Jurnal Beladiri 4

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/353199504
Mixed martial arts is not a martial art
Chapter · July 2021

DOI: 10.4324/9781003122395-2
CITATIONS READS
3 576
2 authors:
Irena Martinkova Jim Parry

Charles University in Prague Charles University in Prague
57 PUBLICATIONS 415 CITATIONS 105 PUBLICATIONS 972 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Physical Education and Sport View project
Models of bodily experience in the theoretical foundations of experiential education and its kinanthropological context (GAČR 16-19311S) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jim Parry on 13 July 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Philosophy of Mixed Martial Arts; edited by Jason Holt and Marc Ramsay
Format: Pinched_Crown (174 × 246 mm); Style: A; Font: Times New Roman;
Dir: P:/Frontlist Production Teams/eProduction/Live Projects/9780367641627/DTP/
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:02
1 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

Irena Martínková and Jim Parry
What is a martial art? In the introduction to their fine collection of chapters by a

dozen philosophers interested in the martial arts, Priest and Young (2014: 9n) observe
that:
… one philosophical question about the martial arts is how to characterize them.
This is a hard and non-trivial question. Should tai chi be included? Should war-
gaming? … We do not need to address this issue here, though (and none of the
other essays in the present volume do either). We will finesse it by sticking to some
paradigm cases.
Our 2016 article on martial categories (Martínková and Parry 2016a), accepted the
implicit challenge, and did try to address this hard, non-trivial philosophical question.
We criticized several attempts to classify martial practices according to their surface
features – techniques, weapons, armed/unarmed, civil/martial, or within a limited
context (e.g., Japan). Instead, we proposed a method of differentiating martial practices
according to their differing structural purposes.
Lest it be thought that we were thereby seeking to foreclose discussion, or to impose
our account on others, we made it clear that we saw it as provisional and open to
criticism and revision. We were, however, concerned to argue that some such account
is not only useful (to researchers and practitioners) but also essential in gaining an
understanding of an activity by bringing it under some description. For how else are
we to characterize the nature of an activity? To seek to say something about X
necessarily entails describing it in some way, and this involves categorical thinking. Is
it useful to be able to categorize something as a martial sport, rather than a martial
art or a martial path? We would say yes. And this is not to deny that a particular
activity might take different categorical forms. Kendo has been thought of as a kind of
close combat (kenjutsu), as a kind of martial path (kendo), and as a kind of martial
sport. And lest it be thought that we offered this suggestion as if it were complete and
finalized, we were careful to indicate that there were many other possible categories
than the first five basic categories that we proposed.
Analysis of martial activities into martial categories

Those first five basic categories of martial activities, identified and distinguished
according to their differing structural purposes, were close combat, warrior arts, mar-
tial arts, martial paths, and martial sports. We used the umbrella term ‘martial
DOI: 10.4324/9781003122395-2
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:02
Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 5

