Talk:Mixed martial arts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misc Unclassified Stuff

the rules section looks good trimmed down, org specific rules could be on the org subpage. but I dissagree with removing the TL completely. the reason for the pride and UFC centric view is because they are the current standard when addressing modern MMA and the only Info that most of us have to offer so far. It would be nice to list important developements from days in ancient history, but I am not aware of all those dates being comprehensively assembled yet and I assumed that this was where we could start that process. I am fairly familiar with pride and UFC histories but we just have to wait for submissions ( pun?) from historians or journalists to include pre 93 brazilian, japanese, russian and ancient developements to make the TL more complete. I do agree that details which only pertain to a specific org and not the sport as a whole should be on the specific subpage. Is it possible to create a TL subpage? Has anyone tried contacting the major MMA websites and requesting Informed and nuetral additions for this project? -chas

KingMob 04:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) After some more review, I think it's going to be very hard to come up with a NPOV timeline that doesn't support an agenda or leave out important details of MMA before 1993.

To be honest, I find the timeline to be a frivilous addition to this article. I don't see it being of interest to the average reader who isn't a MMA fan, which seems to be because the whole thing was written by MMA fans themselves. Not that I can blame them for working on this article, but we don't need running histories of Pride FC and UFC events as part of this article. --Aesopian 14:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

KingMob 16:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree fully.

Trench 19:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) I agree that the article would be better without the timeline. It's already taking up too much space and is too Pride/UFC-centric. Breaking it up and placing it on the respective organization pages would be a better idea.

KingMob 09:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) Some real problems with NPOV in this article, also far too narrow in scope, especially the time line; not including the many Japanese events other than Pride and events in the former Soviet Union which were just as important. Also, far too much fanboyism regarding Brazilian fighters and Brazilian Jujitsu. Also try to avoid posting copyrighted materials.

Malathion 21:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) I guess you're the person adding all this stuff about Russian events. Frankly I would accuse you of fanboyism more than anything. I'm not sure how you're concluding that Russian MMA events are "just as important" since they are not internationally televised on the level of Pride. That Pride Fighting Championships is the biggest, most expensive, and most watched production in MMA is perfectly NPOV and since MMA is a spectator sport, it follows that Pride should get most of the attention of an article describing it. If you want to add some things about other leagues, you're going to have to include not only Russian events but all of those that take place in Brazil and America as well. Russia and the United States are just two of many nations that make important contributions to the MMA world, but I don't think anyone can deny that Japan and Brazil are the main ones. I'm not sure why you're so predisposed to Judo and Russians but your edits appear to be very POV to me.

Also, if you know of any copyrighted materials in this article, please point them out as I am unaware of it.

KingMob 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) Quite simply, I more had problems with the severe emphasis on Brazilians and BJJ. Not calling the grappling Submission Wrestling and just concentrating on BJJ as the grappling art was again very POV or at the very least narrow minded, considering there are so many amazing submission grapplers just in the Japanese light weights who are every bit as good, if not better than Chute Box and Brazilian Top Team in grappling. Namely: Imanari, Sato, Sudo, Kikuta, Uno, Kotani and the list goes on. This doesn't even include the amazing submission grapplers from Russia and the US.

--Additionally, to not even mention one of the more influencial organizations in the lower weights: Shooto was very myopic. That's not even including the other supremely important Organizations: Rings (of which Mino, Fedor, Henderson were all champions in) AFC and the IFC, which were events in the early days which Vovchanchin, Morias, Lindland and others. Also, in Brazil you have WVC/IVC, which had Rizzo, Vernon White, Semenov, Wanderlei Silva, Pele and countless others. Then, there was Pancrase as well, and King of the Cage in North America.

--This is not even mentioning the most influencial 'minor league' organizations in North America: Superbrawl and Extreme Challenge, which gave us Belfort, Carter, Militich, Hughes and countless others. Even these minor events are all very relevant... Maybe not as much as Rings, Pancrase, Shooto and AFC/IFC but...

