Talk:Mixed martial arts/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Definition needs work

It's a growing misconception that mixed martial arts refers to the amalgamation of various martial arts. For example if tae kwon do was crossed with karate it wouldn't be considered a mixed martial art. Furthermore most martial arts have the same techniques(e.g. back fist, round house kick etc.) It's the execution of the technique and deciding when to use them that distinguishes different martial arts. It doesn't really make sense to talk about mixed martial arts like that, it's not like karate didn't have a type of punch so they took it from tae kwon do. Mixed martial arts sort of refers to certain styles of combat sports, for example it's common for mixed martial artists to train in boxing (which isn't a martial art) but is rare for a mixed martial artist to train in wing chung.

EDIT: it is wrong to say that mixed martial arts has more moves than martial arts, for example there is no eye gouging, groin strikes, striking at joints, and no open handed techniques in mixed martial arts. Novelideas (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this?

The article starts with The roots of modern mixed martial arts can be traced back blah blah blah... yeah, but what IS mixed martial arts? a style? an association? I wanted to know, and I still don't know... --Azarien (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

MMA is a combat sport. The fighters train and utilize many different types of martial arts in their fighting (eg. Muay Thai, Boxing, Karate, Judo, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Wrestling etc.) and hence the name of the sport, "mixed martial arts." It is not just a style; it's the name for the entire sport. MMA does not stand for any one association. There are many different promotions (eg. UFC, Strikeforce, Bellator etc).
Please feel free to edit. Thank you. --Farah-baleine (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fatality Rate section is pure propaganda/rhetoric

First of all the Fatality Rate for MMA shouldn't open with a parapgraph bashing boxing. Second when it does mention the deaths in MMA it immediately explains them away. Not no-pov at all. Useless pointless section. 86.43.192.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC).


Information about MMA Organizations?/ MMA-organizations history : suggestions for text, and section-titles

This may be wishful thinking, but if you come to this article to read about MMA, you don't get a sense of how many MMA organizations there are, and their size. Now I agree that the list at the bottom of the article is useful reference, but it would be nice to have a paragraph or a link to an article that gives a somewhat up to date overview of the current MMA organizations, their history and development, spheres of influence, and maybe size. In essence an overview of the organized sport as opposed to just the practice. I am thinking something along the lines as the "Organization in the United States" section in the American Football entry in the wiki. --128.103.235.157 (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one opposes the following, I suggest that anyone who has something to tell (as stated above), can double-click one of the "red links" below, and start writing.
The history of MMA-organizations or The evolution of MMA-organizations
Information that might be included :
  • A chronology section, with text similar to the following:
1993 ? : UFC 1 was held
2000: Smackgirl held its first event on December 5.
2006 ?: Pride ceased activities
2008: Elite XC ceased activities.
Other secions might include: "Largest promotions", "sanctioning bodies" Cheers, No fiction pls (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

MMA is not martial arts

First off it's not that mixed and they only give a few styles a chance to compete yet they claim to be the best martial art in the world, secondly MMA fighters have no honour or discipline, thirdly MMA has more rules than most other martial arts, and fourthly none of the fighters believe that qì (气)/ki (気)/gi (기) is real. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

First, if "it's not that mixed", you are in fact suggesting that it is mixed, but not that much. Second, your generalization that "MMA fighters have no honour..." is clearly an over-generalization. You must mean that NOT ALL MMA fighters have honor. That is also true of martial artists. Third, that MMA has "more rules than most" others, is suggesting that some martial arts have more rules than MMA. Fourth, some martial arts don't believe in qi. So, in every point you made, you have not distinguished how MMA is not a martial art. Tparameter (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Any style can compete, but only a few have proved effective; See UFC 1-5.
  2. Honour is a complex concept and to state that an entire category of people have none without evidence is both naive and dishonourable.
  3. 'Most' is again complicated, could you give a list of rules for say; Taekwondo, karate, judo, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Muy Thai, tai chi, wing chun, kobudo, glima, boxing and wrestling and 10 of your choice for comparison?. MMA has fewer restrictions, but each is stated explicitly rather than. e.g. "you may not strike an opponent" is far more restrictive but removes the need have rules specifying when and where you can and can't strike.
  4. Have you asked them? I am sure that many believe in "breath" and others may well believe in a philosophical concept of energy flow.
Non of which would prevent it being a martial art. However, it's not a martial art but a combat sport that uses mixture martial arts. Regards --Nate1481(t/c) 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it called MMA?