activities’ in order to avoid the use of the term ‘martial art’ in a promiscuous way,
because this had been a source of criticism:
The common, everyday meaning assigned to the phrase ‘martial arts’ is said to
include almost any fighting art … As currently used, it is a term useful for the
general public, but not for serious scholar of these systems.
(Donohue and Taylor 1994: 13).
By ‘purpose’ here we mean the structural purpose(s) of the activity, which describes its
character for all possible participants, and thus describes central (and possibly distin-
guishing) features of various martial activities. The criterion of ‘purpose’ is suitable for
classifying activities since it determines the nature of the activity itself (what the par-
ticipant is expected to achieve, e.g., victory, self-defence, etc.), the way in which it is
practised (whether there are any limitations of techniques), the means to be used (with
or without small weapons), its dangerousness (risk of death or serious injury), and its
suitability for various kinds of participants (given their specific personal intentions
and purposes). Thus, categorization is useful not only for academics, but also for
practitioners themselves, who know thereby what to expect from the activity, and what
demands will be placed upon them. (see e.g., Miller 2008).
The first five basic categories of martial activities are described according to structural
purpose, as follows. Close combat and warrior arts both involve real-life fighting with the
purpose of overcoming an opponent or defending oneself. However, the purpose of close
combat is focused on efficiency – to ‘get the job done’ or, in the extreme, ‘to kill or be
killed’. (In the Japanese historical context, these would be the Ninjas.) The warrior arts
have a different purpose – that of exhibiting ‘honorable’ combat, that is, fighting accord-
ing to a certain style or code. (In the Japanese historical context, these would be the
Samurai.) Martial arts and martial paths both have educational purposes, using martial
techniques as a means towards the aim of human cultivation; and both involve the
learning of ‘safetified’ martial techniques for people living in a relatively safe society.
Martial arts emphasize self-development in terms of the cultivation of character, whereas
martial paths follow the aims of philosophical or religious systems. The purposes of
martial sports are conditioned by their status as ‘essentially competitive’ activities,
emphasizing victory and rule-adherence. Martial sports have their origins in martial skills,
and include a subset of ‘combat sports’ that usually take the form of one-on-one fighting.
We also identified several minor categories of martial activities, identified according to
their structural purposes: martial therapy (whose purposes are health and wellbeing),
martial training (fitness), martial games or warrior games (the re-enaction of historical
events), martial artefacts, culture, and performance (the celebration of martial activity),
martial entertainment and display (the entertainment of spectators and promotion and
advertisement of military values and virtues), and gladiatorial entertainment (containing
three main purposes – measuring oneself against an opponent in almost close combat,
the attraction of a bloodthirsty audience, and the generation of excitement in combat as
entertainment). This is a tentative and incomplete list, which does not pretend to be
exhaustive or final. (See more in Martínková and Parry 2016a: 156n.)
Objections to categorization
Some people object to the entire project of categorization, for a number of reasons.
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:02

Categorization is ‘universalistic’
The suggestion is that categorization tries to establish, per impossible, categories that
capture the eternal essence of martial activities. But this is not how we see the process
of categorization, since it is obvious that martial activities have been invented and
developed in an historical process that often involves transformations that may be
observed, mapped out, and (re)categorized.
Categorization is ‘dogmatic’
We do not see this as an exercise in conceptual imperialism – we don’t insist on our
version – we are open to revisions. We claim merely to be mapping the logical geo-
graphy of martial activities. We offer it as an attempt at categorization. It is a sugges-
tion, a cockshy – it invites the reader to consult her own intuitions, to see if they
cohere with ours. And we are ready to consider objections, which may lead to an
improved account.
But it’s also a challenge: if you don’t like it, say why not – maybe you can improve
on it. For example, Legendre and Dietrich (2020: 12) complain firstly that there is ‘no
consensus … on the proper definition of martial arts’. This is true – but if we had to
await consensus before proceeding with enquiry, we would never start. There is no
agreed definition of ‘democracy’ – but in political philosophy this disagreement is the
beginning of enquiry. Again, they say that certain authors ‘fail to encompass and
account for all manifestations of martial arts’ (ibid.), but they give no examples.
However, any such failure would simply invite revision of the categories, to account
for it. They go on to point out that ‘no matter how a practice itself might be a priori
labeled, the training can sensibly deviate from expectations under the subjective influ-
ence of a designated teacher’ (ibid.). This is also true, but it is unclear how such a
development threatens the idea of categorization. Either the teacher moves into a dif-
ferent mode (category) or he invents another – for us, there is no problem either way.
And here is another challenge: you need categories, too, otherwise you can’t say a
word about differences between different kinds of martial activities. To identify differ-
ence is the first step to categorization; and categorization is the systematic identifica-
tion of one’s research object. Without this, it is impossible to ‘operationalize’ one’s
concepts for empirical enquiries. A research object has to be brought under a definite
description in order to be identified and studied. This involves categorization. Without
this, you literally don’t know what you’re talking about – and neither do we, your readers.
Furthermore, nor can you do comparative work, unless your comparators’ categories
accidentally concur with yours.
Categorization is an ontological exercise

Traditionally, following Aristotle, ‘a system of categories has been seen as a complete
list of highest kinds or genera, [so as to] provide an inventory of everything there is,
thus answering the most basic of metaphysical questions: “What is there?”’
(Thomasson 2019). However, recent work concentrates rather on category differences,
than on category systems. Work on category differences ‘tries to draw particular
distinctions, especially among our conceptual or linguistic categories, as a way of
diagnosing and avoiding various philosophical problems and confusions’ (ibid.).
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

