Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
It's strange, Uke. I think that concern with how one art stacks up against another is both the single greatest failing and the single greatest strength within the martial arts world. It's a paradox, I know, but think about it. By being so concerned about which art or style is better, you get a collection of people who'll likely never reach any measure of their potential because they're always doubting their own path. You also develop the mindset that it must be one way or another. Asking which style is better assumes that one must be worse, and that keeps people from taking what works for them from anywhere they find it. That is, after all, what any real warrior throughout history has done, isn't it? Learned anything that would give him an advantage in battle, regardless of where it came from?
At the same time, competition spurs evolution. We wouldn't see nearly as many people cross training and trying to become well-rounded fighters today were it not for MMA popping up. Bruce Lee tried it, but even he couldn't win over the masses like MMA did. Now everyone - even non-fighters - will tell you you have to be well rounded to win a fight. They're still in competition mindset, but it's a step in the right direction. After all, I think we can both agree that there's no fightsport more limited by the rules of its conduct than boxing, but we can both still get on board there, right? Why should MMA be any different? It encourages people to "mix" their martial arts, and I think in the long run, that's a good thing.
This topic is getting interesting...
|
A couple of things.
I am not discussing what is
better. I am pointing out some details to those who preach that MMA is the sum of all combat.
Warriors have learned what will help them in combat. But being that it is the consensus that MMA is not combat, but a sportive mock-reality event that pits kickboxers against each other with an element of ground submission wrestling, this becomes a point to debate only if we wish to waste each other's time.
Competition does NOT spur evolution, Mike Brewer. Necessity does. That's why you haven't seen any changes in MMA since NHB events spawned it. The entire reason that MMA came to be is because fighters needed a way to be able to find a way to deal with brazilian jujitsu while continuing to hone their stand up skills. Hence, the crash course that is MMA was born. But you haven't seen any innovations since because there was no need for one. That's why SD and UC systems are much more intricate, thorough and practical. Systems like FMA were fighting against knives, which meant they were fighting for survival. Not some quick fix answer to do better in mock competitions.
Its a known fact that when there is a necessity, an art will evolve and flourish to meet the needs of the people. Judo was brutal until Kano refined it and made it sportive. Aikijitsu was a maiming art before Ueshiba found religion and made it Aikido. Karate was a vicious fighting style where everything was full contact and the sparring alone was as intense as today's MMA. Now we're just talking about the sparring.
Last but not least, the creators of MMA did not do what Bruce Lee was attempting to do. Actually, they're doing the opposite. Bruce was an advocate of each man finding his own way, and his own methods while adhering to certain scientific and common sense principles. When you look at Bruce's students, their movements were different because they had different body types. You can't teach Kareem Abdul Jabbar to fight like Dan Inosanto, because they're two way different body types with different attributes. People are unique. So, he enhanced what was strong about those men and attempted to compensate for what was weak. MMA just teaches kickboxing with some submission wrestling, and because those two ranges are different they called it mixed martial arts. Its hardly the same thing.
In eclectic arts, the system may borrow certain strikes and techniques from other styles, but the methods are completely different. Just because a style uses a low thai roundhouse or knees doesn't mean that your approach to fighting will be that of a thai fighter. Just because you system uses hooks and uppercuts doesn't mean that you use a boxer's approach to fighting.
In MMA, when they adopt techniques, they also adopt the approach of using the technique from the system of its origin. If they want to call it reality, they should make the ring the size of an office elevator. They should have to stay in close quarters and forget about the posturing bullshit, because in the street there is no range except for CQ unless you're in a shoot out. But guess what? That would take away the entertainment value and they would lose money. And in the end, that's what its all about to the men who own these events.