Why would anyon sat that sport is an elistist term especially when talking about mma?

I see 2 sides of the coin here.

Firstly MMA is a sport- it is a sport where people train in a variety of martial arts to take the best aspect they can use in a cage to get the win. So yes it is a sport

However

Many of the people that get defensive and say it is an elitist way of discouraging and putting down styles such as Muay thai and BJJ. They say this mainly because the MMA fanboys all make BJJ out to be the one and only saviour of the planets martial arts. This is simply not true. BJJ just like any other style is a tool used to help a person gain knowledge. It is just that it was unmatched on the ground so the world bought into the big shiny red apple and now they think when they fart that rainbows shoot from their ***.

The BJJ fanboys from MMA are the ones who cause all the drama in the first place by believing that BJJ was the jesus christ of Martial arts. When really all styles have some validity to be showcased for their talents.

The problem is that many of the traditionalist have confused BJJ with mma training and the traditional roots of GJJ are much different from what you see people training currently today. So the traditionalist began to label BJJ as a sport and not an art (i have seen this myself), the BJJ guys rightly so are frustrated with this because this assumption is wrong just like the assumption of the BJJ/MMA fan boys assumption that all other styles are inferior.

This is why people feel that traditionalist throw around the word "sport" as a way of denigrating styles involved with MMA.

There is nothing condescending about calling MMA a sport, anymore than calling boxing a sport, Or Olympic style TKD a sport. If you compete with rules, judges, spectators, and the sort it is fair and accurate to call it a sport. Jim R’s Jack Dempsey’s quote is apropos. The end purpose sets the meaning of the thing. The fact that some batters in baseball can nail a line drive at a pitcher does not make baseball a martial art no more than disarming someone with a knife make self defense a sport.

I guess what I’m trying to point out is that you can certainly use some of what you learn in MMA for self defense as you can also apply some of any contact sport to self defense. Being fit, fast, and flexible is an advantage in a confrontation. Being able to break a hold or throw a good punch is useful in some self defense situations. Self defense is not generally considered a sport. Hand gun shooting is a self defense skill. It can be a sport when you have competition with scoring and judges. So I don’t understand why it should be considered condescending to call something like MMA a sport when it’s purpose as defined by the description of what it is includes the word sport by the leading proponents !

<begin rant>

I don't know how people see it any other way.

If two people/teams compete to see who can win based on a set of rules that both agree to, then, it's a sport. It doesn't matter if it involves hitting a ball, hitting a human, kicking a ball, kicking a human, throwing a lump of iron, or throwing a human - it's a f*cking sport. MMA is a sport. I don't give a s**t what anyone thinks, it's a sport.

Then, if the purpose of said sport is to garner as much viewers as possible, then, that is the pinnacle sport: the Superbowl, the World Series, or the UFC. This is spectacle sport. But it's *still a sport*.

Why does anyone have a problem with the FACT that it's a sport? Elitist? Condescending? Where are you people getting this stuff? MMA is a sport. Why is this so hard to understand?

Just because the competitors compete doesn't mean they don't learn self-defense.

Why does anyone have a problem with this? I don't get it. Just because it's a sport doesn't mean it's worthless. It's not a pejorative. It's not demeaning. It has value for self-defense. It's usually not *complete* for self-defense, but in a good school it's *sufficient* for self-defense.

</end rant>

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with using the word sport to describe MMA and related arts. They are sports. That's not condescending in any way. I honestly think that if people get so upset when the word "sport" is used to describe their art then they are insecure about what they're doing. Why else would one get so upet and defensive?

When you train in the context of competition under set rules, with two or more parties agreeing to compete to see who is better, then it's a sport. Just like boxing, wrestling, sport TKD or sport Karate, football, baseball, etc. are sports.

MMA is designed for sport, not self defense. I'm not saying that it can't be adapted and used for self defense, it's just not designed for it nor does it train for it. The reality is that MMA is a sport. That's not condescending, not a put down, not down-playing MMA, not an insult, not a derogatory term, that's just the reality. If you get upset and defensive when it is called a sport, then you need to wake up and grow up.

It's pretty easy to see the intent here, though, I am not surprised a few missed it. Callsign somehow managed to pick up on the one person that habitually uses that term, and it is always used in a TMA vs MMA context. This question is meant to ridicule lil KW by having the people with common sense check in on the subject. Apart from his constant use of the word elitist, he posted it several hours before this question. It is a few questions down from yours.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjYYZ...

I think Possum did a fine job of programming a rant that pretty much stomps the notion that MMA is recognized as anything other than a sport, and in its current format, can be nothing other than a sport, into the ground. I think he programmed it as a rant rather than say, an editorial, because it isn't like it has ever been a point of contention. The fans know it is a sport, the participants know it is a sport, and martial artists not suffering from inferiority complex know it is a sport. That leaves one kid that constantly attempts to bash TMA dudes that recognize a dog as a dog and a sport as a sport, by calling them elitists.