All of the moves aren't martial arts moves. Are people trying to say that every punch, kick and grapple ever is martial arts? I understand that the martial arts are popular but why are people making it seem like fighting in general is some asian inspired thing to do? I doubt people learned to fight from asians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CN Guy (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, every strike, block, and grab are parts of martial arts. Martial arts is a general term that does not necessarily mean anything Asian, as fencing, boxing, wrestling, savate, pankration, etc. are all martial arts that have nothing to do with Asian culture. See Historical European martial arts. hateless 19:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Look at what people train to fight i.e. Martial arts! Please read that article and do some background reading. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't mixed martial arts

It's ultimate fighting. 63.227.6.162 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So why do the UFC call it that? --Nate1481(t/c) 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Look in a dictionary for the words mixed, martial, and arts. This resembles none of those words. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Lets try:

mixed: Adjective (comparative more mixed, superlative most mixed)

  1. Having two or more separate aspects.
    I get a very mixed feeling from this painting.
  2. Not completely pure.
    My joy was somewhat mixed when my girlfriend said she was pregnant; it's a lot of responsibility.
  3. Including both men and women.
    The tennis match was mixed with a male and a female on each side.
    My son attends a mixed school, unlike my daughter, who goes to the local all-girl grammar school.
1 Would seem to cover it, as a key part of the sport is the multiple aspects.

martial: Adjective

  1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war; warlike.
  2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms or military life.
  3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior; having a military bearing; soldierly, soldierlike, warriorlike.

Derived terms

  • court martial
  • martial art
  • martialism
  • martialist
  • martial law
  • martially
Take your pick; for 1 fighting is very 'warlike'; for 2 MMA is used in training by several militaries; and for 3 MMA fighter are frequenly refered to as warriors. Also note that 'martial art' is listed as a derived term.

arts: Noun - Plural form of art: Noun art (countable and uncountable; plural arts)

  1. (uncountable) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
  2. (uncountable) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colours, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
  3. (uncountable) Activity intended to make something special
  4. (uncountable) A recreation of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgements
  5. (uncountable) The study and the product of these processes.
  6. (uncountable) Aesthetic value.
  7. (uncountable, printing) Artwork.
  8. (countable) A field or category of art, such as painting, sculpture, music, ballet, or literature.
  9. (countable) A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
  10. (countable) Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation.

Derived terms

  • arts and crafts
  • fine arts
  • martial arts
I think 5 and 10 are both highly relevent, while 3, 6 or 9 could all be argued.
As mentioned 'martial art' is a term in its self so:

Marital arts: Noun (plural martial arts)

  1. Commonly, any of several fighting styles which contain systematised methods of training for combat, both armed and unarmed; often practised as a sport, e.g. boxing, karate, judo, Silat, wrestling, or Muay Thai. Can also include military tactics such as infantry manoeuvres, aerial combat, and so on.
Fighting and sport both mentioned.
So what was your point exactly? --Nate1481(t/c) 13:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

Should we add an FAQ section at the top of this page to stop that average requirement of an explanation once a month? --Nate1481(t/c) 10:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neigong, Soft Style: MMA is still "not mixed enough"?

First of all, MMA is martial arts, no doubt. However, the writier in the section "This isn't mixed martial arts" raised an interesting issue at point 4: about qi and its relevance in MMA. It seems to me that during the history development of MMA, the styles that were competing against each other were not widespread enough. In particular, Chinese internal martial arts (Neijia) were lacking, the soft style Tai Chi Chuan, for example, was not there. The current MMA competition should be precisely called "MIXED EXTERNAL, HARD-STYLE MARTIAL ARTS".

Many people believe MMA is the ultimate form of martial arts and those practicing this one are the best fighters in the world. I challenge this view because:

1)Even as an external, hard-style martial arts, the MMA is not mixed enough because Shaolin (the most prestigious one of China) was probably never included in the competition. Especially, the lethal nerve-striking technique (powerful to kill quickly, and considered unethical, only to be used in extreme situations) were not included in the competition.

2)The lack of neigong styles and soft styles, which I believe are more powerful than external strength plus hard style, makes this competition even more "not mixed enough".

Therefore, MMA fighters are not necessary practitioners of the best fighting system. Anyway, thanks to the media and the marketing of this competition, many people of these days consider them the best fighters in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things: you're responding to a discussion from over 2 years ago; I don't think the issue is still relevant; if you want to re-raise it, I'd do so at the end of the article. Second, WP:NOTAFORUM states that Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss topics--it's only a place to discuss how to improved the article.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Legality in Different Countries

I think it would be interesting to have information about whether or not MMA is legal in various countries. I heard it's illegal in France but they're thinking of changing the law or something. Ben 2082 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Seems like a good idea anyone have any sources we could use to start with? --Nate1481(t/c) 10:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)r

In Norway, there are no laws mentioning MMA. However,no sanctioned fights have been held.
(Norway still has a ban on professional boxing.)
MMA-professionals who live in Norway, compete in other countries.
The article could probably be improved with various lists, possibly including:
  • Nations, if any, where MMA is outlawed.
  • Nations that have professional MMA-fighters, but where sanctioned fights have not taken place. (Norway ought to be on such a list.)
No fiction pls (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