This is precisely our task, as we see it. One such problem/confusion in Western
conceptions of ‘martial arts’ is the deep and significant failure to distinguish martial
arts from martial sports (or combat sports). Thomasson’s challenge is that those who
‘argue for category differences owe an account of the conditions under which two
concepts, terms, or objects belong to different categories’ (ibid.). This is precisely the
aim and methodology adopted by the present authors in their earlier paper (Martínková
and Parry 2016a), which seeks to present just such an account.
Categorization is fossilization
It should be clear by now that we do not espouse any categorization that would rule
out revision or development, nor that would impose a solution on the description of a
particular martial activity in a particular social context. We concur with Waismann,
who argued that ‘the ideal of correctness is a deadening one, it is vain to set up a
language police to stem living developments’ (1968: 186). As Bowman puts it,
Furthermore, any of those involved in taijiquan in any of its different times and
places will believe themselves to be either or both learning a martial art, either or
both for sport or for self-defence, and/or involved in healthful calisthenics, and/or
preserving or changing a culture, and/or involved in a religious or mystical practice.
And so on.
(Waismann 2016: 19–20)
However, this way of putting things raises a number of issues.
a I don’t think anyone disputes the suggestion that a martial activity may take dif-
ferent forms. One example is the dispute in Japan over the nature of kendo (sport,
or martial path?), or capoeira in Brazil, ‘which has been interpreted as an art of
defence, a battle dance, a martial art or a kind of “showcase” capoeira for display,
etc.’ (see Talmon-Chvaicer 2008: 2; quoted in Martínková and Parry 2016a: 143.)
Bowman objects to the practice of ‘defining’ taijiquan as belonging to one cate-
gory or another, but still he identifies three categories. We are entitled to ask: how
does he manage to identify, characterize, and distinguish these three categories
without engaging in categorical thinking?
b According to Bowman, at least practitioners themselves are able to form and
apply categorical thinking to their activity. They can identify whether they are
doing this for sport or self-defense, for health or religious expression, etc. (not
ruling out the possibility that they might be pursuing more than one of these
orientations at the same time). How can they do this, unless they are thinking
categorically? ‘I’m doing karate as a sport, not as a martial path’ requires a self-
understanding regarding one’s purposes and intentions in participating in the
present activity, and this cannot be expressed except in categorical terms. The
practitioner must be aware that there are categorical differences between sports
and martial paths, which constrain one’s actions in participation.
c This raises the third point: Bowman’s characterization is ‘voluntaristic’, relying on
the personal ‘beliefs’ of the participant. Here we must distinguish between struc-
tural purpose (of the activity) and the personal purposes (intentions) of the indi-
vidual. A farmer might find (personal) life meaning in raising animals for the
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

market. But the (structural) purpose of his activity is raising animals for the
market, not making life meanings. One’s personal purposes are conditioned by the
structure of the activity whose purposes one must pursue, if one is to pursue just
that activity.
Once an activity such as a martial art or a martial sport has been established as a
relatively stable practice, and can be identified as having been relatively institutiona-
lized and transmissible, this entails that it has been structured so as to address certain
values or to achieve certain goals. That is to say, the activity itself has and embodies
structural purposes. My personal purposes may be efficiently aligned with these pur-
poses so as to achieve my goals. If I genuinely do feel respect and gratitude to my
opponent as co-facilitator of our contest, it is helpful if the activity itself requires
expressions of respect and gratitude. And if, on occasion, I falter in moral purpose,
the activity itself reminds me of my moral duty. However, I cannot simply superimpose
my personal purposes upon just any set of structural purposes. I would be crazy to
think that I was doing calisthenics whilst in a chokehold fighting for my breath, just
because I ‘believed’ it.
This insistence on the reality of structural purpose is important because it provides
a direct route to categorization. Our proposal in Martínková and Parry (2016a) was to
‘define’ martial activities according to their differences in structural purpose.
A note on ‘social construction’

