Martial Arts - MMA vs. MA: The never-ending debate.

MMA vs. MA: The never-ending debate.

The phenomenon of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) has swept across America. Many people watch Bodog Fights, UFC, IFL or some other three letter acronym show featuring athletes fighting. But a question always seems to pervade, who would win in a real fight - and MMA fighter or a martial artist (MA)? And which is better to train in?

Reviewing all the conversations I've heard and participated in, I think the question will never be resolved. In fact it is quite pointless. Whatever prejudice one starts out with one ends with, this is because though MMA and MA seem to be the same; I think they are quite different. It's comparing apples with oranges. Right now, some of you reading may think that I'm poorly informed, ignorant and out of my mind. Some may think the answer is as obvious as night and day. After all, there has been traditional martial artists that has stepped into ring only to find themselves dumbfounded on the floor or knocked-out(found on youtube). The champions of the MMA ache for any of the best traditional martial artist to step in the ring with them, with full confidence of victory. And under these situation, I would probably guess the MMA fighter to win. The MMA victors always look tough, skilled, destructive and unbeatable - warriorlike. But wouldn't we think the same thing of the late Mas Oyama, Ip Man or any of the other great traditionalists. I know if I was pitted against either of them I would tremble in my boots (if I wore any).

And yet traditional martial artist may think that ring and cage fighting is not "real", since there are rules and regulations and therefore no longer a real fight. Relatively little is used in MMA fights; where's the pressure points, the traps, the groin shots, eye gouges, the hit to the back of the neck - things that may be deemed inappropriate or too dangerous? Furthermore, the traditionalist can note that the masters of the martial arts tend to be of the older generation, while the masters (champions) tend to be of the younger generation. All of those 90 year old tai chi masters beating on the young'n in the parks. It can be said that traditionalists ultimate goal is survival of their art so their art evolves with them, making the practitioners better as they age. Of course there are always exceptions to these statements, for instance Randy Couture won a championship past the age of what is considered normal. Or how Matt Hughes recovered from a groin shot to win his match, outside of what the rules dictated.

But ultimately I think this question is pointless (as stated above), the only true way to find out which would win is to pit the best of martial artists versus the best of the mixed martial artists. But what would be the rules - would there be referees, a ring, padded hands, groin shots, or anything goes fight to the death like old old times? Even this I think that we would find it inconclusive. Finding out that there are no good martial arts but good martial artists. Chances are the victor will be the one who trained for whatever situation they fight in. If a MA and a MMA were mugged using a gun or knife which would do better? I think it depends on which person trains for this situation will be better off. All-in-all my ramble has done no help, but to insist that traditional martial arts and mixed martial arts are different beasts that should not be looked in the same perspective. Enjoy watching MMA and enjoy watching MA but don't try to see which is better.