Irish martial arts body opposes recognition of MMA

FTA69

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Ground and pound? It's a natural conclusion of a sport predicated upon the mix of striking and grappling.

The martial arts which will lead to that position would be wrestling (takedowns, positioning) and also the likes of BJJ and Judo. Similarly it is possible to defend and attack while being struck when on the ground. When the person in a disadvantageous position is unable to mount a defence then the fight is stopped.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

well to be honest, I'm a huge fan and have to say, some of the matches look exactly like that, two bums in a carpark. Not all the UFC fights and fighters are as Mixed and artistic in their style as you would think. A great number of them are ex wrestlers, there is a large degree of cannon fodder and Not so polished fighters who will just stand and bang, not really very skilful in the traditional sense.

I have a feeling the two movies out shortly, "the hurt game" and also and "the Hurt business" may open a few eyes.

smash

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

No it's not. It's only one aspect of martial arts. A huge part of martial arts focuses on mental, physical and spiritual development without the need or want to hurt someone.

FTA69 wrote: »

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.

MMA is about fighting whereas fighting is only a portion of what is taught in TMA classes. I'm not mentioning technicalities etc.

Ush1 wrote: »

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

They also don't compete to knock each other out or cause maximum damage.

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

I'm not using it to invoke that image, I'm using it to represent the nature of the fight because MMA is a jack of all trades style of fighting.

Maguined

seamus wrote: »

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.

Are you sure about this? I have seen numerous highlight reels of taekwondo knockout clips that seemed to be glorifying headkick knockouts. As long as you strike them in legitimate areas (most of the head and face are fine I believe) then a full force kick and resulting knockout is legal I thought?

Maguined

smash wrote: »

They also don't compete to knock each other out or cause maximum damage.

Kyokushin Karate is fairly brutal is not not? A lot of fighters seem to be aiming to knockout their opponent with a full force kick to the face?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUEw2RoWkSM

Ush1

rusty cole wrote: »

well to be honest, I'm a huge fan and have to say, some of the matches look exactly like that, two bums in a carpark. Not all the UFC fights and fighters are as Mixed and artistic in their style as you would think. A great number of them are ex wrestlers, there is a large degree of cannon fodder and Not so polished fighters who will just stand and bang, not really very skilful in the traditional sense.

I have a feeling the two movies out shortly, "the hurt game" and also and "the Hurt business" may open a few eyes.

You don't think there is skill to wrestling? Possibly the single most import aspect of MMA.

Ush1

smash wrote: »

They also don't compete to knock each other out or cause maximum damage.


I'm not using it to invoke that image, I'm using it to represent the nature of the fight because MMA is a jack of all trades style of fighting.

Who do you think would win in a fight, an MMA fighter or someone who only practised one particular traditional martial art with no full contact experience?

Dyr

Maguined wrote: »

Are you sure about this? I have seen numerous highlight reels of taekwondo knockout clips that seemed to be glorifying headkick knockouts. As long as you strike them in legitimate areas (most of the head and face are fine I believe) then a full force kick and resulting knockout is legal I thought?

IMAC is mostly ITF TKD clubs so excessive contact is not allowed in competition. I have never heard of a TKD player in Ireland being banned from practice for excessive contact in competition. WTF TKD allows full contact to target areas, or did last time I looked.

I get the impression certain posters are googling away to try make points.


Most TKD groups are not affiliated to IMAC, they have direct recognition from the ISC. Most martial arts groups are not affiliated to IMAC, they're mostly a clique.

Mr. CooL ICE

smash wrote: »

They also don't compete to knock each other out or cause maximum damage.

Here is some chilling footage of the inside of a karate dojo that proves you wrong:

Dyr

Maguined wrote: »

Kyokushin Karate is fairly brutal is not not? A lot of fighters seem to be aiming to knockout their opponent with a full force kick to the face?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUEw2RoWkSM

And they were afilliated to IMAC with no bother, might even still be

IMAC also contains Muay Thai groups

People are talking dribble based on guesswork

smash

Maguined wrote: »

Kyokushin Karate is fairly brutal is not not? A lot of fighters seem to be aiming to knockout their opponent with a full force kick to the face?