There is a position that holds that ‘everything’ is socially constructed, and that this
fact is important. Mathematics, for example, might look as though it presents us with
universal truths, but in fact it was socially constructed during a long historical process
involving important inventors from Ancient Greek and Medieval Arab worlds. Now,
what’s important about this? We would say that, whatever interesting and engaging
story might be told about the genesis and history of the emergence and development
of mathematics, the end product of this process is: mathematics! – as we know it
today, and as we try to teach it to our children. They do not need to understand the
story to understand the product. So the status of the product of social construction is
not reliant on the nature of the process of its production. I don’t need to know that the
concept of ‘zero’ was invented in 5th-century India (or was it earlier, in Mayan cul-
ture?), and not brought to Europe from North Africa until the 12th century by Fibonacci
(see Matson 2009). Its ‘social construction’ is irrelevant to its justification, validity,
and usefulness.
Something similar is true of martial arts. Our enquiry here is ‘synchronic’. Whilst
the genealogies of martial activities have their own kind of interest and explanatory
power, our categorial enquiries seek to comprehend martial activities as they are now –
as products of their genealogies. Of course, that means that, as things change with
future developments and deletions, so will the analysis. But this is the game we are in –
continually trying to understand where we are now – and ‘now’ does not stand still.
Miller’s practical approach – ‘mindsets’

We note the coherence of our ‘categories’ approach with what we might call Miller’s
‘practical’ approach. Miller (2008) emphasizes the importance of distinguishing
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

different kinds of combat for practical purposes. He distinguishes between different
‘mindsets’ that participants must occupy so that they can understand their participa-
tion in specific martial situations (such as self-defense, dueling, sport, combat, assault,
spiritual growth, and fitness):
Experience in the dojo is experience in the dojo. Experience in the ring is experi-
ence in the ring. Experience on the street is experience on the street. There is some
overlap in skills; some lessons transfer. But a black belt in Judo will teach you as
much about sudden assault as being mugged will teach you about Judo.
(Miller 2008: 18)
Mindset is always relative to the situation in question. It becomes a problem if prac-

titioners cannot distinguish between the different situations, which could easily happen
if the term ‘martial art’ is not defined, and practitioners fail to think in categorical
terms. The practitioner Miller confronts Bowman’s ‘believers’:
Despite the wide variety of skills and complete incompatibility of the mindsets or
strategy, martial artists are often convinced that they are training for all of these
things simultaneously.
(Miller 2008: 12)
What is MMA?
So far, we have tried to explain why we use ‘martial activities’ as the umbrella term for
those social practices associated in some way with martiality, and why we think that
some attempt to describe ‘martial categories’ is a desirable step towards understanding
those social practices. In this section, we will try to show what this means for an
understanding of MMA.
To begin with, we need to identify our object of enquiry. What do we mean by
‘MMA’? We mean what everyone means these days – something like: the MMA that
you see on TV – cage fighting in the octagon. Khabib Nurmagomedov, Jon Jones,
Georges St-Pierre, Ronda Rousey – what those folks do (or rather did). We will take
an approach akin to the conceptual technique of exhibition-analysis (see Parry 2019:
6). This approach begins by offering a kind of ostensive definition – definition not by
conceptualizing, but by pointing – directly indicating an object in the world. The next
stage of the exercise is one of explication – of clarification – of making clearer to
oneself (and to others) what one is talking about by providing a conceptual descrip-
tion of the object indicated. So we take it as our task to make explicit what ‘MMA’
means, as it is more or less implicitly understood and accepted by those who accept
that MMA-on-the-TV is a central case of MMA. It seems appropriate to begin to
describe such a commonly-accepted conception with a Wiki-definition, which we can
then test for adequacy:
Mixed martial arts (MMA), sometimes referred to as cage fighting, is a full-contact

combat sport based on striking, grappling and ground fighting, incorporating
techniques from various combat sports and martial arts from around the world.
(Mixed martial arts 2020)
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