I've begun what I intend to be a minor overhaul of the article. It will be primarily tone-related but I want to reorganize the sections to be a bit more intuitive, as well as shortening the overall length. I'd appreciate feedback (I've done the intro) - BenTrotsky (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC) the intro, Overview, History, Safety to my satisfaction. Looking at ways to drastically shorten Rules and reorganize Phases of combat - BenTrotsky (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done - BenTrotsky (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is the rules section? It was too long as we now have a separate article, but rules need a mention and the new article linked --Nate1481(t/c) 12:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I linked it under Overview (which had a long spiel about rules to begin with). If that's not an appropriate place for it, feel free to change. BenTrotsky (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think our goal should be to break apart the overview section into other sections or merged into others. The intro section should be the overview. hateless 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased rules

Should it be noted in the article that one of the main reasons for grappling heavy styles early dominance in MMA was due to the rules being heavily weighted against strikers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.245.138 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think biased is the right term, and while I agree (To an extent), you would probably have to show this with citations for examples. Good claim: No support (At least right now). Final justice (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.completemartialarts.com/whoswho/ufc/ufcrules.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.245.138 (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Two points; One, those are the current rules, not those used in the early UFC's; Two a list of rules is not a source for that claim, the rules are just facts, to source that claim you would need to find a commentary on them that support you.. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
When somebody is getting pounded they can just give their opponent no other opening besides the back of their head, then the referee breaks it up. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not true. hateless 23:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring how difficult it is not to leave the body open as a target, deliberately turning the back of your head will get you warned then the ref will break them up by stopping the fight. as turning the back of the head deliberately is 'not intelligently defending' yourself. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
example: If someone goes for a shoot, which is pretty common, the rules prevent almost all normal strike based counters, since you cant strike the back of the head/back/neck, and that's all you can get to while on your feet. This makes a shoot a far safer attack than it normally would be, which unbalences things.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.245.138 (talk • contribs)
So what about the knee to the head that has knocked out several fighters? Look there are rules in favour of grapplers and those in favour of strikers, most fighters who prefer grappling would rather stay on the ground & work slowly but they are frequently stood up if the ref feels their is insufficient action. You know why strikes to the back of the head are restricted right? --Nate1481(t/c) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
care to name a single rule that's in favour of strikers? I'm not trying to be a bitch here, but as someone who uses a lot of strikes (in addition to locks, throws & chokes), seeing the resctirtions placed in the UFC really did seem to stand out as biased. I'm not saying that it's an insurmountable bias, but a bias none the less.
Stand up rules, as I just mentioned. encourage lay & pray tactics if taken down, get in to a minimal damage position & wait, no spiking could be argued and gloves make some locks harder to impossible --Nate1481(t/c) 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, waiting is never encouraged as it gets the fight stood up. I don't believe you have ever fought, as you would understand that favorably you would want to get to side control or more specifically mount, which is a very advantageous position. The point system rewards you for this transition, and it gives you a chance to dominate striking. Also, to the user speaking about how you would 'normally' strike to the back of the head upon shooting - this is incorrect. There is no strike that comes from the top down that will generate enough force to damage your opponent while shooting. In fact - shooting happens much more quickly to the fighters than it seems on TV, and most times an uppercut, hook, or knee(as the person a couple posts up mentioned) should be thrown not when the shot is seen, but in anticipation as part of a high combo - this is the time when most shots accur. Also, I can't think of any submission I have ever learned that was made harder by a glove. Gloves actually give an advantage for neary all locks, because they help in negating the effects of sweat, and give a grip boost.71.197.20.184 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Never Back down

I think someone should put a link in to the never back down page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Back_Down_(2008_film) as its all about MMA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natterz 666 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NBD was a movie that made MMA look bad! It made it look like all fighters are street fighters. It had made MMA its core, but the main story line was based around two guys getting in to two street fights, not officially sanctioned fights. Till now the only street fighter has been Kimbo Slice, and he didn't do so well against a professional trained MMA fighter. --EHDI5YS (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsantioned fights at parties between pretty teenagers with bad, slow choreography are not MMA. MMA fighters are real martial Artists, not social outcasts trying to get girls and beat up rich kid bullies. They fight for Money, championships, and the love of Martial Arts. If anything, there should be a section containing the movie, telling about the ways other markets have tried to capitalize on MMA popularity.71.197.20.184 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Three deaths

Rolling Stone says there's been three deaths in MMA... one of them was Sam Vasquez, and the other two were outside of the US. We can assume Dedge was one of them.. anyone know who the third guys was? The article in question is here: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/20979941/how_dangerous_is_mma/2 hateless 08:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole "Safety" section I think needs a deletion/rewrite. The two fatalities associated with regulated MMA are Sam Vasquez and Michael Kirkham. The other two mentioned in the article were from unregulated events, which is basically the equivalent of streetfighting with admission. Any objections if I make the change? (PS. That rollingstone URL doesn't work) 96.26.62.39 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lay and pray

No such style. If you mean effective wrestling then say that. Might as well put Evade and Trade for Machida and Kalib Starnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.100.27 (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Rogan as a source?