--Now, simply, I don't have the time or energy to add all that needs to realistically be covered to balance things all at once, but I have been trying. Now, if that draws your ire because I'm trying to balance things out, well... I'm not going to apologize or stop. The MMA world is not just BJJ, Pride and UFC.

--As far as the copyrighted material, I made a mistake and didn't read that the source code that the video was from Silva's own site. I'll freely admit that mistake.

--Jayson Virissimo 03:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Sorry to split hairs but Sudo is a BJJ fighter and BJJ is also studied by Japanese fighters as well as Brazilian fighters. But yes there are many great submission grapplers from all parts of the world.

Malathion 23:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) After looking at some of your previous edits, I think it's apparent we're going to need some kind of mediation. If you think Ricardo Arona is a ground and pound fighter then you have some serious misconceptions either about MMA or what these terms mean. Your obsession with Russian martial arts is bizarre and inherently POV.

One point we can maybe find agreement on is the "minor leagues". I do think these other organizations deserve mention. It might satisfy everyone involved if we created another subsection that could give an overview of them. However I don't think we need to disrupt the main article any. Although it's true that there is more to MMA than Pride and the UFC, it is also true that basically every MMA fan watches Pride or the UFC or both. No other organizations are nearly as influential as they are. They're the "major leagues" and they deserve most of the attention.

KingMob 03:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) I agree, we are going to need some mediation for after reading some of your edits in other MMA pages, I wonder about your knowledge of MMA as a whole. To say that Belfort Beat Sakuraba badly, then lost on decision is very inaccurate to say the least. As far as Arona, just look at his record or his fights. Those fights where he wins, he wins by controlling the takedown, keeping top position and hitting. To put it simply, his record is very much comparable to Tito Ortiz's record considering Number of Submissions and the very way he fights. He is a very different animal than say: Bustamante or Mir. To call my balancing by mentioning a few very good submission artists/fighters from the Former Soviet States: Kopylov And Semenov, as an obsession and then the fact that Imanari and Sato were not mentioned as great submission artists, shows your own POV. Especially considering that the only two camps mentioned as great submission fighters were Chute Box and Brazilian Top team, while I agree with BTT being on there, I can think of five other camps that have better submission fighters and win by submission more than Chute Box does.

--Again, I think that in the main article Shooto (The first MMA organization, existed since 1986 to and the first international MMA organization and first push for it as being a sport, not a spectacle), Pancrase (It's deep influence on the early days and existing before the UFC) and Rings (International with Shows everywhere except Brazil) should be mentioned because they are far from 'Minor League' and their influence on the sport worldwide is just as deep as UFC and Pride are on America. Again, to more move to NPOV instead of UFC/Pride and BJJ-centric view that this article had before mine and other's editting.

Trench 19:47, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC) A few things could improve this article. A simple list of notable MMA orgs, (Pride, UFC, K-1, Rings, Pancrase, Shooto would be a good start), with a quick note about the significance of each. I don't think the 'Rules in major organizations' section needs to be here, they are/should be listed on the organization pages themselves. The Future section seems to state the obvious a little, the best fighters are the most rounded in all areas rather than those that excel in one aspect. It could be summed up quickly at the end of the opening section. I'm also not sure about the need for the paragraph regarding MMA's value in self defense, it needs shortening certainly.

Is this original work? - Zoe

Malathion 20:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't know who is making some of these edits, but it looks like a lot of decent prose has been replaced with some very poor writing and possibly POV, including a bizarre disposition toward Russians and some flat out ridiculous stuff (for example someone had Ricardo Arona listed as a ground and pound fighter). I don't know who is making these edits, but please try to explain your thinking here so we can get this stuff cleared up. In the mean time, I am going to have to rewrite some large parts of this article.

