Mixed martial arts vs Traditional Martial Arts Essay

Fighting and violence is peerless of the biggest problems in society today. MMA, to many masses, is however promoting this as a value, instead of an issue. some separate battle that this bloody sport is chip is for its make legitimacy. There argon gage of other sports that sire some fighting, except no one questions the legitimacy of sports much(prenominal) as ice-hockey, in which there is a fight at least formerly a game, or football (Frisht n. pag. ). MMA is likewise a relatively new and has also taken a large whole tone from where it st ruseed, having been illegal in all 50 states shortly after its institutionalization (Ramirez n. ag. ). And even at that, UFC is the exactly nationally legal g everywherenance for MMA.not only is it fighting for its authenticity as a sport, but it is fighting for recognition as a soldierly invention and fighting style, as well. many specialists and scrappers argue that it is a militant art all its own. Others argue that its p ostcode much than a rip-off of the superior warriorlike liberal humanities that have deign before it. Finally, other, more secular pot rationally conclude that it cannot be considered a traditionalisticistic militant art at all and is b bely acceptable as a sport.But this also puts these people in the perfective position to be attacked by a very patently answered question Why cant MMA be considered a traditional soldierlike art? To begin, one of the biggest contrarietys between MMA and traditional warlike arts is the purpose for which they were develop. MMA, for example, was actual as nothing more than a style for cage-match entertainment. traditional martial arts, however, were developed for a variety of different reasons, in the main self-defense.For instance, Jiu-Jitsu and Ninjitsu both derive from past Japan as a path for the people to defend themselves against the Samurai (Browning n. pag. ). Similarly, Tang Soo Do was developed in Okinawa and Southern Korea beneath ancient Japanese influence (Yi n. pag. ). Not only is the purpose of MMA something that sets it apart, it is a difference that sets the stage for several other astounding differences. To continue, purpose is intertwined with origins. Many traditional martial arts come out of the ancient oriental regions as means of self-defense due to the areas unsafe and sometimes inconstant societal environment.Thugs, brutal lofty fighter, and normal bandits all posed a threat to civilians and those who didnt particularly fancy their emperors, such(prenominal) as the Okinawan farmers under the oppression of the imperial Japanese samurai (Frisht n. pag. ). A handful of traditional martial arts even lark origins in Brazil, such as the Brazilian variants of Jiu-Jitsu. MMA, however, comes out of America and Europe as a means of entertainment (Greene n. pag. ). Next, personal manner is the biggest difference between traditional martial arts and MMA.Traditional martial arts are very focu sed on detaining or incapacitating an attacker. Many traditional martial arts accomplish this by utilizing non-lethal locks and strikes. Traditional martial arts are also guided by godliness and law. When faced with non-lethal force, only non-lethal force is permitted in return. When faced with a serious, but non-life-threatening situation, only an equal amount of lethality is permitted. MMA, on the other hand, is much more brutal and delimitation senseless (Greene n. pag. ).Also, where traditional soldierly humanistic discipline would seek to just incapacitate use locks, MMA seeks to go above and beyond the require force, relying on strength where traditionalists wouldve chosen technique. When, relying on strength as a fillet of sole asset in combat, as describe by Master Bob Cameron, a fighters combat variables experience very dependent on their opposition. If their opponent is stronger and strength is the only strategy they wee as an asset, loss is pre-determined. Techni que, however, allows ones variables to be much more freelancer of their opponents.Using technique over strength allows a martial artisan to apply their whole body to regain one goal it allows a fighter to turn their opponents own strength against them, using it in their estimate (Cameron n. pag. ). At last, the final reason MMA cannot be considered a traditional martial art is its rearing style. MMA takes a very exclusively approach to training, as it is a exclusively sport. A lot of its training is ground on punching, kicking, and striking an inanimate target. Martial arts, traditionally, however is trained in a group.This allows a martial artist to test, study, apply, and perfect a technique on another(prenominal) martial artist, which drastically affects and differs the applicability and strength of the two styles. In a real-world scenario, MMA is not very vivid, due to its brutality and aggressiveness. Traditional martial arts, however, allow an artist to realistically and safely incapacitate an attacker (Greene n. pag. ). The realistic training styles of traditional martial arts allow it to be much more effective in combat.To conclude, MMA and traditional martial arts have more distinguishing differences than are calculable, the most distinguishing being purpose, origin, fighting and training styles, and applicability. Although, many take their side, those who argue that MMA is a traditional martial art are fighting an uphill battle in a mudslide due to their scarce and unadorned lack of support. The differences between the two take a gorge miles wide with no bridge that may never have been meant to have been crossed. Furthermore, these staggering differences clearly judge that MMA cannot be considered a traditional martial art.