Irish martial arts body opposes recognition of MMA

CIARAN_BOYLE

lawlolawl wrote: »

So....... a dance recital then?

Well if this is the view of mma on fundamental portions of IMAC martial arts why should IMAC be expected to respect and legitimise MMA.

smash

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I've no problem with MMA being regulated and recognised as a sport. I do have trouble figuring out why IMAC should have to bring it under its umbrella.

It shouldn't. And it shouldn't be lambasted for it's decision either as some posters are doing.

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

Their reasoning is pretty sound tbh. The arts represented by this body don't put any stock in hitting your opponent as hard as you can, or injuring them. In fact, in some of them using excessive force (i.e. more than is necessary to demonstrate you've gotten past your opponent's guard) is likely to have you DQed from a match.

The sports they represent award points for intelligent movement - defeating your opponent by misdirecting them, spotting gaps in their defence or otherwise intellectually besting them. They do not encourage defeating opponents through sheer force and power. That's not the aim of their sports.

From the point of view of the IMAC, they are like target shooting, where you use skill, care and precision to demonstrate your prowess in an elegant manner.

Whereas MMA is more like pulling out a minigun and obliterating the target. Both are comparable in that the target gets hit, but otherwise neither are comparable as sports.

I'm sorry but your analogy is way off the mark and it's clear that like many commentators on this subject you've no experience of the sports on which you're commentating.

Saying MMA is simply brute force contrasting with the intelligent technique of TMAs is just plain rubbish. Striking and grappling in MMA rely a huge amount on technique. The likes of ground grappling and submission wrestling take years to learn and hone in order to be effective against a resisting opponent. Someone competing in MMA will actually drill certain techniques and movement patterns because he/she has to be able to pull them off in an actual fight.

The likes of boxing and MMA are in effect far more elegant and technical and precise than the pseudo completion you find in the likes of some karate styles.

MeatTwoVeg

It's good news.

It's pathetic to see the apologists for what is essentially nothing more than thuggery, constantly try to legitimize and normalise this barbarity.

Shame on companies like Budweiser using that oaf McGregor to advertise their tasteless piss.

As for the 'fans', they should stop lying to themselves for a start. There's nothing noble or sporting about cage fighting. It's something the rest of us have evolved beyond. Stop posting your puerile defenses of this savagery.

HardenendMan

smash wrote: »

It does. A simple google search would have told you that. But that's not what the thread is about.

Can you tell me one? I can't find any.

smash

HardenendMan wrote: »

Can you tell me one? I can't find any.

Are you incapable of searching "deaths in ufc"?

FTA69

smash wrote: »

It shouldn't. And it shouldn't be lambasted for it's decision either as some posters are doing.

I believe the main problem people have with IMAC's statement is the contention that MMA is somehow not a sport and how it's barbaric and all the usual nonsense when in reality it's just martial arts without the dance katas. You'd swear MMA simply popped into existence; it itself is simply a combination of the likes of boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu etc but yet when these are combined it becomes out of bounds for some bizarre reason.

Son Of A Vidic

TSMGUY wrote: »

Or the culmination of literally every experience I've had with MMA sorts. I used to box for recreation and I had no issues with those lads. Every MMA guy I've ever met has been a brain-dead scumbag.

I've have over 21 years of Wing Chun, Ju Jitsu, Boxing, and MMA experience under my belt in both the UK & Ireland and I've never encountered any of these ill-disciplined & stupid scumbags that you are referring to.

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

I think the saddest thing about it is that the majority of fans just want to see some guy get his head kicked in.

It's real lowest common denominator stuff, a bit like all those awful reality tv shows.

A race to the bottom.

HardenendMan

smash wrote: »

Are you incapable of searching "deaths in ufc"?

Nope. I can't find any. Post one name up there for me.

zuutroy

Dr. Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

I think the saddest thing about it is that the majority of fans just want to see some guy get his head kicked in.

It's real lowest common denominator stuff, a bit like all those awful reality tv shows.

A race to the bottom.

They really don't. The majority of fans will be fascinated to see who's going to win when people with different styles and body types come together for a match.
I'd imagine your average MMA fan is far better versed in the technical intricacies of the sport than your average soccer fan.