Chas- I think this article emphasises Pride and UFC because they are currently the largest and most visable. Is rings even still operating? I think it would be great to list pre 1993 oganizations under the history or evolution headings. I think Pancrase, rings, ROTR should be mentioned if applicable. But I don't think they need full descriptions on the main page to explain the popular standard of current MMA. Also keep in mind that there is a warning at the top of the page that its getting too large. There apparently isn't enough room for every little thing on the main page. intricate details about specific orgs: ufc, pride, rings or specific Martial arts: BJJ, Wrestling, Sambo. should be put on thier own page and linked. There has always been russian fighters in mma and I would love to know the history of that, But again I think a detailed analasys of that, or the scene in japan, or brazil, or hawaii should belong on a linked sub page. The only reason for details on the scene is the US is in analysis of the impact of UFC. The timeline is definately to long. It should be comfined to major developements. Not how great silva is or when bas kneed someones head.

Where is the content list? There is just a large space. 24.110.21.111 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts outside of professional fighting

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) I think we've already answered this question below. When people talk about MMA, they're talking about sport fighting, not formless systems like JKD. If you want to talk about JKD, say JKD. If you want to talk about MMA, say MMA. It would be more coherent for Wikipedia to discuss "mixed" martial arts systems in a generic discussion of martial arts, or in their own articles, rather than in the Mixed Martial Arts article. If you start talking about formless styles in this article, you're going to split the issue content in half, which will be very confusing. Putting a link at the top to Jeet Kune Do or a "Martial Arts" article so that people who come here looking for mixed systems can find what they're looking for should be fine.

Assuming I get some agreement on this, or no one says otherwise, I'm going to do some rewriting to make it clearer that "mixed martial arts" is a concept and practice outside of just professional fighting, though that has become it's popular usage.

For the record, I am a MMA troglodyte and love to watch the pro fights. I actually like the current article; I have just heard too many people speak of "mixed martial arts" outside of these competitions (like I have said above), so I thought it would be best to cover the different aspects of the subject.

Aesopian 15:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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) I have removed Bruce Lee citation because of following reasons: 1) he was an actor, no full contact fighter 2) his style was not been able to prove his concepts in MMA competition 3) There are plenty of real founders (Helio Gracie?)

I would like to note that I like him and his work (movies), but he really not belong here. I think that there should be a different page for MMA in Jeet Kune Do, Kenpo

DPE 15:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) I have removed the ridiculous Vambudo. This is a free encyclopedia where reliable and proven information about various topics should be. Therefore I think that no adverts should be permited here. I was forced to remove link to Canadian site http://www.combatultime.com because information there is no information available in English. I recommend to put this link into the other language branches. I could no do it by myself.

Malathion 06:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) Would anyone object if I replaced the "Brazillian Jujitsu" section with a more generic "Submission wrestling" section? There are several notable examples of non-BJJ fighters doing quite well in MMA, usually with Judo and Sambo; Yoshida, Emelianenko, Sakuraba and Frank Shamrock might all fit this description. BJJ is not the only way to fight on the ground.

[User:DPE|DPE]] 15:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) No problem with "Submission wrestling". Could anyone informed enought write down something into section Trainin. I am a fan an I train boxing only, therefore I am probably not the right person.

Malathion 17:54, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're looking for with the "Training" section. Wouldn't it be a better idea to suggest that someone look for an article on physical conditioning? Mixed martial artists who are looking for a training regimen are not likely to be looking for it on Wikipedia.

---

I am mostly ignorant about this subject, but is the ultamite fighting championships etc. a good forum to compare martial arts? Essentially I'm wondering if representatives that were equally skilled in their martial art were actually part of the battles, or just stayed away.

KingMob 08:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) While the issue of whether they were the best representives, many of the Traditional Martial Artists who tried their hand at MMA were champions in their own arts.

Vale Tudo?

I'm interested to know why there is absolutely no mention of the Brazilian MMA/Vale Tudo scene throughout the 20th century. It at least merits a mention don't you think?

