OT--Martial Arts

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Andrew, may I request a clarification, please?

In your post #100 you tell us that MMA has made the mixing of a number of styles of martial arts "de rigueur".

I am not a martial artist, in fact for a long time I've been a firm believer in the wisdom of Sun Tsu, however I did have a little involvement in some physical combat during my misspent youth, and this has resulted in an ongoing interest in martial arts in general.

It is my understanding that perhaps the most effective art overall is BJJ, with the best foundation for MMA being traditional wrestling --- I won't nominate a particular style, but I feel that possibly greco-roman might be the most effective base, simply because of its artificial restraints, which militate a chess-like approach to competition.

You clearly have a far greater knowledge in this area than do I, as well as the benefit of being an active participant, so do you think you could explain for me how multi skilling in a variety of arts contributes to success in MMA?

I do follow this spasmodically, and from what I can see it is mostly wrestlers with a few added in BJJ skills who have dominated overall, except for the early years when it was all BJJ.

But I do not have your knowledge nor your experience, so perhaps I'm wrong.

This is well and truly off-topic, so if you wish respond privately, or direct me to a website, I'm fine with that.

Thanks, Alan.

Continuing the discussion started here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...701#post148701

Alan:

Like so many "non-traditional" martial arts, what we now call "Mixed Martial Arts" has morphed many times since the Gracies introduced BJJ to the world at UFC1.

Personally, I agree with your analysis that wrestlers have the best base for modern MMA. This is, in my opinion, due primarily to the combination of superior conditioning, strength and techniques obtained through wrestling's grueling training regimen. However, as we saw in those early UFC tournaments, while high level wrestlers were able to compete with BJJ stylists, it wasn't until the wrestlers learned to finish (with strikes and submissions) that they began to dominate MMA competition.

While some fighters rely heavily on their base art and are known as "submission specialists" or "strikers", the reality is that success in MMA today requires the ability to employ advanced grappling, striking, take-downs (and take-down defense) and submissions.

Today's elite MMA competitors usually employ:

a. Wrestling take downs/grappling;
b. BJJ "guard" and submissions;
c. Muay Thai elbows, knees and kicks;
d. Western boxing punches.

Often, you will see a fighter with years of (wrestling, BJJ, Boxing, MT, Karate, Judo, etc.) competition decide to compete in MMA. Those guys will, regardless of their base art, go from school to school training in the individual disciplines. In recent years, schools and camps have sprung up where an integrated system of MMA is being taught and most competitive fighters now train in this fashion.

I have long been of the opinion that there generally isn't a "best" martial art. Most practitioners of striking arts, if they train sufficiently long and hard, will become good strikers, etc. Modern MMA in general (and BJJ in particular) has, however, directed a much-needed spotlight on the shortcomings of traditional martial arts insofar as combat is concerned.

Back to your original inquiry--my comment was really not accurate. Bouncing from traditional art to traditional art really nets one very little if insufficient time is spent to progress past the basics. Cross training can be intellectually and physically rewarding, but it will not often make one a great fighter. Training in a style that selects the effective techniques from multiple sources and discards the ineffective, however, will. Bruce Lee's Jeet Kun Do is often considered by many to be the first true "MMA", and he stressed this exact point.

Best,
Andrew