A quick read about the style indicates that there's different rules for different clubs "In most Kyokushin organizations, hand and elbow strikes to the head or neck are prohibited." whereas the video you linked clearly showed elbows to the face. Points gained in the majority of these competitions are based on speed and accuracy, not force and result but this style does operate under knockdown karate rules and isn't a TMA as it was developed in the 60's and has had a few split out groups since then.

smash

Ush1 wrote: »

Who do you think would win in a fight, an MMA fighter or someone who only practised one particular traditional martial art with no full contact experience?

What difference does it make to this debate? It's not about who'd win a fight. You're going on like a 5yr old in the school yard.

riffmongous

mansize wrote: »

You cannot strike an opponent on the ground in boxing

Insted he can get held up by the ropes and hit repeatedly as long as he doesn't fall over

Maguined

smash wrote: »

A quick read about the style indicates that there's different rules for different clubs "In most Kyokushin organizations, hand and elbow strikes to the head or neck are prohibited." whereas the video you linked clearly showed knees to the face. Points gained in the majority of these competitions are based on speed and accuracy, not force and result but this style does operate under knockdown karate rules and isn't a TMA as it was developed in the 60's and has had a few split out groups since then.

Different rules for different clubs is true about every traditional martial art out there. It was derived from other more traditional karate just as Judo was derived from more traditional jiu-jitsu. What is the cut off point for something being traditional martial arts? Kyokushin also includes kata like other forms of Karate?

What about the Taekwondo video I posted? Is Taekwondo also not a TMA because it allowed head kicking full force knockouts?

Would it not be the case the so called traditional martial arts competitions with points scoring is in fact the more new form and this was not the case with traditional teaching 100 years ago?

Dick phelan

Why don't they set up their own body? If the IMAB doesn't want to be associated with MMA for whatever reason they don't have to be. Personally i'm much more of a boxing fan then MMA one, i respect the skill and dedication involved in MMA but it's just the ground stuff i find difficult to watch, lads unconscious on the ground getting punched in the head, i'm aware statistically MMA isn't more dangerous then boxing but it does look a lot more brutal. It has to be said in boxing and MMA there is a very unsavory element of scumbags who are drawn to the sport not for any technical reasons but just to see two lads leather the head off each other. MMA is here to stay some people like it others don't, why do fans of MMA insist it's given complete acceptance and respect? Loads of people take issue with boxing which i can understand but honestly it doesn't bother me, i'll continue to watch it and if some hate it's very existence that's fine by me.

smash

Maguined wrote: »

Different rules for different clubs is true about every traditional martial art out there. It was derived from other more traditional karate just as Judo was derived from more traditional jiu-jitsu. What is the cut off point for something being traditional martial arts? Kyokushin also includes kata like other forms of Karate?

Yep, they train and grade on kata, technique and sparring.

Maguined wrote: »

What about the Taekwondo video I posted? Is Taekwondo also not a TMA because it allowed head kicking full force knockouts?

It is, but in competition if someone who trained in Kempo stepped in to a ring against someone who trained in Taekwondo they would be restricted in the available moves they could use. MMA removes the restrictions and it's not something that a lot of people trained in tradition karate styles want to engage with.

Maguined wrote: »

Would it not be the case the so called traditional martial arts competitions with points scoring is in fact the more new form and this was not the case with traditional teaching 100 years ago?

It depends on the style I guess. But a lot of traditional teaching historically encompassed stuff like meditation because it was spiritual as much as it was physical. The spiritual and mental side always reinforces the need for self restraint and I guess this follows through to competition on many levels.

Dyr

smash wrote: »

Yep, they train and grade on kata, technique and sparring.

Who's "they" in this instance?

smash

Bambi wrote: »

Who's "they" in this instance?

Participants of the style, obviously.

lertsnim

smash wrote: »

Are you incapable of searching "deaths in ufc"?

Are you the guy that rang into Joe Duffy that time? Who has died in the UFC? Searching "deaths in the ufc" comes up blank.

Ush1

smash wrote: »

What difference does it make to this debate? It's not about who'd win a fight. You're going on like a 5yr old in the school yard.

Of course it is! When you're talking about effective martial arts it's ALL about what would work in a fight.

You mentioned the nature of MMA is brawling, well I'm telling you that the nature of fighting is MMA. If that looks like brawling to you then I'm telling you that's what actual fighting looks like. Not like an exhibition or kata or what's in movies...

