Arts and sports have constraints, MMA has none right ? I don't say it's easy, just that it's first in the coma loses.
In soccer you don't score a goal because you said so. In most martial arts you use dedicated forms and styles which impose constraints on how the match evolves. In Chess you have limited movements.. etc etc
MMA has plenty of constraints. First of all there a bunch of techniques that are illegal (details differ slightly between organisations). Secondly you are fighting in an enclosed space (again details differ) so you have to know how to use that to your advantage. Thirdly there are time limits and round limits so you have to know how to manage you time and energy. Finally there is a scoring system that you have to understand so you know how to score points in the case that no one finishes the fight in the allotted time.
Also if you're going to do MMA for living you have to take into account that being entertaining is just as important as winning for your bottom line.
I understand your point, I look absurd, but I can revert back to the answer above, spatial constraint is not a sport qualifying constraint. Or you can say it's a sport because you have to have two legs.
MMA limitations seems to be, do not attack sensitive parts and do not kill the opponent. There's nothing to master other than survival. Every people trying to use one genre/style, ended up smashed by the people that went purely for pragmatics (put the guy down, smash his face until submission). My (own personal subjective perceptional) definition of art cannot accept this. See for instance dancing has some innate aesthetics, moving is not enough to be dance. Random noise is mostly not music.
Most direct human vs human sports have a space constraint, but not all sports do. Hunting, for example, doesn't have a space constraint (not a feasible one, at least. Sure, you might be constrained by a state, but all sports are currently constrained by our planet). You did specifically mention fighting sports though.
> MMA limitations seems to be, do not attack sensitive parts and do not kill the opponent. There's nothing to master other than survival.
Perhaps you would like to see this list of MMA rules[1]? It seems there are quite a few rules other than what you listed, and there are a few ways to end the fight. There are, for example, technical knock-outs, and doctors can call the fight.
> Every people trying to use one genre/style, ended up smashed by the people that went purely for pragmatics (put the guy down, smash his face until submission).
That isn't what I remember seeing every time when UFC first started. What I remember is that certain styles were immediately shown to be more practical when the setting is one-on-one and with less constraints that are purely to enforce a style. Grappling quickly showed its strength, and those people that had no answer for that found themselves at a severe disadvantage. Striking is useful, but has a very specific useful range, and it generally does not include "on top of me". The sport relatively quickly moved towards submission and/or maneuvering your opponent such that you can strike but not be grappled.
Just as in boxing, where a single opening can lead to one or two devastating hits that can decide or at least greatly influence a fight, in MMA the same can happen. Much of the fight is about the strategy and tactics of maneuvering into that position.
> My (own personal subjective perceptional) definition of art cannot accept this.
I don't think you need to reassess your definition, but I think it's possible you are making assertions without enough knowledge to know how true they are. I rarely watch MMA or Boxing, maybe once a year, but still I can see that quite a bit of skill, strategy and tactics goes into what the fighters are attempting. To the degree that some fighters undoubtedly train and incorporate more specific techniques into their current moves based on their opponents strengths and weaknesses.
> I understand your point, I look absurd, but I can revert back to the answer above, spatial constraint is not a sport qualifying constraint.
Perhaps not, but a set of victory conditions that includes a point scoring system seems pretty clearly to make an athletic competition a sport (or any competition, athletic or not, a game), even when there a game-ending, victory-granting conditions which bypass scoring.
Ah its probably because you've only seen fighters kicking, boxing, and smashing each other, no? There is one crucial part of MMA you are forgetting: grappling
Grappling is more like chess, you need to make the proper position and holds to execute the next move. At the same time, you must avoid opening yourself to critical locks: kneebar, choke, kimura lock etc. A smart fighter, for example, can render a stronger opponent to submission if he has him on a "kneebar".
One of my favorite fighter is Sakuraba who fights smartly (He comes up with counter-attacks on-the-fly). His fights are entertaining and full of sportsmanship. If you're into it, google Sakuraba vs Gracie family.
the constraints are not getting whopped by the other guy. you can try everything that falls inside the rules (no biting, kicking in the nuts, and so on), and your constraints are how good the other guy is at beating you up
In soccer you don't score a goal because you said so. In most martial arts you use dedicated forms and styles which impose constraints on how the match evolves. In Chess you have limited movements.. etc etc