---

thunderlippps: I linked to, and then took a look at the vale tudo page. It is very sparce and needs work. But this is not the page for details and in depth history of vale tudo. I heard that actual knowledge of vale tudo is hard to verify because it was somewhat illeagle, frowned upon and not well documented. But any in depth details should be on a specific page never the less. Its not well documented enough to be part of the modern standard that we're trying to explain with this page. I think I read that vale tudo it is not actually considered MMA in Brazil, but something similar. It does indeed deserve a mention, but I trimmed the sentance down a little because it was mostly self referential and didn't offer information regarding its relation to modern MMA.

General point

Why should an article about Mixed Martial Arts have a bias towards UFC and PRIDE simply becasue that is what people watch on TV. Why should an Encyclopedia want to view the world through a Cafod Ray Tube?

Surely the TV influence should be a subsection of mixed martial arts.

Mixed Martial is..

This is its History...

And the TV events - particularly... has really contributed to its popularity and growth...

As an impartial observer listening into someone elses conversation - it would seem to me that if you can come to some agreement about this it may help resolve the problem.

you both clearly have a lot of passion and energy about this topic - and I for one appreciate the work that you are doing on this article (I am new to MMA - and I am finding the info fascinating - I'm even enjoying your discussion!!!) - so I reckon if you can come to some agreement I reckon between the both of you (and all the other conrtibuters) - I reckon you have it in you to put together a really great article. As Hegel might see it - Thesis, Antithesis - Synthesis

I'm looking forward to the Synthesis

(Well - you did both mention the need for some kind of arbitration!!)

Keep up the Good work

WP:NOR

Does anyone else think the whole "styles of fighting" section looks a bit like original research? ⟳ausa کui ^× 16:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it does smack of original research and the definitions used to be much more NPOV, as you can see with the above argument. I don't know how we could solve this. KingMob 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all.. I have been in Mixed Martial Arts for years, the styles of fighting section is very accurate and paints a good overview of the hybrid style nature of our sport to the uninitiated. --Aika 14:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Er, that doesn't really respond to the question. You might want to review WP:NOR for a good explanation of what I mean by original research. ⟳ausa کui ^× 09:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally. The person who did those edits can write but it is very POV in that no citations for versions of events. Good writing but irritates me as it detracts from fact that it's just one person's take. I never heard this terminology before too. Grroin 22:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Shall we delete the whole section, but maybe retain any non-OR segments? Shawnc 03:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is NOT original research. These concepts are in Renzo Gracie's book "Mastering Jujitsu".

Hybrid martial arts

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)

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)

Based on some concerns that this article and Combatives might make it seem as if it was asserted that the ONLY example of a "mixed martial art" or "hybrid" style was combatives I had amended a paragraph to read

A mixed martial art is also sometimes used to describe a hybrid style of martial arts which incorporate techniques and theories from several different martial arts. Two examples might be American Kajukenbo or military combatives.

.The rationale for this may not have been clear to User:217.77.165.35 who reverted it, and I'll address this on the talk page. Since User:217.77.165.35 may or may not be a single person, though, I'll explain it here. The goal was not to assert that Kajukenbo is a superb example of a mixed martial art, but to choose a style whose very name and lineage has emphasized this point rather than obscured it as Jeet Kune Do (which is as much a philosophy of art) or Aikido which was originally a very sophsticated mix of things might be seen to have done.

I mention this because I will plan on reverting the change, and don't want to make this seem like a revert war. Please discuss, if anyone has an objection to the revert to reflect the above language. Thanks! Rorybowman 02:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a general article on hybrid martial arts (HMA) might be appropriate. I have done something which vaguely looks like this at Mixed martial art (singular), which used to redirect here. An explicit article on HMA would be better, though, and then reinstate that redirect. Rorybowman 03:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

MMA fighters notability standard

Which factors should be used to determine whether a competitor is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? For example, Chris Brennan was speedy deleted, despite having fought in the UFC, PRIDE, Shooto, KOTC, etc. Shawnc 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One possible criteria would be having won one of the major tournaments, or otherwise having an unusually impressive fighting record.---Marcus- 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always tried to limit notable fighters to belt holders and tournament finalists. But I agree there needs to be a little flexiblity to include fighters with good/extensive records or pioneering styles. -- Trench 19:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also to use someone as an example who was not a notable pioneer they should at least be recognizable. I was not familiar with chris before his recent spat with UFC and the stevenson fight. But a look at his record indicates that he is 1-2 in UFC and has had an extensive but largely unimpressive career. Unless there was a paragraph relating to clothing lines, or long mediocre careers spread across different organizations, then whatever his name was being used as an example of there must have been a better choice than him.-thunderlippps feb 17

The Legality of Headbutts?