This is a good starting-point, although we will later wish to dispute the adequacy of
part of it, and to propose a revision. Let us now consider where MMA is situated in
regard to our five basic martial categories. The three most relevant are martial arts,
martial sports, and close combat.
Close combat means fighting from immediate distance with an opponent(s) with the
purpose of overcoming them or defending oneself. Close combat occurs in real life,
often in unpredictable situations, with the aim to ‘get the job done’ effectively and
efficiently. In military contexts, it often boils down to survival – kill or be killed.
Martial arts focus on education, and their purposes include improvement in fighting
skills through the acquisition of traditional martial techniques, and the self-development
of the individual in terms of morality and character. That is why martial arts empha-
size adherence to moral principles and codes of conduct, while also drawing ideas
from philosophical, religious or educational systems, albeit often in a rather fragmented
way.
Martial sports employ combat techniques with the aim to win a competition. There
are both contact and non-contact varieties (for example, boxing and javelin). The
contact one-on-one events are usually called ‘combat sports’ and this entails two
opponents trying to overcome each other within a scope of a set of safetified techniques
and limited by rules.
MMA and close combat

MMA is sometimes ‘hyped’ as if it were a kind of close combat, or at least very close
to it. But it clearly is not, since MMA fighting is a result of the choices made by
competitors. Close combat is not: ‘The predator mindset is a choice… Self-defense is
never a choice. The victim will have to deal with shock and total surprise, the predator
won’t’ (Miller 2008: 11).
Further, the purpose in close combat is to overcome an opponent by any means
available, which sometimes may even mean legitimate killing. Close combat is real-life
fighting in serious circumstances, such as in the army or police, or in street-fighting.
MMA differs in that it has rules that constrain participants’ behavior, so that it is less
deadly, and more safetified. So, whilst it is true that MMA and close combat do share
certain features (for example, their openness to different kinds of techniques from
various martial or combat systems and traditions), there are crucial differences. As we
have said, unlike close combat, MMA is a practice restricted by rules and by its cen-
tral purpose: to determine the winner of a sporting contest. And so, while close
combat requires use of the most efficient techniques to subdue, defeat or eliminate
(kill) an opponent, MMA looks for the most efficient technique within the given rules.
In close combat you can fight dirty, whilst MMA does have significant restrictions and
constraints.
The rule element is associated with the element of institutionalization of MMA.
Together, they are very important, since they limit the activity by time and space and
restrict its lethality. The rules are there to provide a certain degree of safety, but also
the conditions for comparability, that is, the relative equality of means and conditions
for engaging with the opponent, which is a precondition for determining the winner of
a sporting contest. In close combat, the soldier/fighter looks for an efficient solution in
a specific, unique situation. She wants to overcome the adversary as quickly as possi-
ble, while being able to use any technique, any weapon, or any item in the
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

environment, for her benefit (sand to throw in the face, a wall to pin the opponent
against, furniture to hit them with, etc.). The emphasis for the soldier/streetfighter is
on adaptability, and she needs an awareness of the immediate environment (e.g., to
guard against the possibility of multiple assailants), and a certain creativity (e.g., to be
able to use an element of surprise; in the use of any available means; searching for any
kind of advantage, etc.). And so, the outcome of real-life fighting is not ‘winning or
losing’ (as in a sporting competition) but rather ‘succeeding’ (in defending oneself, or
in ‘getting the job done’) or even simply ‘surviving’.
The situation in MMA is quite different from such real-life unprepared situations –
MMA is simplified. Of course, the selected techniques need to be efficient with respect
to the predetermined time and the emptied space. Participants prepare with respect to
how long and where and with whom they are going to compete. The fight starts at a
pre-given time – it does not come as a surprise. The octagonal cage for MMA is
empty, so that the MMA fighter does not really need to be very much aware of the
surroundings (there are no objects lying around presenting a danger or advantage).
There is a relative equalization of participants – participation is restricted to one-on-
one; there is no one else who might unexpectedly attack; competitors are of similar
weight and health status (they have to have a health check); and they are tested for use
of prohibited substances. This rule-based and policed equality of opponents is ensured
by categories, such as weight (MMA presently recognizes 14 male classes and four
female classes), sex (males and females), and age (restricted to adults). Competitors’
clothes and equipment (gloves) are pre-defined. MMA rules are formulated by an
association or competition organizer, and the application of rules within the competi-
tion is overseen by referees. In close combat, however, the fight is often not a fair fight,
but rather conditions favor one of the parties. Indeed, parties will actively seek such
unfair advantages, to increase the chances of survival or success. There may still
remain some restrictions on certain forms of close combat – for example, individual
police behaviour in the combat situation may have to be reviewed later to assess whe-
ther laws have been broken – but it can also occur anywhere where a person attacks
somebody else, often without witnesses, and here anything goes.
Miller has this to say about the difference between the nature of the duel as close
combat, and MMA as a sport:
For close combat it is best if it does not happen at all. Best is to prevent the
situation. Contrary to close combat – martial sports and martial arts are activities
desired by us, we want to organize them, we value our participation in them, we
want them to happen.… Sport is… admirable, to me, because the real goal is to
test yourself. For most, it’s not about domination but about what they have, what
they can do, what they’ve learned. Mixed martial arts (MMA) is part of a long
evolution of taking this concept as far as it can go safely.
(Miller 2008: 8–9)
MMA and martial arts
MMA is sometimes thought to be a martial art. This mistake comes from its very
name: ‘mixed martial arts’. However, martial arts are educational activities, focussing
on cultivation and mastery of the participants, usually in one codified system. So, the
availability of more kinds of techniques in MMA also distances it from martial arts,
which usually focus on one set of codified techniques (known by name as karate, judo,
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