Ush1

seamus wrote: »

Their reasoning is pretty sound tbh. The arts represented by this body don't put any stock in hitting your opponent as hard as you can, or injuring them. In fact, in some of them using excessive force (i.e. more than is necessary to demonstrate you've gotten past your opponent's guard) is likely to have you DQed from a match.

The sports they represent award points for intelligent movement - defeating your opponent by misdirecting them, spotting gaps in their defence or otherwise intellectually besting them. They do not encourage defeating opponents through sheer force and power. That's not the aim of their sports.

From the point of view of the IMAC, they are like target shooting, where you use skill, care and precision to demonstrate your prowess in an elegant manner.

Whereas MMA is more like pulling out a minigun and obliterating the target. Both are comparable in that the target gets hit, but otherwise neither are comparable as sports.

What a terrible analogy.

JustTheOne

smash wrote: »

Are you incapable of searching "deaths in ufc"?

Just stop man seriously.

Dr. Mantis Toboggan

zuutroy wrote: »

They really don't. The majority of fans will be fascinated to see who's going to win when people with different styles and body types come together for a match.
I'd imagine your average MMA fan is fair better versed in the technical intricacies of the sport than your average soccer fan.

Where are all these beard stroking, MMA philosophers hanging out?? Sitting down drinking a fine Chianti and quietly contemplating the technical intricacies of how one man kicks the head off another?

You're having a laugh mate.

Dyr

seamus wrote: »

Their reasoning is pretty sound tbh. The arts represented by this body don't put any stock in hitting your opponent as hard as you can, or injuring them. In fact, in some of them using excessive force (i.e. more than is necessary to demonstrate you've gotten past your opponent's guard) is likely to have you DQed from a match.

The sports they represent award points for intelligent movement - defeating your opponent by misdirecting them, spotting gaps in their defence or otherwise intellectually besting them. They do not encourage defeating opponents through sheer force and power. That's not the aim of their sports.

You realise that Muay Thai is represented in IMAC right?

HardenendMan

JustTheOne wrote: »

Just stop man seriously.

Don't interrupt my fun you!

JustTheOne

HardenendMan wrote: »

Don't interrupt my fun you!

Couldn't resist:)

smash

FTA69 wrote: »

I believe the main problem people have with IMAC's statement is the contention that MMA is somehow not a sport and how it's barbaric and all the usual nonsense when in reality it's just martial arts without the dance katas. You'd swear MMA simply popped into existence; it itself is simply a combination of the likes of boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu etc but yet when these are combined it becomes out of bounds for some bizarre reason.

The vast majority of martial arts participants strive to be the best at their discipline whereas the majority of MMA fighters strive to be the best brawler. That's the difference and it's the only way to put it. You don't see rugby and soccer players jumping on to a pitch together because it doesn't make sense to them and it's the same mentality for a lot of martial arts participants. This doesn't mean that people have the right to mock them.

zuutroy

Dr. Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Where are all these beard stroking, MMA philosophers hanging out?? Sitting down drinking a fine Chianti and quietly contemplating the technical intricacies of how one man kicks the head off another?

You're having a laugh mate.

Watch this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlnVFOo4F2A

or read the MMA forum here on boards.

Ush1

smash wrote: »

The vast majority of martial arts participants strive to be the best at their discipline whereas the majority of MMA fighters strive to be the best brawler. That's the difference and it's the only way to put it. You don't see rugby and soccer players jumping on to a pitch together because it doesn't make sense to them and it's the same mentality for a lot of martial arts participants. This doesn't mean that people have the right to mock them.

Dear God, it's gone full Joe Duffy(and I don't mean the MMA fighter!)....

FTA69

Dr. Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Where are all these beard stroking, MMA philosophers hanging out?? Sitting down drinking a fine Chianti and quietly contemplating the technical intricacies of how one man kicks the head off another?

You're having a laugh mate.

Look every sport has its dopey cohorts but like any sport MMA has a community of participants, trainers and competitors etc and the atmosphere or respect and dedication to learning is second to none.

Rugby is a great game but I wouldn't write off its fan base because a minority of them are p*ssed up obnoxious dickheads; likewise with soccer or pretty much any other sport going.

Dyr

Disgraceful Joe, it was REAL blood Joe.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

I believe the main problem people have with IMAC's statement is the contention that MMA is somehow not a sport and how it's barbaric and all the usual nonsense when in reality it's just martial arts without the dance katas. You'd swear MMA simply popped into existence; it itself is simply a combination of the likes of boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu etc but yet when these are combined it becomes out of bounds for some bizarre reason.