Since when has a commentator been a reliable source of historic significance? MPA 13:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Rogan isn't really a valid source for that statement. Rogan is an expert in martial arts practice, but not in martial arts history. hateless 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Guys, MMA is a fairly new sport. The sport started around 1982 - 1984 as pure Vale Tudo from Brazil to Mexico and The United States. Japan, Hawaii, and a few other places around the world started Vale Tudo after the news reached them about what was going on in Brazil.
Now I am not a fan at ALL of Joe Rogan. I find him VERY annoying sometimes and my woman has a crush on him, lol. However, he has been a part of Vale-Tudo/M.M.A. since it started. He is a valid M.M.A. historian, as he has access to people and information no one else can get access to. I would have to say that I think Rogan should be considered a valid source of information. If you can cross check the information and get some supporting evidence, then his information should be taken as seriously as possible. Understand that he also is an expert in practice, BECAUSE he had been a fan of the sport the entire time. He IS a living encyclopedia of the sport. Bastard, lol. TheСyndicate 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.188.221 (talk)
First off, read the article, the sport has its roots in 600 BC, and Rogan is not that old. Hell, Vale Tudo is from the 1920's, and Rogan is still not that old. But still, being an actual historian is more than just "living" through the period, there's actual work that needs to be done, and Rogan has no credentials. hateless 10:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture in rules section

They don't tape their hands when using MMA-gloves so I think the picture should be replaced/removed. --Aktsu (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In training or amateur fights no, but in pro fight they do, there are loads on dressing room scenes pre fight for the UFC that show this. Even in amateur fights wearing wraps is common. --Nate1481(t/c) 15:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Doh, you are of course right , I didn't recall those. Nevermind then! :P --Aktsu (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn UFC 4.jpg

The image Image:Royce Gracie vs Dan Severn UFC 4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fighting Styles

I oppose the use of the nick names such as "sprawl and brawl" and "clinch fighting" as strategies. Sprawl and brawl is not a hybrid style. Further, the term is rarely used and does little to inform the reader. Is Wanderlei Silva really a clinch fighter? I do not think so. I think the predominant disciplines should be discussed in this section -- BJJ, Muay Thai, Wrestling, Boxing. Then a discussion on how the evolution of the sport has led to most fighters training in a mixture of the disciplines. As it stands now, it is grotesquely misinforming.TheHammer24 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree - sprawl and brawl is an irrelevent term, and I think they confused Wanderlei Silve with Anderson Silva, because Wanderlei is not a clinch fighter.71.197.20.184 (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Women's role in this sport.

The following might contain text that could be included in article:

"Women's role in this sport.


Mixed Martial Arts in its current form is a relatively modern sport, and as with many full contact sports,[citation needed] fewer women are involved than men, the ones who have, have found it difficult getting a foot in the MMA federations.[citation needed] Women fighters are some of the lower paid competitors in this sport due to the possible backlash against women fighting. [citation needed]

Female MMA fighters are not allowed to compete in the leading fighting promotions, such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC).


There are female fighters in this sport. However, there are fewer tournaments for women, than for men." Lithmus Today (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I find the idea that Cris Cyborg has been left out of this section while there are several references to Gina Carano somewhat troubling, as it suggests the notion of celebrity is of more importance to the sport than actual athletic dominance.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "mixed martial arts"

Does anyone know when the term "mixed martial arts" was first used and by who? 88.91.221.47 (talk)

Probably coined by Jeff Blatnick.[1] hateless 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That will do as a source for me it will probalby start a debate but it will improve the article if we can get a source for an earlier usage --Nate1481 11:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is false. There is a new reference that attributes the term to the correct person and date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.109.254 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lee has nothing to do with MMA

Dana White is just a businessman,he's no part of early MMA history.

He's said Bruce Lee is "The Father of MMA" only because he has relationship with Shannon Lee and Bruce Lee foundation,he used Bruce Lee as a commercial propaganda.

The fact is Bruce Lee is just an actor,he did not do anything that improves modern MMA's development.

Those so called Bruce Lee's philosophy,they are so simple that even a kid can figure it out,actually Bruce Lee didn't even graduate from college.

It's a shame to put on an actor's name on MMA history just because he's famous.

History is not about who's famous,but who did the real things,which Bruce Lee is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.149.105.170 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Directly no, indirectly yes. Raising the profile of MA in general an introducing the concept of cross training to a broad audience were because of Bruce Lee the level and importance of this is entirely debatable. Dana's opinion as head of the largest MMA organisation in the world should be reported even if you dissagree or he is wrong. The best way to go abut change in the paragraph, is not to simply deleted it (without an explanation when I saw it) but to edit the text to put thes as dana's opinon and detail the other infulances, as I agree the setion as it is now is not the best version. --Nate1481 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate your advise.But I tell you what.You can check Bruce Lee's training video,he can't even punch,anybody learn boxing more than a month would have better punching skill than he does,how could anyone say he is the guy who introduced the concept of cross training?Do you really think there wasn't anybody on earth knows the concept of cross training before THE GREAT ACTOR Bruce Lee was born?I don't think so.Bruce Lee is a guy who can talk,but cannot fight.The concept of cross training is nothing until somebody's really going to do it and put them to the fight.The guy who's the real pioneer of MMA is the guy who's fighting,not the guy who's talking.