This is without question an attempt to stir the pot, which I have no problem with really. I don't consider challenging BS as stirring the pot, but you do. Someone said this recently, maybe you can remember who?

"No matter how this is done it is ridiculous arguments that don't make much sense to continue. It does matter if tma is attacking or those that don;t practice tma are attacking. It is nonsense IMO.

Personally if I were a a yahoo moderator I would delete every antagonizing questions that are similar in nature to these types of debates. f they continue to post them I would suspend IP addresses of those that do this. It is not productive."

In the answers here, you have MMA people trying to see two sides of a coin, TMA scoffing at the notion MMA is anything but a sport. So, is it still nonsense, or do you have a set of double standards that makes you think because you pose a question that is basically TMA vs MMA it is somehow different than when others do it?

I have no problem with mma practitioners doing mma as self-defense. But lets be honest.... Am I wrong to think that most people do it to compete. As jwbulldogs said, if it is done using rules and with referees to keep the participants within the rules used in competition, then I see no problem with calling it a sport. If someone trains and does not do it under those rules then I have no problem with them saying that what they do is not a sport. It is no different than people saying that Karate is a sport. What some people do is a sport. what I happen to do is not. We have no rules and only limit enough to not cause serious injury. no rules, just common sense and the belief that we will do no more to our training partner than we would want him to do to us. Seems reasonable to me.

...

What I find odd is that the MMA fan boys get insulted when you call their sport a sport.

No boxer or football player is insulted when you call their sport a sport. I have a lot of respect for boxers and ball players, because of their demanding sports.

I think Mr. Dempsey put it best: ""You're in a ring with gloves on and a referee. That's not fighting." - Jack Dempsey (World Heavyweight Boxing Champion)

Elitist term? More like a condescending one. I've noticed that from time to time, people will try to downplay the effectiveness of arts like BJJ, Muay Thai or MMA (and I don't need anyone to point out that MMA is not an art) by claiming they're "just" sports while their art is for self-defense.

Edit: uh no... re-read what I wrote.

What about nhb where the UFC got its roots. you make it seem like anything in a ring is a sport what about pancreas and stuff like that.

Before addressing the main question, I'd like to nitpick a bit. Modern MMA arguably began with Shooto in the 1980's, which featured weight classes, gloves, rounds, and striking as well as grappling. Pancrase also predated the UFC by several months.

There were no rules designed to make BJJ look good against other styles. Except, perhaps, that one couldn't wear gloves (which kind of got ignored anyway, before gloves were made mandatory). For most of the Gracie's involvement in the UFC, the rules were simply, "no biting, no eye gouging". And, incidentally, these were not punished by disqualification, but rather simply forfeiting a portion of the purse. Biting and gouging aren't exactly hallmarks of martial arts skill. If so, we'd spend far more time on those skills than, you know, punching, kicking, throwing, locking, etc.

Also, when it comes to Kimo (the "street fighter" with an alleged TKD BB), I think that had less to do with Rorion Gracie and more to do with Art Davie. Rorion was only part owner/promoter in the UFC; Semaphore Entertainment Group (SEG) was the group that actually owned the majority share. Anyway, at that time, the UFC was supposed to be style vs. style, to the point where even wrestlers weren't allowed to compete because they weren't "exotic" enough. They had to make up a name for David "Tank" Abbott's "style" and called it "Pitfighting", despite the fact that he was a boxer/wrestler hybrid. That, incidentally, was after the Gracies had sold their share of the UFC and had stopped competing in it. The fact that one guy had a manufactured rank also doesn't take away from the guys with legit rank who also fell to Royce.

Not saying the Gracies didn't do anything shady during that time, but they DID have ranked or champion fighters in boxing, full-contact karate, Judo, Pancrase, Daido Juku, and more for the five events they were part of. Keeping out high-level wrestlers was probably the most questionable thing they did, as far as picking their opponents. Once a good wrestler DID get in there (Dan Severn, UFC 4), it took Royce 15 minutes to lock a submission on a guy who didn't really know subs, and who wasn't trying to hit him on the ground.

But to answer the main question, I have gotten the impression that the term "sport" in regards to martial arts is often used in a condescending manner. Those who do so could then be said to be elitist.

Sport is not self-defense. However, most of what gets trained in modern martial arts schools is also not self-defense. Often, it's passing on the traditions of a single time and place. If the object of a martial art is to prepare someone for self-defense, then at some point, one should have a "live fire" test of their skills- sparring. And if sparring is meant to simulate a "real" fight, then it should have the same intensity as a real fight. The restrictions on technique should be kept minimal. Safety gear should be worn for the protection of the participants. Add that all together and, well, you've got amateur MMA.