Dyr

smash wrote: »

Participants of the style, obviously.

What style

You realise there's so much diversity in the various tradtional martial arts that they could often be classed as entirely different activities?

There is no commonality between IMAC affiliated clubs that MMA clubs somehow lack.

It's all about self interest disguised as moral soap boxing.

lawlolawl

Bambi wrote: »

What style

Zumba.

smash

lertsnim wrote: »

Are you the guy that rang into Joe Duffy that time?

No.

lertsnim wrote: »

Who has died in the UFC? Searching "deaths in the ufc" comes up blank.

When I search it, it tells me there's been 4 deaths in sanctioned fights. Upon clicking in to it, it talks about sanctioned MMA fights but I suppose that doesn't fit in to your argument because it doesn't specifically state UFC as an organisation?

tritium

smash wrote: »

A quick read about the style indicates that there's different rules for different clubs "In most Kyokushin organizations, hand and elbow strikes to the head or neck are prohibited." whereas the video you linked clearly showed elbows to the face. Points gained in the majority of these competitions are based on speed and accuracy, not force and result but this style does operate under knockdown karate rules and isn't a TMA as it was developed in the 60's and has had a few split out groups since then.

Wait, why isnt it a tma now? Taekwondo dates from the 50's, most styles (judo, karate) date from the early 20th century. Why are they tmas and kyokushinkai isnt? (Oh and ignore the ninsemse about thousands of years of history etc, that really doesnt stand up to any scrutiny in anything but the loosest sense.

Whatever your view on mma, imac are being somewhat hypocritical here given some of the styles they cover. Given that they distanced themselves from mma well before ground and pound became common, on philosophical grounds, theyre really just putting the boot in here - hitting a downed opponent methaphorically speaking.

smash

Bambi wrote: »

What style

Kyokushin, as mentioned in the first post about the style.

Bambi wrote: »

You realise there's so much diversity in the various tradtional martial arts that they could often be classed as entirely different activities?

Yes I do. What's your point here?

Bambi wrote: »

There is no commonality between IMAC affiliated clubs that MMA clubs somehow lack.

It's all about self interest disguised as moral soap boxing.

If that's how you feel then why would you want MMA to be part of IMAC?

lawlolawl

smash wrote: »

No.



When I search it, it tells me there's been 4 deaths in sanctioned fights. Upon clicking in to it, it talks about sanctioned MMA fights but I suppose that doesn't fit in to your argument because it doesn't specifically state UFC as an organisation?

You brought up the UFC.

smash

lawlolawl wrote: »

You brought up the UFC.

No I didn't, someone else did. Keep up at the back there.

Maguined

smash wrote: »

It depends on the style I guess. But a lot of traditional teaching historically encompassed stuff like meditation because it was spiritual as much as it was physical. The spiritual and mental side always reinforces the need for self restraint and I guess this follows through to competition on many levels.

MMA requires a huge amount of self restraint, all of the submission maneuvers requires restraint to perform properly. If there was no restraint you would have arms broken every single session. In fact I believe there is even greater restraint practiced by the fact the training can be full contact but also for most training sessions it is not full ressitance. The fact that guys training it in have to shift between full ressitance sparring and 50% ressitance technique training is a mental shift the most TMA guys don't have to do.

smash

Ush1 wrote: »

Of course it is! When you're talking about effective martial arts it's ALL about what would work in a fight.

You mentioned the nature of MMA is brawling, well I'm telling you that the nature of fighting is MMA. If that looks like brawling to you then I'm telling you that's what actual fighting looks like. Not like an exhibition or kata or what's in movies...

You're losing the run of yourself here. I've stated from the start that MMA is solely about fighting and now you're telling me that MMA is about fighting... So what's your point?

I've also stated that a lot of TMA forms are not all about fighting and students study and master katas for both fighting and exhibition as exhibition is a huge part of the discipline. Now you're telling me that fighting doesn't look like a kata... I never said it did so again what's your point?

Dyr

smash wrote: »

Kyokushin, as mentioned in the first post about the style.

If that's how you feel then why would you want MMA to be part of IMAC?

I doubt very much any MMA clubs wants to be part of IMAC, they should be under their own umbrella organistion as Karate, TKD and Judo are.