Another thing,from my IP you can see I'm from China.Since Bruce Lee was a Chinese American,he got tons of fans in China.As we all know China was not very good in MMA,MMA in China was just started yet.But the Americans,not all the Americans,at least Dana White did say Bruce Lee was the father of MMA,so those tons of Chinese Bruce Lee fans will say we Chinese are the motherland of MMA and say your Westerners are no match for us Chinese......It's really stupid,but it's true,most of Chinese think like this.I guess a real westerner won't like this,I'm not a westerner but I don't like this either,actually I can't bear this kind of disgrace to the truth.That's why I'm so persist on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.149.105.170 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't really feel the article overstates his significance as it stands right now (after Nate's edits). The four sentences it has now seems like the proper weight on the subject, though an explanation of exactly what Dana meant would probably be a good additions as to not misunderstand what his point was. --aktsu (t / c) 20:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, Bruce Lee was never merited with being a great fighter in terms of his inspiration of mma - it was mostly the facts that A: he suggested that tradiional Martial Arts were impractical as they stood, a view he took very much criticism for in the martial arts world, B: Only by achieving a 'mix' of all relevant styles is a fighter effective, and C: Resistance Training is indeed a valuable (though in his time thought to be hindering) asset to a martial artist's conditioning. Bruce Lee's ability has nothing to do with his philosophy - many of the worlds accredited thinkers and philosophers were credited just because they challenged popular belief, not because they were right in practice (which bruce lee's assumptions were found correct anyway). I do not agreee with the moniker "father of MMA" (as father suggests creator, and that title I believe should be reserved for certain brazilians, and vale tudo). Also, you say that Dana White is "Just a businessman". That is not true. Dana Whte is an ex-boxer who deserves every credit for changing MMA structure, taking UFC from a near-ruleless bar fight to a combat sport, and he single handedly changed public opinion about MMA. He created an organization that both inspires and allows people to follow their own path without criticism or serious risk. 71.197.20.184 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of skill, Bruce Lee is indeed one of the milestones in the progress of modernizing martial arts. He cross trained in martial arts like adopting boxing (he liked Ali's style and adopted it), savate (that may be where he got his infamous side kick from), wing chun (his base), judo (he rolled with Gene Lebell some months before he died. If you noticed in the beginning of Enter the Dragon, Bruce attempted an armbar), etc, so he was one of the pioneers of the "Mixed Martial Arts" concept. He also trains as an athlete who does martial arts as he compiled various strength, conditioning and speed training and routines that is beneficial for martial arts training which had been influential in modern martial artists and MMA fighter training. Like mentioned earlier, he also dismissed the limitations of many traditional martial arts for being ineffective and inefficient in modern combat, barely evolving; As the years gone by, he was right in the money as MMA fighters, military hand-to-hand instructors and self-defense experts can attest to what's effective in battle and what's not. If anything, Bruce Lee plays a large role to modern MMA as one of its major pioneers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.53.227 (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The sport has gained large amounts of criticism both within the United States but also abroad, particularly Australia. Many child psychology experts are pointing to links that suggest an increased rate of violence within children that watch and participate within the sport. Such is the levels of violence that law making authorities in many countries are considering imposing censors and limiting the viewing age of MMA and its other similar associated sports. The law making authorities are basing these laws on the need to protect child from increased violence. They hope that such censorship movements will reduce violence between children which has been in a rapid increase over the past decade. In London the government is considering not allowing live shows on the grounds that the sport is ‘barbaric’ and ‘deconstructive to a civilised society’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.185.241 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you add some sources for those? then adding them in would be good, as on a real world note, psychology experts have suggested that lots of thing lead to violence, including combat sport, computer games, films etc... all part of modern life, identifying a single cause is all but impossible as it is quite possibly a joint effect of some all or none. Adding in any claim of this source without the source is pure POV and should be expressed as an opinion of the source unless it's a study. --Nate1481 07:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's illegal for children to 'participate' in the sport. Also, the trend here is actually the opposite - many countries already have such bans, but are letting loose on their laws and allowing MMA to enter their countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.20.184 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There's obviously been a lot of criticism against MMA, no matter if it's on moral or medical grounds. The article really doesn't even hint at any controversy, but still has enough room to defend the sport by saying it's no more dangerous to your health than other sports. It's very easy to find plenty of criticism against the violence in MMA from a simple googling, including protests from politicians and doctors' associations:
I don't know if the gender role angle is quite as common, but there's bound to be plenty of criticism about how extremely macho MMA is. I don't know if it can actually be used as a source (being self-published), but there's a blog that has written a bit on this topic, including the sexism:
I also found a sociological article on MMA that might be useful:
Either way, though, this article can not be considered balanced if you choose to not include the controversy I'm quite sure you're all perfectly aware of. I believe this is serious enough to deserve a POV tag.
Peter Isotalo 10:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues