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)

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)

Taking citation needed notice off

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)

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)

Either cite this or get rid of it.

"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)

---I went ahead and got rid of the two sentences since they were unnecessary anyway.--Jayson Virissimo 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

The external links section

There is a problem that this section is flooded with redundant links. Some User: 71.192.196.36 complained why Fightresource.com was removed from the external links section. First of all, it doesn't matter if it is "legitimate" or not. Wikipedia is not merely a collection of links to all related sites. We should only select the cream of the crop such as large forums, fighter databases, and collections of free resources. Fightresource.com is is just an advertising site with links to other sites. The list should be reduced even further. --Marcus 04:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely! The external links section continues to be used as a bulletin board for personal webpages, blogs and commercial ventures. One guy, "fightresource.com" actually had the insane idea to insert links to his site repeatadly into the body of the article! It's annoying and messy to treat this page as a market to pawn your wares. As an "encyclopedia" entry, I agree the links section should be restrained to the major sites and a few representatives of secondary related sites such as training related, databases and further refferal sites. Thunderlippps 23:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a couple of weeks ago. A couple of spammers came back, but overall it looks like people don't have a problem with the shorter version. Feel free to prune it even more... --CasualFighter 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a new site that's being posted repeatedly now: Brawl.com by User:Mmaman. Sponsoring events or fighters doesn't make it into an MMA event or organization. --Marcus 09:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a bit by getting rid of 3 more sites that were small time ones that shouldn't be on there. One was still under construction even.

More commonly used term

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BJJ?

Does anyone know what Sakuraba's and Ken Shamrock's fighting style{s} are (what martial arts they usually use)? I'm trying to compare ther top martial arts used in MMA. Also, what style allowed Sakuraba to defeat the Gracies and their BJJ? Is this style always this effective against BJJ?

I belive Sakuraba is catch wrestling.Rhythmic01 02:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shamrock was a pro wrestler, he is pure hybrid now, but thats where he started.

Shamrock is a submission wrestler, and started his fighting career in Pancrase. -johnkilo

Like many, Shamrock started off with wrestling in high-school. He later fought stiff-worked (meaning that while the ending was still decided in advance, the wrestlers would fight for real up to that point) pro-wrestling matches over in Japan as part of Akira Maeda’s Universal Wrestling Federation during 1990, later moving to Yoshiaki Fujiwara’s breakaway Professional Wrestling Fujiwara Gumi (or ‘group’). Shortly before entering the UFC, Shamrock competed in the inaugural Pancrase event. At the time, he was referred to as "the number one shootfighter in the world" (because according to Gentry, no-one knew any better), and 'shootfighting' remained his style in the early UFCs. Sub wrestling is probably a better description for his later career, however. Slideyfoot 09:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lethwei?

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)

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)

MMA resources spamming getting old

Seriously, Would it be fine to add a disclaimer saying any link will face deletion unless discussed here on the talk page so others can confirm if it should be on there or not? Though something tells me nobody is going to bother. Probably better to just let the spam keep going.

A decent definition for banned elbow strikes?

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)

"Ultimate Fighting" redirect =

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)

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)

Rule section fork

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)

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)

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)

I have a split fork at Mixed martial arts rules. Unfortunately, I'm in a bit of a block, not sure how to distill that section to replace the current section on this page. So, if anyone feels inspired to write something, please do. I'll try to tackle it a bit more through the week. hateless 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Lead picture?

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)

First collaboration

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)

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)

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)