kendo, etc., or as a particular school), which are polished to be as near perfection as
possible. As Lloyd points out,
This eclecticism operates strictly in the pursuit of effectiveness in competition or

combat and with no emphasis on what may be recognized as budō or fidelity to an
ongoing martial tradition.
(Lloyd 2008: 81)
Similar to MMA, martial arts are usually relatively safetified activities (Martínková
and Parry 2016b). Donohue (2005: 10) claims that: ‘“martial arts” are rather “mar-
tially inspired arts” with little or no realistic combat utility in the modern world.’
While learners begin with safe techniques, increased mastery may bring more danger-
ous ones which, however, are not supposed to be used in real life (unless absolutely
necessary, for example in close combat situations).
Crucially, in comparison to MMA, martial arts put a much higher importance on
values such as cultivation of the whole self, development of discipline, virtues, and
morality, rather than on victory, which has overwhelming importance in martial sports
(see more in Cynarski 2019; Martínková, Parry, and Vágner 2019). Martial arts also
value philosophical or religious ideas, which they partly appropriate into their educa-
tional context. For example, martial arts may appropriate some traditional ideas from
warrior times to highlight the development of virtues. In kendo, a display of modesty,
called zanshin, is encouraged by self-restraint from ‘an ostentatious display of one’s
own victory’ after a successful strike (Oda and Kondo 2014: 8). This used to be a
practical skill in real-life-fighting, because a fighter needed to be ready for any possible
continuation of the fight (don’t celebrate too early!). In the new educational context of
martial arts, zanshin helps to promote modesty, thus diminishing overemphasis on the
value of victory in competition.
Now, it is not as though MMA cannot aspire to such purposes, nor that MMA prac-
tice never contributes to an athlete’s character or moral self-development. The point is that
it is not the structural purpose of MMA to achieve these ends. As Lloyd again notes, ‘The
ethos here is a long way from that of the “high” martial arts: the truth of violence is
understood in terms or ruthlessness, efficiency, and brutality’ (2008: 82).
MMA and combat sports

So, the actual MMA contest is more about the selection of an appropriate technique
and its suitable employment against an equal opponent, without a necessity to con-
centrate on the possible interferences of a real-life situation. That is why the mastery
of techniques and their suitable employment comes to the fore. This brings an oppor-
tunity to focus more on the mastery of the fighter, while it may also identify more or
less efficient techniques, within the context of pre-given conditions. This question was
at the origin of MMA – the techniques of which systems are more effective?
This characteristic suggests that MMA sits well amongst sports, specifically combat
sports. In sport, human physical skill is being tested (Parry 2019: 6). What makes
MMA unique within combat sports is the possibility of using a relatively wide range
of techniques. So, unlike boxing, taekwondo, or judo, which are restricted mainly to
one single kind of fighting skills (grappling, or striking, or throwing), the ‘mixed’
character of MMA makes them more dangerous, since the actions of the competitor
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

are more open and harder to anticipate. So, even though the MMA techniques are
safetified so that their lethality is limited (e.g., certain moves are not allowed, and
parts of the body are protected), the activity itself is still dangerous (whilst still
remaining safer than close combat).
The incorporation of the skills of other combat sports into the mix of MMA needs
a little explanation. Those skills must be modified, sometimes in subtle ways, if they
are to remain effective in the MMA context, since the expected feedback from a foray
is less predictable. A boxer can throw punches in a way that does not have to guard
against a takedown. A Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu fighter can try some hold without worrying
about an elbow to the face. The peculiar fascination of MMA arises partly from the
fact that, whilst the skills of other (individual) combat sports are ‘prescribed’, in
MMA there is nothing prescribed. Apart from those techniques that are prohibited,
the possibilities are open.
MMA as a ‘dangerous sport’