  • The introduction of the article emphasizes the existence of MMA as connected to ancient Greco-Wrestling ; the image needed to be more relevant towards the current theme of the article that which credits the original existence MMA to the ancient practice of Greco-Wrestling. This article serves to distinguish " MMA " it from the current Wikipedia article on " Martial Arts " . The old picture is more in regards to Jiu Jitsu and thus more or less does not relate to the current purpose of the article which seeks to credit the existence of MMA to that of Greco-Wrestling. Werger777 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In relating to the above topic the suggested image is File:Jon-jones-suplexes-stephan-bonnar.jpg

. Werger777 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Moved from /to do.
    ...no? The history section appropriately mentions some ties, but the focus of the article is definitely contemporary MMA (or should be anyway, if you feel it isn't). If you see any improvements to be made, please go ahead. --aktsu (t / c) 23:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the introduction to the article "emphasizes [a connection] to ancient Greco-Wrestling." I see a mention that a Greco-Wrestler coined the term to describe a sport that combines many different fighting elements. Copyright issues aside, I also believe the original picture to be better; in one snap-shop it contains several different aspects of mixed-martial arts (Wrestling/ground work, punching, Jiu-Jitsu). This is as opposed to the proposed picture which simply shows a wrestling move. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought Greco-Roman wrestling was a rule-set developed in the 19th centurty, that was only passingly related to ancient Greek wrestling, it is widly trianed for MMA & lotas of fighters have come from greco & freestyle backgrounds but linking it into the ancient history bit would be misleading --Nate1481 07:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Athens Olympics

There's a claim that Pankration was going to be included as a sport at the Athens olympics, which seems fairly fanciful and not really backed up by a source (the actual link is dead and it's from the president of the American Pankration federation. Otherwise I think it has to come out, it's an extraodinary claim--Ticklemygrits (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it sounds like bollocks, I'm taking it out:

"But Boggs didn't last long in the big seat. From the beginning, USAFPA officials promised that pankration would make its poetically perfect return to the Olympics in 2004, to be held in the games' birthplace of Athens, Greece. The claim was untrue.

Boggs threw in the towel in the summer of 1999, when he learned President John Townsley had announced, once again, that competitors could potentially be Olympiads in 2004. "

[2] --Ticklemygrits (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kakutougi?

In the History - Modern section, the text says: The history of modern MMA competition can be traced to mixed style contests throughout Europe, Japan and the Pacific Rim during the early 1900s; the Gracie family's vale tudo martial arts tournaments in Brazil starting in the 1920s; and early mixed martial arts matches (known as Kakutougi in Japan) hosted by Antonio Inoki in Japan in the 1970s.

Kakutougi means fight, so it didn't make sense. I checked the Japanese wikipedia and found out it was: ishukakutougisen 異種格闘技戦（いしゅかくとうぎせん）. Here is the link: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%95%B0%E7%A8%AE%E6%A0%BC%E9%97%98%E6%8A%80%E6%88%A6

Ishu kuakutougi sen means something like: combat between different styles. Then it makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.225.125.112 (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Stoppage?

Is it worth considering renaming this "medical stoppage".

I am an RN and work as a fight medic in the UK - we don't have doctors at fights, so would the term medical stoppage be more appropriate as the fight medics have final authority just as a doc would in the US

Dlegros (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Fighting

Whenever I tried to search for "Extreme Fighting", it leads me to this Mixed Martial Arts wiki page, so I assume that there's no article yet for the 90's MMA organization called Extreme Fighting, which should be significant in MMA history because it featured a lot of Carlson Gracie BJJ fighters versus other martial artists. If there's no wiki for Extreme Fighting yet, I reckon it's a good idea to make one then? I can't make it myself as I am just looking for information on the organization and I don't know any good sources as the search query 'Extreme Fighting' can lead you to all sorts of irrelevant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.53.227 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

WE NEED TO MONITOR THIS ARTICLE FOR WRESTLING BIAS ... GOD I HATE WRESTLERS

Anyone ever notice how there are some revisions that completely bias this article towards wrestling , particularly the History section ?

- All of the accounts of the matches involve and favor wrestlers , this is especially appalling when the share of people in history - of other disciplines - winning over wrestlers is so much greater then the vice versa situation . 91.200.156.77 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)- Can you give us some examples?91.200.156.77 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

- Pictures are biased towards wrestling , wrestling is still taken up by a minority of the fighters in mma , so where are all of the pics and accounts of other disciplines in this article.

- Omissions ... Found accounts of Ad Santel against other judo fighters EXCEPT Ito , well that's probably because he was submitted by Ito.

