I am curious if MMA teaches any kind of philosophy along with actual fighting techniques. My only fighting experience is with TKD and Boxing. As a TKD practioner we learn a lot of philosophy on the type of person we need to be. These are strict guidelines. I'm also a boxing trainer. We teach our fighters to be respectable and stay clean. But outside of that, nothing strict. So I wondered how MMA fits into that.

It depends on the gym, but the general attitude is that you don't need to be taught explicitly how to be a good person, you can learn that as a matter of course. Adding in the philosophy is wedging another culture into the martial art, while MMA is about getting to the essence of fighting.

Migo,
Philosophy is not nessecarily something added from the outside or another culture. The philosophy of an art exists not only in the individual but in it's process and practice. On way to determine a groups philosophy is to understand what it values and what behaviors it reinforces. I would like to hear from others on the topic.

Some of the words I imagine I would see in the discussion would be

Pragmatic

Practical

alive

utilitarian

and evolutionary.

By the way, any MMA practioner that doesn't understand what debt he owes to Krishnamurti is missing out.

How about "pragmatic evolutionary utilitarianism"

It fits right into it, just as you said, a little respect and not much else..it's all about fighting and staying alive in the cage.

In MMA, the philosophy is in the process.

The work ethic, the helping of others in improving and reaching goals, the humility associated with tapping out to someone who has achieved a finishing hold, the self control in training realistically hard but stopping short of hurting your training partners, etc.

Last but not least...(from the topic of another thread) the maturity of not bragging and boasting of one's exploits in training or competition but instead enjoying the quiet confidence that you can walk it without talking it.

Well said, Fletch. I was trying to think of how to articulate it, but you did a great job.

Can you explain what you mean about Krishnamurti?

Wow oldman! it's great to know I'm not the only one on this forum who knows of Krishnamurti!!!

*is happy ^_^*

V,
Krishnamurti was for lack of a better word a philosopher. His work was influential on many levels and to many people. His writting influenced martial artists like Bruce Lee and contemporary Martial artists as well. You can find his work referenced in Matt Thortons SBG site also.

Google is our friend.

oh yeah, i know who krishnamurti is. i just meant was there anything specific he wrote about that has significance to martial artists. i am not very familiar with his works but i will look into it.

V,
The point is not that what he wrote was related to martial arts. The writing and his thought pertained to the whole of life and living not just a portion of life. It could appreciated by anyone not just martial artists.

First of all, Fletch nailed it in MY opinion. Very well said there bro.

Secondly, Dereck is right in many ways himself. I've experienced the same mentality (survival of the fitest). I suppose it depends on the group you're working with. All gyms are generally reflections of the group leader.

I have always been more into philosophy myself. Perhaps that's why I run my gym the way I do. To me, it isn't about winning and feeling the need to "tap everyone out" that's within sight. It's about learning, sharing the art and working to create an environment where EVERYONE helps everyone else to grow and be the best they can become. I preach that a lot so, I suppose I keep all the guys who feel the same way and lose the guys who don't. Doesn't bother me either way -- I'm not in this for the money (which is good 'cause I damn sure am not making any!)


-John

I think Fletch gave the best answer possible. Better than mine would have been.

Well, in more traditional styles there are belts, titles, bowing, chain of commands, and tons of formalities which are part of learning respect right? In boxing / MMA there is still respect, without the symbols and "forced" respect.

If I was working with a boxing trainer who was helping me, teaching me knew things, improving my boxing, etc. Well, they would have my respect. I wouldn't snap to attention everytime they talked, call them "sir" or bow everytime they came near me. Those things are in a sense "Artificial" in that they show respect, but don't have to mean it.

Philosophy is the same. It is there, but the "Artificial" or "For show" stuff isn't there. Either you get it or you don't, you don't get to quote some old Chinese guys and fake it when you don't mean it.

A person can snap to attention, bow, "sir" and show all the respect in the world, and not mean any of it. They can also read and quote off all the traditional philosophy you can find and not get or live by any of it.

oldman, Rorion Gracie and then Maurice Smith are more responsible for MMA than any philosopher.

Oooooh, gotta disagree with that. You stepped in it with that one. Mark?

Quote:

---

oldman, Rorion Gracie and then Maurice Smith are more responsible for MMA than any philosopher.

---

Why would I disagree with Migo. I think he is quite insightfull. Myself, Rorian and Moe have all left our imprint on the MMA landscape. Plus I am certain Krishnamurti would not accept responsibility for the phenomenon.

Perhaps not but I think it could be bestowed upon him or many others. Im not a philo major or anything but I believe they deserve some credit anyway, perhaps not all, but some.

Here let me try again...

By the way, any MMA practioner that doesn't understand what debt he owes to Rorian Gracie and Maurice Smith is missing out.

There that pretty much covers it.

Im not disregarding either of the two, Gracie or Smith, But I dont think they are solely responsible either.

I just said more responsible than a philosopher. Rorion got the UFC going which got everyone paying attention, and Mo Smith was the first guy to get people clued in that crosstraining was necessary. Before him it was still single style grapplers who were dominating. If it hadn't been for them, the philosophes would have been saying the same thing but much less people would be doing it.

Probably so.

I'd say both where inevitable.

Cross training was a concept that existed long before Mo Smith, and MMA was around long before Rorion Gracie. They where just in the right place at the right time.

Martial arts had, as a whole, been building up such a level of mystique, nonsense, and complete crap being passed as "real" that it was only a matter of time before someone threw down the gloves.


Grappling alone worked because no one knew a damn thing about it at the time. Everyone just ignored it "Fighting is done standing" was the mentallity, and rules where always in place to deal with it. If those grapplers had the level of striking knowledge that the strikers had grappling knowledge it would have been even messier in there.

But it was only a matter of time before people learnt both. And to be honest, Ken Shamrock was at the the time, corss trained right from UFC 1. He was a submission specialist that could stand and trade quite well, was even nick named "One punch Shamrock" for his ability to drop people with one punch.

Rorion and Mo where influential, but not to the level you are elevating them too.

Who were more influential then, in your opinion?