Talk:Mixed martial arts/Archive 1

message: Does anyone else feel a need for this article to cover mixed martial arts outside of professional MMA/NHB competition? I'm speaking of arts such as Jeet Kune Do, Kenpo, and any other arts that are "mixed" but don't necessarily have to do with MMA/NHB competition. Not only the guys in Pride and UFC study "mixed martial arts". We wouldn't need to go into detail on these specific arts (that's for their own articles) but we could cite them as examples. More importantly, I feel we should cover the philosophy and practice of combining multiple arts into by an organization, school, or individual, and the development of such systems or styles. (What I mean by those.)
: I think a better term for the styles you reference would be "eclectic martial arts." PenguiN42 12:25, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
: Malathion 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea to mention that other arts have taken a mixed approach to martial arts, but I think the given article makes enough references to Bruce Lee as it is. When you hear someone talking about MMA, they're talking about sport fighting. There are plenty of martial arts systems that profess to have the "answer," so a reference to other 'styles' that are 'mixed' doesn't seem to fit here, but rather in a general discussion about martial arts. malathion
DPE 15:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Malathion 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: KingMob 08:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed martial arts outside of professional fighting 

message: In which article should hybrid-style martial arts be discussed? This article currently suggests that they be discussed in Combatives. Shawnc 03:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking about this myself. I was writing a stub on hybrid fighting systems, when i noticed that the article combatives covered much of the material, so i simply integrated it there. Combatives are however mainly military and self-defence systems, but some pure sport fighting systems like shooto are also considered to be hybrid fighting systems. Maybe it could be mentioned in the combatives article? I atleast don't have very much more to add on hybrid fighting systems. And it's also a difficult concept to define when most martial arts integrate techniques and ideas from other martial arts. ---Marcus- 23:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hybrid martial arts was created, and the redirection was reinstated. Shawnc 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid martial arts 

message: Based on the mixed martial arts competitions that I've seen, in the modern era headbutts are almost universally banned.  Most of the rules variations involve use of elbow strikes(legal in the UFC and most American organizations, but illegal in Pride and most Japanese organizations), and knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent(illegal in the UFC and most American organizations, but legal in Pride and most Japanese organizations).  Can anyone name an organization that still allows headbutts?.  I suppose that if any of them do, it would be the Vale Tudo competitions in Brazil, although the footage I've seen of them are dated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoa8212 (talk • contribs) 
: Finnfight is an example of such a competition. --Marcus 06:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that headbutts are never allowed in the most known MMA fighting leagues. The only times I've ever seen them used on video is in older versions of UFC or smaller events where you see the current top fighters of the UFC/Pride fighting like 6 years ago. --Scb steve 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Legality of Headbutts? 

message: Why does "Shoot wrestling practitioners offered a balance of wrestling ability and catch wrestling based submissions resulting in a generally well rounded set of skills" statement need a citation ??
In any event if it does, then try visiting the Shoot wrestling article. It should answer whatever dispute there is on the line. Freedom skies 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is a generalization which isn't obvious to the casual reader, so it should be verifiable from a separate source. --Marcus 09:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking citation needed notice off

message: "For example, strength and power are often favored by ground fighters while stand-up artists generally favor speed over strength. All fighters aim to have plenty of stamina so that they can be effective for the entire duration of their matches."
First of all this has no historical basis in MMA. Infact just the opposite has been shown in both Pride FC and the UFC. How many more times has a heavier more powerful standup fighter been beaten by a superior groundfighter then the opposite? How much more likely is it for a submission grappler from a lower weightclass to beat one of a higher weight class then a boxer of lower weight to beat a boxer of higher weight and power. It is strikers that predominately favor more power. --Jayson Virissimo 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And besides, such classification into ground/stand-up fighters is becoming more and more obsolete, so any generalizations  made from it are useless anyway. --Marcus 08:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Either cite this or get rid of it. 

message: Isn't dirty boxing a much more common name for Clinch and Pound? Should we rename it or atleast mention it it the Clinch and Pound article? --Jayson Virissimo 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so.. Dirty boxing refers specifically to the boxing clinch game, which is different than the MMA clinch game. MMA Clinch uses dirty boxing, for sure, but it also uses the Muay Thai wrap, elbow and knee strikies, and wrestling-like fighting for the underhooks. In dirty boxing one would not be concerned about getting a good position to throw an opponent, or  about defending a takedown. --CasualFighter 20:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not neccesarily. I've heard Joe Rogan describe this tactic as dirty boxing and have never heard anyone use the term 'clinch and pound'. I've also heard it described as 'in-fighting' and 'clinch fighting'. It's called dirty boxing because they are the tactics you would not be allowed to use in a boxing match. Besides, MMA has taken much of it's terminology from boxing. Chaos0mega 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's like dirty boxing, but it's not dirty boxing. I'd rather see the term Clinch'n'Pound to be used because we're not talking about boxing here. And it's not even tactics that are considered dirty! In-fighting and Clinch fighting are easier to use when you speak, but clinch and pound describes it best. It also looks better together with the other terms that are used frequently.--NoNo 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it looks better. But if you can find an example of someone using the term clinch and pound, I won't object to it's use. Chaos0mega 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More commonly used term 

