Why is it most people think of MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) as a style in it's self?

Sorry, I don't agree completely. Evolution has occurred too fast, and a similar thing happened in Taekwondo, turning it from a martial art into a sport. Yes, MMA started as open tournaments, but nowadays, many places are teaching "it". It's not always like you are a carpenter or auto mechanic and you show up with your tools, and you go home with your tools. There are some students who have no background whatsoever, and so, what they're learning is an amalgamation from what they see in their fellow students, and whatever the instructor decides to teach. Of course, there are students who ARE like that carpenter or automechanic, and they do show up with their toolset.

But these days, a great many MMA schools just teach things without a thought about the style from which it came. There's nothing wrong with this, if you think about it, most styles' individual techniques are in some way seen in most other styles - with the exception of the pure-sport-oriented techniques (for example, Taekwondo's flashy high kicks).

So in this regard, it IS taught as "a style".

Is it applicable to self-defense? That depends entirely on the instruction. If you're focusing only on rules of a match, then I'd say the applicability is limited: no weapons, no multiple friends, no multiple opponents, limited technique set, rigid boundaries, referees, coaches, matching opponents, and fight environment.

The techniques are similar, but the use of those techniques are very different. No one is trying to escape: both are trying to engage so as to collect points or garner a knockout. Contestants often play to a crowd or to the media.

It is a small mind indeed for one to look at today's taekwondo and complain that you can't get away with that on the street. Or that wrestling's limited because there's no striking. Or that boxing's limited because there's no ground game. Of course all of this is true: but none of it is meant to be used for self-defense. A screw driver is not meant to be used as a paint can opener, and a crescent wrench isn't meant to be used as a hammer. Can they be used as a paint can opener or a hammer? Sure they can. Just don't expect the best results out of it. What will you do when the nail you want to hammer in with the crescent wrench is a 10d nail being driven into a 2" thick piece of oak?

Most people know better than to think that MMA is a style. It is the kids here that ask questions like, "What is the difference between Karate and Martial arts"? They are beginners that have not yet learned that Karate is not a style but a name for about 50 different styles. They also tend to think that Kung-Fu is one style rather than the 300 to 400 or more styles it represents. Or that Taekwondo is not a style bu a term for at least 75 different styles.

...

Mixed martial arts is a blend of styles. They have taken styles that they deem effective and they use techniques that are effective. There is no BS, no old men on top of mountains, just fighting.

I dislike this argument where you say that it's not effective and it lacks something. MMA is probably one of the best systems for unarmed combat. For one simple reason. They put in more hours in sparing and fighting then most other styles do.

This is an old argument when you say that other traditional styles offer more self defense. For me if you want to be a fighter you have to fight and spar. The styles you are talking about don't do that. You can defend that any way you like but I am pretty damn sure that an MMA fighter trains more fighting then a wing chun/karate/krav maga practitioner.

Your argument is basically the techniques we teach are so deadly that they can not be used for sparing, for training. It doesn't work like that. If you can not execute a technique in sparing at 100%, you won't be able to do it in real life.

I'm not even going to go into knife defense and gun defense because it's just so full of crap it's unbelievable. And I don't understand you people. You say MMA is ineffective but then you go and say bjj is effective, muay thai is effective. It just doesn't make any sense.

You all need to learn a bit more history of how the arts evolved. There are very few original TMA's anywhere most are an off shoot of another art.

One must first define "style" Kung fu is no more a style than MMA. There are so many variations of kung fu one can barely count. Within a style say Northern Shoalin each school has its own variation much like MMA. Each school has its own style or theory of fighting.

You can be as rigid and bias as you wish. That's your right. Having an appreciation for the history and evolution of martial arts including MMA might help to prevent you from looking like an outdated relic clinging to the past but if that;s what you like that's also your right.

Too many of you get wrapped up in this sport/self defense crap. Many of you claiming decades of experience are too stuck in those decades past.

hey i think i 100 percent agree with you. while i do think mma is the best thing you can train for self defense that ive come across so far it does lack pressure points, weapon defense(i know a mma gym that does weapon defense) and no sparring multiple guys or training for that scenario. these to me are mmas weaknesses but if you got study say my original martial art tang soo do youll get that without any grappling or boxing which to me is even a bigger weakness. i see guys on both sides just being super biased and realistic about the other side. you also left of that the ufc was invented to see which martial arts best in a fight where the only rules where against biting and eye gouging bjj won this the gracie challenge has been around even longer then that. but i do think mma itself is becoming a style since you can now train mma you dont need different gyms.

I don't think MOST people think of MMA as a style. I think that's a gross overstatement. However, "MMA" instantly gives people shorthand to describe a particular kind of martial arts training.

Although since it isn't a style, I don't know how "MMA" could be missing "more critical and lethal techniques". If someone's particular MMA "blend" included, for example, Harimau Silat, wouldn't they then have access to all the techniques in that system, even if they chose not to train them in their MMA format?

i know the feeling. i lost count on how many people told me on here i take mma, or this is an mma section.

the dont understand what the defines a style. and that mma doesn't even come close t that definition. mma is a concept and sports training method. not much different from cross training, except more geared towards the sport. a style is fixed, you learn the same techniques and tactics here as you would in the next school over or on the other side of the world. mma you learn different styles from one gym to the next, it not fixed.

MMA is a style of sport, loosely related to martial arts.

It is a tough and demanding fighting sport.

It is not a martial art. It's intent is quite opposite of martial art. MMA is about fighting. Martial art, taught properly is about not fighting.

The misuse of the term martial art is so common now that is no longer considered misuse, though sport and martial art are very different.

Plus the fact that all martial arts of modern use are "mixed" with, and come from different systems.