In what does the dangerousness of MMA consist? The dangerousness of an activity
(sport) can be determined by different ‘risk-of-danger factors’ (Martínková and Parry
2017: 83n), among which are: the activity itself, participants, level and quality of organi-
zation, and the environment. As seen above, what makes close combat especially danger-
ous is the unpredictability of the environment and timing, and the number and bodily size
and skills of the opponent(s). MMA is much safer than this. MMA has safetified the
environment, participants are to be of relatively equal bodily characteristics (through
categorization of athletes by weight and sex, and age limitations), and referees ensure the
prevention of serious injury and death. It is the activity itself that is dangerous.
According to Russell (2005: 3), dangerous sport can be defined as ‘a sport that
involves activity that itself creates a significant risk of loss of, or serious impairment
to, some basic capacity for human functioning’. MMA is more dangerous than those
combat sports that are single-disciplined (i.e., that test just one set of techniques),
because of the wider range of possibilities available to competitors, which makes the
fighting less predictable. So, even without the most damaging techniques (e.g., head-
butting, eye gouging, biting, genital attacks, etc.), many of the skills of MMA come
from real-life fighting skills, and there is still quite a high risk of serious impairment of
human capacities. This is also confirmed by observers – Thomas and Thomas (2018:
155) report that ‘There are no systematic reviews of newspaper or media accounts of
fights to assess rates and numbers of injuries or mortality. The few published surveys
and case reports markedly understate the worldwide situation.’
Conclusion
‘MMA’ is a misnomer. Some claim that it is a mix of martial arts, whereas it is really a
mix of martial techniques, which are variously deployed in those martial sports that
are combat sports (boxing, wrestling, sport karate, sport judo, etc.). It is itself clearly a
combat sport in the class of martial sports (although its relative dangerousness leads
some to think that it should join boxing as a pariah sport). To be clear, though, we
should point out that this chapter is not ‘against’ MMA. It simply argues that MMA
should not be confused with martial arts nor close combat. Whether or not MMA is
in some sense a ‘desirable’ pursuit is a separate question.
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

