Originally Posted by
anerlich
For the purpose of this discussion and why some comparison is in fact valid, MMA is:
1) A ruleset for competive fighting
2) A conceptual view of what fighting is/should be about
MMA regards fighting as having three distinct phases
1) standup, detached fighting (mainly striking and kicking)
2)Clinch fighting (standing wrestling, throws, submissions takedowns, striking in the clinch)
3) Groundfighting (pins, sweeps, submissions, G&P)
and its competitions have specific rulesets allowing techniques in all three phases.
Few if any single martial arts at present contain the spectrum of techniques necessary to dominate in competition, or to survive a fight which could go into any of these phases. Hence boxing wrestling, jiu jitsu becoming a common mix, especially since the TCMA world mostly went into denial about such a worldview in the early days.
I think MMA being a "multi-art discipline" is a temporary thing - MMA fighting is different from striking only, clinching only, and groundfighting only. These days you need to train and approach it as a separate discipline on its own to succeed, and over time I believe "styles" and "systems" of MMA will develop.
You can't select arbitrary MAs and call it MMA - those arts have to have answers for the full spectrum of those phases. Mixing WC, aikido, and hung gar probably wouldn't get you there.
Where the disconnect and hate begins is the disparity between this worldview and that of many TCMAs in the early 90's, viz. that fighting was almost solely done on the feet with strikes, and what ground techniques there were existed mainly to create enough space to regain one's feet.
And too many with rice bowls to protect went on the defensive and resorted to criticism (which they were always good at before then even with each other) rather than taking an honest view of their art and working on what weaknesses there may have been.
I agree the animosity is pointless. Progress comes from building bridges, not walls.