The need for wrestlers to constantly bastardize mma history confounds and confuses me , wrestlers are shapeshifters ... constantly adjusting the image of wrestling so that it appeals to the public , even if this means taking techniques from other martials arts and calling it wrestling and inclusively identifying all forms of martial arts into wrestling. These degenerate filths are also taking up the preoccupation of altering and biasing the apparent history of mma as having evolved from wrestling - there was absolutely no intention , on behalf of any organization , to dedicate mma to wrestling - mma was always about and always will be about the joy of practicing and engaging in the variety of forms within the whole realm of martial arts , most of it which does not involve wrestling (observe the first matches of mma fights from any mma organization) , so why are some of these morons making an enormous and grandiostic tribute to wrestling

- About half of this article is a tribute to wrestling , or rather what is perceived as wrestling. MMA is not a tribute to greek wrestling , it arose primarily due to the fact that people wanted test out their disciplines ... there was not a single iota of intention to dedicate mma to greek wrestling .... so why on earth are we suddenly making a tribute to some imaginary sport that was practiced thousands of years ago , in a distant country , not to mention the fact the sole evidence we have of greek wrestling are accounts in poems and displays of statues which were made long after the ancient greeks even existed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.255.10 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Portillo (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

Should there be a paragraph heading on the most popular organizations such as ufc or strikeforce etc. Someone65 (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of term 'MMA'

Is there any information about the evolution of the term "mixed martial arts"? I was an amateur fighter/athlete in college, about ten years ago, and the current term then was no holds barred or NHB. Both of these are listed in the article box as synonyms, but there's no information within the article about when they were popular or why they ceased to be so. I recall that NHB as a word came to be used because "Ultimate fighting" was found to be a trademark of UFC and Vale Tudo had branded itself as a separate martial ar or style from everything else. So, since I lost track of the scene after graduation, I was wondering why NHB became deprecated in favor of mixed martial arts/mma, and I think the article should mention that somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.183 (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Essentialy because it was inaccurate once safety rules prohibited some moves e.g. fish-hooking, 12-6 elbows, strikes to the back of the head and the like. The rules introduction is mentioned but if you feel that something on names should be in the history too please add it.--Natet/c 09:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Anyone know why this was added and if it needs to stay? --Natet/c 09:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As WP:NPOV dispute says "[t]he editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." This doesn't appear to have been done, so I'm removing the tag. JulesH (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why there are no Wrestling and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in the list of popular disciplines in MMA, while the sport has long been dominated, and still is to a great extent, by wrestlers and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practiotioners?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.156.75 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

weasel and toofew opinions discussion on the section evolution ...

Here's the section in question

In the early 1990s, three styles stood out for their effectiveness in competition: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, amateur wrestling and submission wrestling. This may be attributable in part to the grappling emphasis of the aforementioned styles, which were, perhaps due to the scarcity of mixed martial arts competitions prior to the early 90s, unknown to most practitioners of striking-based arts. Fighters who combined amateur wrestling with striking techniques found success in the stand-up fighting/standing portion of a fight, whilst Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu stylists had a distinct advantage on the ground: those unfamiliar with submission grappling proved to be unprepared to deal with its submission techniques. Shoot wrestling practitioners offered a balance of amateur wrestling ability and catch wrestling-based submissions, resulting in a well-rounded skillset. The shoot wrestlers were especially successful in Japan. As competitions became more and more common, those with a base in striking became more competitive as they acquainted themselves with takedowns and submission holds, leading to notable upsets against the then dominant grapplers. Subsequently, those from the varying grappling styles added striking techniques to their arsenal. This overall development of increased cross-training resulted in the fighters becoming increasingly multi-dimensional and well-rounded in their skills. The changes were demonstrated when the original UFC champion Royce Gracie who had defeated many opponents using Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fought the then UFC Welterweight Champion Matt Hughes at UFC 60 and was defeated by a TKO from 'ground-and-pound', soon after being placed in an arm-bar.[20]

Here are the prominent issues that need to be addressed

- examples of fighters must be given for each of the three disciplines mentioned , frank shamrock comes to mind for submission wrestling ... despite the fact that he rarely used submission and wrestling together in a match.

- phrasing is too vague , too many generalized statements about what happened e.g. " those with a base in striking became more competitive " the author needs to list the who , where , when , and detail the trends

- this section is too biased e.g. " shoot wrestlers were especially successful in japan " , this needs an opposing perspective.

- the editor of this section needs to provide citations for his statements regarding all of the trends listed for the evolution of mma , at the moment the contents of this section suffices to be removed on grounds as being original research .

- dubious statements must be removed e.g. " The changes were demonstrated when the original UFC champion Royce Gracie who had defeated many opponents using Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fought the then UFC Welterweight Champion Matt Hughes at UFC 60 and was defeated by a TKO from 'ground-and-pound', soon after being placed in an arm-bar.[20]" Gracie was ~40 years old when the match was setup. And what does the arm-bar have to do with the main subject of this paragraph?

