I dont know if i understand this correctly and i think im pretty intelegent.
Does this mean that an A-class thai boxer with a Brown Belt in BJJ and 5 years exp at international level in wrestling with an MMA record of ? lets say 22-2-0 does not even qualify for the first course.
But some guy with a 1st dan in TKD does?
I have a friend who is a 2nd dan in TKD (pm for details if you think im bs'ing) and he "wouldnt go near MMA as it isnt his sport" but he qualifies for this course!.
*takes a good look at himself in the mirror doubting himself* and says:
"is it just me ...... seriuosly man ...... is it just me"
please help as i either genuinely dont understand or it really is as rediculous as i first thought.
I think it's ridiculous how these bodies think that just because they've got experience in running one sport, that they have the right to Govern/Sanction or be an authority in another... Each sport should have their own respective bodies, and this goes for all the combat sports - Kickboxing, Muay Thai, MMA, etc... Look at the mess that the Martial Arts are in as far as competition goes - you have the WKA/ISKA/WAKO and about 20 other bodies all promoting full contact, semi-contact, light continuous, bloody musical forms??, kata, weapons, etc, and it's lead to a complete watering down of the titles.
Keep MMA separate. The UK's top-MMA people should simply create a Board of Representatives and all agree the rules & regulations, standards and penalties for breaches. It doesn't have to affect smaller promotions from running their own 'Association Championships', but when it comes to National Titles only one is enough....
If something is not done, then somebody like the UFC may just come along and create an official UFC-UK champion, the the sport will be in the hands of one big greedy American corporation.
Our criteria can be seen for both coach and grades, for those who wish it, here www.mmacoach.co.uk
Constructive criticism accepted with pleasure ladies and gents, everyone may not agree of course but after many discussions it seemed the fairest way for us, again its there if needed and if not then fine - what we won't be doing however is advertising it in the media etc.
Andy, fair play on trying to establish an insurance for MMA. A couple of things I wanted to ask.
1) a requirement of 10 wins across the board is necessary. What about clubs starting out? How do they get insured/qualified? Or do they just go uninsured and unqualified until they get their wins.... it's not really safe guarding the growth of sport for the future is it. Only exisiting clubs with the appropriate wins will be able to regrister.
2)wining is great but it doesn't mean that when a person losses they are crap, just they they fought someone better on the day. You stated that these wins would be looked into to insure integrity (not a white wash) But what happens with close fights, decsions that go against a person? Surely the entire record should be looked at (W-L-D).
3) if sparring (when including hits on the ground) is not covered, then is this not pretty useless as most MMA clubs will carry out sparring including hits on the ground (other wise it's just kickboxing, clinch, and submission grappling.. not MMA really) as part of stress innoculation prior to competition. If this isn't done in the club, then there will be more injuries during competition as people will not be able to adequately 'ride the storm' under pressure.
4) what about clubs practising defense of ground n pound for self defense? Again if you are wanting realistic training, you will isolate this is drilling, but then go live and stress innoculate in sparring. How is this cover by insurance? Or training realistically is seen as uninsurable... and hence we can only drill things and not really know if what we are learning actually works?
Back to the WAKO debate or even getting a BB in MMA.... why are we trying to say that a coach has to have a BB or an extensive fight record. In boxing (where there is no such thing as a BB), I have seen many great coaches who where not great or top athletes themsleves (Freddie Roach comes to mind), some have no personal ring experience. But what the do have is coaching skills - the ability to take a person from A to B all the way to Z. Boxing Coaches courses seem to not revolve around techniques and drills but coaching theories, communication, etc.... and it's this that I think WAKO and other firms are trying to establish, rather than some meathead who may have skills running a 'fight club' type of arrangement where they just get people to beat up one another.
That aside should insurance ever become available everything will change as it will be the insurer setting the requirements not us or anybody else.
Also who would be represented?
just take all willing promotions that have held an event larger than 500 people? or top 10 biggest promotion and convince them to sit down and establish rules? Then just say this is what we think, smaller promotions take it or leave it? Also which promotion would get to host the uk title fights? arguments about money and advertising will ensue.
sorry that came across really negative, im only asking coz i think its a good idea.
I think people should stop being negative and just be greatful there are people willing to put in the effort to put this together. Constructive criticism will move us forward...
It's not being negative, it is indeed constructive criticism.
I think that being able to teach MMA (which means UFC etc style fights in a ring or cage, not a mix of traditional martial arts) requires far more than a dan grade in any TMA. In fact, I don't think a dan grade in a TMA is in anyway necessary and is a silly prerequisite to have. Also, to not require any grappling credentials before qualifiying someone to teach MMA is just ridiculous. (Assuming what cmaauk has said is true).