. Of course, it wouldn't be wise for them to enter such a match with only karate as training.

                MMA is a ruleset, but that doesn't mean you cannot make up a training method/style to match that ruleset. And that means it could be possible to create an official curriculum based on it.

                Originally posted by Eudemic View Post
                You can use whatever training methodology you like, and whatever techniques fall within the rules, and your record will draw in the people worth teaching. As long as your training is effective nothing else really matters.
                I understand your point, but is not like elite fighters are to be found under the rocks here. There's too many people jumping on the MMA wagon and not too many fights to see what any instreuctor is worth. what I mean is some people are already teaching "MMA", in the same way that some people are teaching "boxing", "karate" or whatever.

                Not to get all zen-ish, but if MMA is not a style, can it really be taught?

                Damm, now it really starts sounding like JKD.

                Comment


                  #9
                  This may be a transatlantic communications thing. I don't think we have "official curricula" for any combat sport except sorta kinda judo over here. There are systematized training programs for MMA out there. SBGI for one, and I think Miletich and others have similar. But nothing coming from a governing body.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Lights Out View Post
                    what I mean is some people are already teaching "MMA", in the same way that some people are teaching "boxing", "karate" or whatever.

                    In most cases when a school is advertising that it teaches "MMA" it generally consists of a mixture of both submission fighting and striking skills.....

                    Besides the majority of people who would want to learn MMA have a knowledge of what it is about and what it should consist of, if they find that one area is lacking in their training they can easily supplement that....

                    Having a governing body would be overkill.....IMO

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Lights Out View Post
                      Not to get all zen-ish, but if MMA is not a style, can it really be taught?
                      MMA IMO is simply a word given to a collection of proven combative skills and techniques.....Using the word MMA from an instructional side is just an easy way of saying that you offer a training form that using a cross reference of fighting elements including techniques from:

                      "Boxing/Kickboxing/MuayThai/BJJ/SubmissionWrestling/Judo/Sambo/...etcetc"

                      MMA is just sure as shit easier to say.....

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Lights Out View Post


                        I understand your point, but is not like elite fighters are to be found under the rocks here. There's too many people jumping on the MMA wagon and not too many fights to see what any instreuctor is worth. what I mean is some people are already teaching "MMA", in the same way that some people are teaching "boxing", "karate" or whatever.
                        Sounds to me like your time/effort would be better spent trying to get more events and fights organized, rather than trying to intervene(interfere?) with other people's training.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by HappyOldGuy View Post
                          This may be a transatlantic communications thing. I don't think we have "official curricula" for any combat sport except sorta kinda judo over here. There are systematized training programs for MMA out there. SBGI for one, and I think Miletich and others have similar. But nothing coming from a governing body.
                          Combat sporst are in rags over here (in Spain, I mean), and MMA are no exception.

                          Yeah, I wouldn't wonder about this issue if I had a few gyms offering good quality instruction, but nowadyas I'd say most "MMA" gyms lack quality. As I said, most of them are taught by people who do not have the skills, rank or reputation to teach either kickboxing or BJJ. That's a generalization, but overall, good quality gyms are scarce.

                          What I was wondering is, if given these conditions, a governing body could help or harm even more.

                          Mind you, not everybody who teaches boxing, karate or kickboxing over here is a federated instructor. But more often than not, the best quality gyms have federated instructors. And usually they have systematized curricula, altrough I'm not sure about the specifics for each, of course.

                          Originally posted by Eudemic
                          Sounds to me like your time/effort would be better spent trying to get more events and fights organized, rather than trying to intervene(interfere?) with other people's training.
                          I'm not proposing banning or forbiding certain techniques which fall within the ruleset. What I'm asking is if a government body could raise the standars when it comes to teaching, by certifying instructors according to a curriculum or whatver standards.

                          Originally posted by sainthamish
                          MMA IMO is simply a word given to a collection of proven combative skills and techniques.....Using the word MMA from an instructional side is just an easy way of saying that you offer a training form that using a cross reference of fighting elements including techniques from:

                          "Boxing/Kickboxing/MuayThai/BJJ/SubmissionWrestling/Judo/Sambo/...etcetc"

                          MMA is just sure as shit easier to say.....
                          Well, at least so far seems that MMA is defined by its own indefinition.

                          So far it seems that the majority beleives a government body and an official curriculum would do more harm than good.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Training curriculum for you and your fellows = good

                            Trying to "codify" martial arts = bad

                            Honestly, you can't codify "MMA", because it's "Mixed Martial Arts" by definition. You can't tell people what to mix, defeats the purpose. You could combine Tai Chi, Capoeira, Taiko Drumming, and Marquis of Queensbury boxing, and still call it MMA. It would probably suck, but it would be MMA.

                            This idea is actually pretty old. They used to call them "Hybrid Martial Arts", now it's "Mixed Martial Arts". Same thing, different synonym.

                            In fact, read Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kun Do. This argument is at least that old.

                            JKD, and Hybrids (MMA) were developed to overcome the weaknesses inherent in rigid (codified) styles. Make them rigid again, and your back at square one. JMHO.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Mr. Machette View Post
                              JKD, and Hybrids (MMA) were developed to overcome the weaknesses inherent in rigid (codified) styles. Make them rigid again, and your back at square one. JMHO.
                              Pretty much that is my major concern regarding this issue.

                              I wasn't so much thinking about making a cast-in-stone curriculum as having a way to certify teachers in order to ensure quality.

                              But I concede that it is hardly possible to have one without the other.

                              EDIT: And yes, I've read Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kun Do many years ago.

                              Comment

                              Collapse

                              Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                              Working...
                              X