So what happened to the arts?
With the climactic rise of the MMA scene, where is the focus on traditional values and lessons that are supposed to be the heart and soul of martial arts? The headlines read "Mixed Martial Arts", but I would tend to disagree. Maybe a better title would be "Mixed Martial Fighting" or "Let's Get People to Beat Each Other Up For Money".
Don't get me wrong, I am just like most when it comes to watching, analyzing and critiquing MMA. I love the recent popularity that the UFC has gained and I think it is well earned. But let’s get one thing clear, this form of competition does not represent Martial Arts.
It represents sports. It also represents large end promotional deals that seem larger than life (any one remember Don King in the 80's). For what it is and for what it represents, there is no other spectacle that even comes close. This is the future of sports, that much is clear.
Under the guise that MMA is a representative of traditional fighting techniques, it seems people forgot the history involved. When the UFC started it was a tournament.
Today's Must Reads
It was nothing more than the collision of styles. Is Kung-Fu better than Karate in a (some-what) no holds barred event. The entire spectacle was based off of these questions. One can argue that at this point, it was a good representation of what Martial Arts competitions should be. And then everything changed......
Along comes Royce Gracie and the game changed forever. Tactics and the mentality of superior fighting techniques evolved. With pioneers such as Ken Shamrock, Dan Severn and Keith Hackney (who showed that an average sized man can bring down a giant like Emanuel Yarbrough. And he didn't even use any joint locks or single leg takedowns.... imagine that) the fight game started to become altered.
The questions where answered. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu was king. Strength was over rated and if you wanted to be successful, you better know how to fight on the ground. This is when it all began.
Fast forward a few years and you see the transition to striking and take down defense. If he can’t take me down, I can beat him with punches, kicks and knees. So there you have it…… today’s MMA. Either you are great on the ground, or you are great at not being taken to the ground. Punch, kick, shoot, stuff the take down; this is not what Martial Arts represent. This is sport. Period.
Is MMA impressive and fun to watch, absolutely! Is MMA a true representation of Martial Arts in its full capacity…… not even close!
Obviously there needs to be an evolution to anything. This current fighting style proves that. The question is, did the evolution represent the natural progression of thousands of years of tradition or does this evolution revolve around the need for competitive sport, money and notoriety?
comments (4) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
The sport has evovled based on effectiveness.
What really works has stuck around and what doesn't hasn't.
A straight BJJ artist like Royce gets beat by today's fighters hands down. You have to have a stand up game as people have become more skilled at avoiding the takedown.
A straight boxer or kickboxer like Antoni Hardonk gets killed by anyone with any sort of takedown ability (and not named Eddie Sanchez).
The "art" aspect is still there. Asking where it's goine is like asking why all new bands don't sound like the Beatles.
from about 1 month ago
Amen Matt. And what's with the influx of all the recent articles questioning the sporting and artistic aspects of MMA?
So Jason, would you prefer a return to the UFC 1 days where the only two rules where no biting and no eye gouging? You do have a point though, because Rorion Gracie helped create the UFC as an advertisement for BJJ as the best fighting art in the world. He got out when others realized that a lot of money could be made, and that rules needed to be introduced which did not favour jiu-jitsu fighters.
And right now, just like any other sport, MMA is about making money for the owners and promoters. But I ask you: what is a true representation of martial arts in its full capacity? At one point in history, Eastern Martial Arts were lethal and something to be feared, but have been watered down in order for dojo's to make a profit. MMA and people like Bruce Lee have exposed them, and shown that practicality and efficiency should be at the heart of any martial arts stye. What are your ideas to improve the situation Jason?
Tradition should not be adhered to just for the sake of tradition, otherwise it grows stale and antiquated. The evolution of combat arts has been a long and inevitable process, and MMA has shown what techniques are truly effective in a fight. The torch has been passed.
about 1 month ago
Nice points. However, I would disagree that this is an evolution of Martial Arts. Lets say you want to become a higher echelon practitioner of any given martial art, there are several aspects that are focused on besides hit, kick, take down.
There are self discipline, respect, history, confidence and tradition aspects that have always been the foundation of great martial art practitioners. I would argue that the majority of the "arts" aspect has given way to the new era of sport fighting. How can one proclaim that they are a martial artist when there is no attention given to history or tradition.
I can see giving exceptions to fighters who have dedicated enough time to earn legitimate black belts. Fighters that seek out MMA training do not belong in the same category. Should wrestlers be classified as Martial Artists?
As for:
"The "art" aspect is still there. Asking where it's going is like asking why all new bands don't sound like the Beatles" (from previous comment); is all music worthy of being classified as such?
We have all heard crap that has been mass produced and promoted as if it were worthy of being in the same category as say....... the Beatles. Most bands are not there. I guess another example would be athlete classification. Is a football player more of an athlete than a race car driver. It depends on your view of what an athlete is. I believe that a martial artist and a sport fighter have two different classifications.
Bottom line, it is not the same. Is it a branch off of the martial arts tree, I suppose. Is it the same thing, no it's not.
about 1 month ago
I see what you're getting at. But you cannot forget about the word "martial" in martial arts. It literally means pertaining to the soldier or war, as in "warlike," or the "arts of war." Martial arts were developed for combat situations and defense against aggressors, and that is their first priority. The other benefits, be they spiritual, psychological, personal, etc., were secondary to the goal of defeating your opponent.
Historically, certain practioners were very lethal warriors who used their art for self-defence, war, or sporting competition. I believe that the true test for any martial art is how it holds up in the cage or on the battlefield. MMA has shown us the arts that are truly viable in a one-one situation. This is not to say that there are no other benefits to training in martial arts, or that you should only take them if you want to become a great fighter. Also, for most arts, adherence to tradition and respect for the history of the art and its masters is obviously an important component.
However, for those who make a living by fighting in the cage, they need to do whatever it takes to win. And MMA is a business, just like the NFL or NBA. But I do agree with your definition of "sporting arts" and more traditional "martial arts," that is, those arts (Karate, Taekwondo, etc.) that have a long heritage and adhere closely to the principles that you mentioned. But the point is that in the world of MMA, the sporting arts, that is, the ones designed specifically for success in the cage, will win out over the traditional martial arts, because the former are usually a lot more effective and practical in combat situations.
The "martial" aspect of combat arts has moved from the battlefield to the cage, but one can still derive a great many benefits from studying TMA's in their own right, with adherence to all the classical principles. So maybe there is no evolution of martial arts, but a split into those more useful for sporting competitions and those that are taken primarily for other advantages that they bestow upon the practitioner. And who says you can't have it both ways?
write a new comment