message: Why should there be a "blabla looking for other NHB click here" for in the beginning? I mean Lethwei ain't that big and no one uses the term MMA for Lethwei. I would rather see one article that describes NHB and one describing MMA. Now you'd say that UFC was NHB in the beginning and all that but I believe that they are two completely different sports now. Some holds are barred in MMA, small joint manipulation for example so NHB can at most describe some small time vale tudo fights in south america or something. That's my little rant, over and out. Edit/ Just wanna add that Lethwei is a stand up fighting art, so there is no grappling other than in the clinch. NHB? Nhaa...--NoNo 03:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above user seems correct, according to this http://www.answers.com/topic/lethwei It is more like Thai boxing with headbutts allowed. I vote to delete the line at the start about lethwei as it doesn't need to be added in the articleRhythmic01 15:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lethwei?

message: While reading the rule variations, I noticed this under the UFC section:
* Allows elbow strikes except ones starting from the north-south position.
The previous definition was fine if a little wordy but this is totally incorrect.   North-south position is a ground position.   The official definition in the NSAC rules under fouls is:
* Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
So, what is the best way to sum this up?   My stab at it is:
* Allows elbow strikes except those where a fighter has struck directly downwards using the point of the elbow.
:I like your 'stab at it', only I would replace "has struck" with "strikes". Chaos0mega 06:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A decent definition for banned elbow strikes? 

message: Currently the term 'ultimate fighting' redirects to the UFC article. Due to the misconception that the sport of MMA is called 'ultimate fighting', shouldn't it redirect here instead? Chaos0mega 06:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's enough clarity in the meaning of the term to change the redirect. It could be a branded term for mixed martial arts, or it could be designating UFC's style (a subset) of mixed martial arts. At worst, a redirect can be seen as a endorsement that Ultimate Fighting is an acceptable alternative name to MMA. hateless 18:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ultimate Fighting" redirect =

message: Following the example of American football, this page should be a primer for MMA newbies, and thus, this detailed exploration into MMA rules probably should be forked into its own article and replaced with a general overview. This should help with reducing article length and tighten the focus of the article. hateless 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A brief over view of rules, a couple of examples of rules common to all comps, fish hooking etc., saying that their for reduction of debilitating injuries should be enough for the main article. --Nate1481 01:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article (and table of contents) are a little long with such a detailed explanation of the rules.  Skeletor2112 12:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't help but think that it would be wise or useful to point out that, in Japan, generally the sport has evolved from worked shoot wrestling and puroresu-based sport wrestling, therefore its ruleset has evolved from there. Crazyknight 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule section fork 

message: I think this article could use a lead picture of some sort, somthing to identify the sport. Maybe some kind of generic pic of two MMA fighters facing off, somthing similar to Boxing, or kickboxing.  Although it might be hard to find a suitable free image.  Looking in the WikiCommons, I found a few here: MMA pics, although I don't know if one of those really defines MMA.  Skeletor2112 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead picture?

message: Ok, so the first article for us to work on is the flagship, mixed martial arts.  Anybody want to sum up what this article needs?  I see that the rules section needs to be split out.  What else?  I have basically no experience with moving articles past B-level.   SubSeven 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first of all, we need to stick this on the talk page of the relevant article, namely talk:Mixed martial arts, which I have done.   The to-do list is already there and I've thrown my name on it under a title of "contributors to MMA COTW".   Reading WP:GA?, it boils down to a) quality of writing, b) citing sources and staying clear of original research, c) not getting bogged down in trivia, d) staying neutral, e) the article is edit war free, f) a number of relevant images and g) it is under 25 kb in length.   If I'm firing the first bullet, under criteria c, we can trim down the Rules variations section considerably. -- Crazyknight 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Info from an article should be merged into sub-articles (i.e. create Rule variations in mixed martial arts) to reduce size, not be removed from the page outright.  Also, the 25 kb criteria is the least important-there are plenty of FA's and GA's that exceed 25 kb or whatever the criteria is.  It's just a general guideline so you don't try and pack all the information on one page if it can be expanded to its own page. VegaDark 08:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First collaboration