So why did who arrive at the designation MMA? We speculate that the reasons for
this are multiple. Firstly, it is a result of the general confusion in the West over the
term ‘martial arts’, which is often (mis)taken to refer to a variety of activities in dif-
ferent categories. Thus, for example, martial sports are frequently referred to mis-
takenly as martial arts, and ‘martial arts’ movies frequently feature close combat
action. This is an example of why we prefer the umbrella term ‘martial activities’.
Secondly, ‘MMA’ is an honorific choice of name that somewhat dignifies the sport,
alleviating the negative perceptions and connotations of ‘Ultimate Fighting’, and
profiting from positive association with the noble aspirations of martial arts.
Thirdly, some claim that MMA is in fact a mix of martial arts, but this is a long-
distance claim, that should be resisted. To begin with, proponents of this idea often
fail to distinguish martial arts from martial sports. They can usually be persuaded that
they are (really) talking about martial sports (as the Wiki entry evidences) – so the
claim fails. Although it might be true that combat sports appropriate some of the
techniques of martial arts, and that MMA mixes the techniques of various combat
sports, the connection of MMA back to martial arts is a tenuous one. This is partly
because the martial arts techniques are modified by incorporation into combat sports,
and then modified again by incorporation into MMA.
Our conclusion is that MMA is not a martial art, but a martial sport – specifically,
a member of the subset: combat sports. MMA can be described as a dangerous sport,
because of its use of mixed techniques, which make fighting less predictable.1
Note
1 This chapter was written with institutional support from Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic (PROGRES Q19).
References
Bowman, P. (2017) ‘The Definition of Martial Arts Studies’, Martial Arts Studies, 3: 6–23.
Cynarski, W. J. (2019) ‘General Canon of the Philosophy of Karate and Taekwondo’, IDO
MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 19(3): 24–32.
Donohue J. (2005) ‘Modern Educational Theories and Traditional Japanese Martial Arts
Training Methods’, Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 14(2): 8–29.
Donohue, J., and Taylor, K. (1994) ‘The Classification of the Fighting Arts’, Journal of Asian
Martial Arts, 3(4): 10–37.
Legendre, A., and Dietrich, G. (2020) ‘Improving Movement Efficiency through Qualitative
Slowness: A Discussion between Bergson’s Philosophy and Asian Martial Arts’ Pedagogy’,
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17511321.2020.
1730428?journalCode=rsep20, accessed 30 December 2020.
Lloyd, H. M. (2014) ‘The Martial Arts as Philosophical Practice’, in G. Priest and D. Young
(eds.) Philosophy and the Martial Arts: Engagement. London: Routledge, pp. 68–86.
Martínková, I., and Parry, J. (2016a) ‘Martial Categories: Clarification and Classification’,
Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 43(1): 143–162.
Martínková, I., and Parry, J. (2016b) ‘The Paradox of Martial Arts – Safe Combat’, IDO
MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 16(4): 4–10.
Martínková, I., and Parry, J. (2017) ‘Safe Danger – On the Experience of Challenge, Adventure
and Risk in Education’, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 11(1): 75–91.
Martínková, I., Parry, J. and Vágner, M. (2019) ‘The Contribution of Martial Arts to Moral Devel-
opment’, IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE. Journal of Martial Arts Anthropology, 19(1): 1–8.
9780367641627_text.bak;
Created: 10/05/2021 @ 15:53:03

Matson, J. (2009) ‘The Origin of Zero’, Scientific American, 21 August, https://www.scientificam
erican.com/article/history-of-zero/, accessed 30 December 2020.
Miller, R. (2008) Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World
Violence. Boston: YMAA Publication Center.
‘Mixed Martial Arts’ (2020) Wikipedia, 30 December, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_ma
rtial_arts, accessed 30 December 2020.
Oda, Y. and Kondo, Y. (2014) ‘The Concept of Yuko-Datotsu in Kendo: Interpreted from the
Aesthetics of Zanshin’, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 8(1): 3–15.
Parry, J. (2019) ‘E-sports Are Not Sports’, Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 13(1): 3–18.
Priest, G., and D. Young (eds.) (2014) Philosophy and the Martial Arts: Engagement. London:
Routledge.
Russell, J. S. (2005) ‘The Value of Dangerous Sport’, Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 32(1):
1–19.
Talmon-Chvaicer, M. (2008) The Hidden History of Capoiera: A Collision of Cultures in the
Brazilian Battle Dance. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Thomas, R. E., and Thomas, B. C. (2018) ‘Systematic Review of Injuries in Mixed Martial
Arts’, The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 46(2): 155–167.
Thomasson, A. (2019) ‘Categories’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.sta
nford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/categories/, accessed 30 December 2020.
Waismann, F. (1968) How I See Philosophy. London: Macmillan.
View publication stats

Jurnal Beladiri 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Beladiri 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Beladiri 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

Chapter · July 2021

Irena Martinkova Jim Parry

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Physical Education and Sport View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

What is a martial art? In the introduction to their ﬁne collection of chapters by a

Analysis of martial activities into martial categories

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 5

6 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

Categorization is an ontological exercise

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 7

However, this way of putting things raises a number of issues.

8 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

A note on ‘social construction’

Miller’s practical approach – ‘mindsets’

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 9

Mindset is always relative to the situation in question. It becomes a problem if prac-

Mixed martial arts (MMA), sometimes referred to as cage ﬁghting, is a full-contact

10 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

MMA and close combat

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 11

12 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

This eclecticism operates strictly in the pursuit of eﬀectiveness in competition or

MMA and combat sports

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 13

MMA as a ‘dangerous sport’

14 Mixed martial arts is not a martial art

Mixed martial arts is not a martial art 15

View publication stats

You might also like