If one of my friends wants to learn self-defense from me, I drive home the point constantly that the physical side is what happens when everything else goes wrong. We discuss things like awareness, preparation, and exit plans. But when it comes to the physical tools, I want them to learn upper-body strikes, clinching skills, and escapes from chokes and pins first and foremost. I've found that the best way to train these things is the same way they're trained in MMA and its "tributary" systems like boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ. We do pad work, with me moving around to help them work on footwork, and checking their defenses with the pads. We do offensive-defensive drills while gloved up so that they get the sensation of defending strikes while returning them. We work clinch pummeling in order to get them to understand the control points on the human body, and how to keep from being controlled or taken down. We do "shark drills" on the ground, so that the student spends minutes at a time escaping pins and getting back to their feet. All of these skills are built in an identical fashion to how one would find them in MMA and similar "sport" systems.

There are no solo forms performed with movements given no, or questionable, explanations. There are no belt tests. There is no bowing, though we do shake hands or touch gloves; you'll notice these are Western cultural trappings found in my native US. There is no version of a Meiji-era workout suit when a teeshirt and board shorts work in their place. There are no archaic weapons to be learned; weapons, if addressed at all, are improvised in nature. No dojo kun needs to be recited. Boards aren't broken to demonstrate power and focus- you're either hitting harder, or you aren't. The atmosphere has much more in common with a private training session at a "sport" place than what you find in most martial arts schools. Still, the physical skills of self-defense are refined.

Humans, unfortunately, tend to see things that are "different" as inherently bad. It's not a stretch that someone who is proud of a martial arts heritage that includes East Asian cultural trappings, archaic weapons, a belt-ranking system, and a focus on solo forms would see activities that are bereft of those things as being "inferior". And I HAVE heard people claim outright, "sport doesn't work in the street" or "I train for self-defense, not sport", or something similar. I think in most cases, it's a reflex to try to justify things that aren't as apparently useful as simply learning the ability to hit, throw, and choke another person. I think they repeatedly ignore the fact that, for example, boxing makes you REALLY good at punching and punch defense, BJJ gets you REALLY good at fighting in an area that most don't know how to fight at, and wrestling makes you REALLY good at executing and defending takedowns, and immobilizing someone with minimal risk to their health. Martial arts with a strong competitive focus tend to go harder than those without, and require a higher degree of commitment to physical conditioning. I think the majority of people would rather take the "easy" way and not have to face any of that. I mean, who DOESN'T want to think they're good at self-defense, to think that they're a badass, without having to actually get punched in the face after an hour of circuit-training? So I think a lot of people who look down on "sport" systems do it out of their own insecurities.

For the sake of inserting some context, I've trained in systems with and without a "sport" outlet. I've spent years in karate, Kali, and Wing Chun. I've attended seminars on traditional Hapkido and Jujitsu. I'm not opposed to operating within the general cultural trappings of a system when I study said system; I'll bow or Wai or whatever, because that's what etiquette dictates. I also don't think they're necessary to produce a good martial artist. When it comes to archaic weapons, I'm fascinated with swords and polearms. I don't see solo forms as useless; I see them as training methods and a way to preserve knowledge, though I'm confident they're not necessary for producing self-defense skills. I frankly think dojo kun and the like are silly for adults; we should be free to hold our own set of beliefs, and most of us are reasonably well-adjusted, at least in public. And frankly, having groups recite the same thing over and over smells a bit like brain washing to me. Hell, I've been through boot camp, I know how that works. I hold a black belt in Seikukan Shorinji-Ryu, and have a few minor ranks in other martial arts, so I'm not inherently opposed to the belt-ranking system. But as far as producing effective results on the physical plane- as far as "doing what it says on the box"- I'm sold on the so-called "sport" methods.

Edit: "Callsign that is informative. yet it does not address the question. There was nothing about the term elitist creating the term mma."

I must have misread the question, because what I read asked why the term "sport" was seen as elitist. I may have also made the erroneous conclusion that you made this question in response to something Keyboard Warrior habitually posts concerning the "street vs. sport" debate.

"according to the article modern mma was created in 1993 with the UFC. "

Which article? The first one you posted actually went out of its way to say that MMA WASN'T created with the UFC, and several similar events predate it.

"Even a "fraudulent" art like ninjitsu won one of the early title in UFC."

Two things: 1) Who's calling it "fraudulent"? I'm dubious about some of its practices and practitioners, but I've always maintained the curriculum seemed workable. 2) The circumstances around Steve Jennum winning the UFC 3 tournament were hardly standard. He was brought in as an alternate for the final match, and matched up against a guy who'd already fought that night.

"Calling a spot a sport is condescending?"

It is when it's used to demean the skills that translate into unarmed combat, or the utility of the training for self-defense. I'm a martial artist first, and my love for MMA comes from the fact that I get to use what I've ever learned in a relatively safe but intense environment. It's not blind adherence to doctrine, it's going, "let's see what works".