Again , this article is being biased by wrestlers. It needs to be monitored from time to time and cleaned up. Wernergerman (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Injury rates?

The following material was taken from article text during reversion of IP edit and is presented for discussion purposes. That is, does the article correctly summarize the Johns Hopkins material?:

Article text: A study by Johns Hopkins University concluded, "the overall injury rate [excluding injury to the brain] in MMA competitions is now similar to other combat sports [involving striking], including boxing. Knockout rates are lower in MMA competitions than in boxing. This suggests a reduced risk of traumatic brain injury in MMA competitions when compared to other events involving striking."[1]
Comment by IP editor:

Correction* Johns Hopkins says MMA is much, much less dangerous than boxing, and for several reasons.

First, in MMA, when you get clocked, the fight is likely over very soon afterwards. In boxing, you get a standing eight count, then someone continues to beat on your head.

Any MMA fan will tell you that, within about 40 secons after a knock out, most losing fighters are back on their feet shaking hands with the winner. They're probably concussed, sore, a little woozy, but the fight is over. There will be no more punishment this day. Compare that to boxing, where you could be what MMA would consider "knocked out" three times before the fight is stopped.

The second reason MMA is safer is the smaller gloves. Looking at them, you'd think traditional boxing gloves would be safer because there's more padding, but there's also more surface area, so more of your head is being hit, and it's not one sudden smack that gives a fighter long term damage... it's repetitive hits, both during a fight and in training.

That's the third reason MMA is safer - you don't train by getting punched in the head. But in boxing, sparring with headgear is commonplace, and the Johns Hopkins study shows that ongoing hits to the head does more long term damage to the brain.

The fourth reason: MMA isn't just about being punched in the face. Most fighters spend more time on the floor, or in the clinch, than they do striking. Indeed, many MMA fights have ended without a punch landing.

The fifth reason: Shorter fights. Boxing matches can go an hour, but MMA fights are three round affairs unless they're title fights (those go five rounds). Less time swinging = less time being swung at.

--S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

stlye match up

you know how on the boxing page it describes how certain styles usually wins over the other. should something similiar like that be added like how Rampage a wreslting brawler usually beats inside swarming type of fighters like lets say Ikuhisa or Otkuski? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


Because the ability for someone in and MMA "Style" (Should be strategy) beating another style is completely dependent on the individual. Their experience with the style(s) they use, and their ability to counter said style is what determines who is more likely to win. It's not a matter of a standup fighter always losing to a ground fighter, or any combination there of. many matches where said specialist in x style is suppose to be able to effectively win against y style does not pan out that way because of individual fighters and other factors such as weight cut, conditioning, experience, and so on. Not to mention many fighters have multiple strong games, and are not just good at one thing. Just like in boxing.

List of fighters in disciplines section

Does anyone else find the list of fighters in each of the disciplines section to be a largely unsourced list of people's favorite fighters? None of the BJJ fighters have sources. Not does Judo. Most of Karate. As well as Muay Thai, although that list is more of a sentence. I'm thinking that without sources, the fighter's names should be removed from those sections. Thoughts? --TreyGeek (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been no response in almost two months. Does anyone have any arguments against the list of fighters for the various disciplines being removed? It seems to me that that article should discuss the different disciplines that make up MMA and can skip the list of fighters that specialize in one or more disciplines and may lead to WP:OR issues. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Pankration

There seems to be a biased pro-Pankration agenda on these pages. Greek Pankration was not the root of all fighting systems. www.pankration.gr is biased. Almost every culture has its own wrestling / grappling traditions, the rest of the world was not ignorant of wrestling and warfare before Alexander of Macedon. There are folk wrestling styles native to every continent of the planet except Antarctica:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_wrestling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutte_Traditionnelle etc.

In fact, wrestling is older than the human species. Many kinds of animals wrestle with intuitive technique:

Gorillas http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD0ML8WPGYs

Bears http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA-hfXMafFQ

Frog vs. snake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncit2tXkbWc

Wrestling is a natural development of combat between vertebrate animals. It is insulting to see nonsensical propaganda that the Greeks taught all other people how to fight with swords and wrestle thanks to Alexander of Macedon's invasions. The idea that they were responsible for Chinese Shuaijiao, Japanese Jujutsu, Oceanic wrestling, etc. is ludicrous. No group of humans, not Greek, Brazilian, Japanese, nor otherwise, had any historical monopoly on systematic combat and warfare. Stop the biased and ridiculous propaganda. C0ntribut0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC).

Kickboxing

Some of the information you have put in this article is incorrect and is mostley based upon what people think the sport is about not actual facts.

First you havnt included any text about Kickboxing most of the toe to toe fighting within MMA and UFC are skills of Kickboxing.

Also the handwraps arnt nessicery with in MMA they wear fighting Gloves that offer wrist support — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Kickboxing (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Incidence of Injury in Professional Mixed Martial Arts Competitions - Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, study published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, July 2006.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mixed_martial_arts/Archive_3&oldid=1137016002"