So from which martial art do they get punching a man when he's on the floor from?

HardenendMan

smash wrote: »

The vast majority of martial arts participants strive to be the best at their discipline whereas the majority of MMA fighters strive to be the best brawler..

Did you learn that during your googling searches?

Dyr

FTA69 wrote: »

Look every sport has its dopey cohorts but like any sport MMA has a community of participants, trainers and competitors etc and the atmosphere or respect and dedication to learning is second to none.

Rugby is a great game but I wouldn't write off its fan base because a minority of them are p*ssed up obnoxious dickheads; likewise with soccer or pretty much any other sport going.

I just find it funny that people think that the audience are in some way relevant when it comes to a debate about funding and recognition for a sport. Gas stuff

"ah heyyor dem league of ireland bowsies" "de monk is into de boxing"

etc etc

ga

smash

Ush1 wrote: »

Dear God, it's gone full Joe Duffy(and I don't mean the MMA fighter!)....

brawl: fight or quarrel in a rough or noisy way.

When you mix disciplines it does inevitably turn in to a brawl.

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

Saying MMA is simply brute force contrasting with the intelligent technique of TMAs is just plain rubbish.

lawlolawl wrote: »

LOL, yeah sure, the strongest guy in mma always wins. The guys with good technique and skill are just wasting their time.

Isn't it funny that you were both so eager to fall over yourselves defending MMA's corner that you didn't even read my post.

Did I say that MMA was just about brute force? Nope. Of course there's a ****-tonne of skill in it.

But there are also weight divisions. Just like boxing, and for a very good reason; because someone who is 120kg with a little bit of a skill will stomp all over someone who is 65kg through sheer force.

Part of the MMA ethos is winning through whatever means. Pick your style, pick multiple styles, it doesn't really matter. Get the job done. Get your attacks in, get your kicks in until your opponent is unconscious, delerious, or until you're both so knackered that a judge tells you who wins.

Contrast that with the martial arts represented by IMAC. If you knocked your opponent out in a Tae Kwon-Do match there'd be an investigation to find out what went wrong. If you were found to have deliberately made a dangerous attack you could find yourself banned from practicing.

The aim is to prove technical skill and prowess. Prove that you can beat your opponent by demonstrating technical ability rather than proving it by knocking them unconscious. Each martial art has it's own discipline, it's own form. You can prove your mastery of that form without actually using it in a full-contact fight.

MMA does not. You can only prove your "mastery" of MMA by defeating your opponent in a full-contact fight.

I have no doubt that within IMAC there are also some "holistic" reservations about the commercialised nature of MMA and "types" is draws, but on the face of it their refusal to associate MMA with their own sports is wholly justified. They share very little in common with MMA when it comes to competitions in their sports.

MMA should fall under the remit of the boxing organisation. It's closer to that.

FTA69

smash wrote: »

The vast majority of martial arts participants strive to be the best at their discipline whereas the majority of MMA fighters strive to be the best brawler. That's the difference and it's the only way to put it. You don't see rugby and soccer players jumping on to a pitch together because it doesn't make sense to them and it's the same mentality for a lot of martial arts participants. This doesn't mean that people have the right to mock them.

Eh no. The majority of MMA fighters strive to be the best at the various aspects of MMA which will maximise their chances of winning in competition. Of course they strive to be a better fighter, that's what martial arts is about at the end of the day.

Likewise, you seem intent to push this ridiculous notion of MMA being glorified "brawling" in contrast to the supposedly more disciplined TMA stuff when the former is arguably far more technical and refined and than the latter, mainly because MMA has little room for stuff that doesn't work therefore the stuff that does is drilled ad nauseum.

smash

seamus wrote: »

The aim is to prove technical skill and prowess.

And at the top line, the discipline of restraint.

Ush1

smash wrote: »

brawl: fight or quarrel in a rough or noisy way.

When you mix disciplines it does inevitably turn in to a brawl.

Erm, fighting by it's nature can be rough and noisy. Traditional martial artists usually aren't totally silent when they compete.

MMA fighters strive to be the best at their discipline, which is MMA. If you're using the term "brawling" to evoke images of two drunks in a pub carpark, you're fairly wide of the mark.