BMABA CIC does not endorse or licence “Freestyle Martial Arts” as a generic or standalone discipline.
This position is often misunderstood, so it is important to be clear:
This does not mean we reject, dismiss, or devalue clubs or instructors who use the term “freestyle” to describe their practice. Many high-quality clubs operate under a freestyle banner and deliver safe, effective, and well-structured training.
Our position is not ideological. It is pedagogical, safeguarding-led, and governance-driven.
The Core Issue: Lack of Pedagogical Definition
The term Freestyle Martial Arts, on its own, is non-descriptive. It does not clearly communicate:
Whether training is primarily stand-up striking, grappling, or ground-based
The technical lineage or competency base being taught
The risk profile of the activity
The pedagogical framework underpinning instruction
The appropriate safeguarding, insurance, and qualification standards
In short, “freestyle” tells us how something may be taught (open, adaptive, non-prescriptive), but not what is actually being taught.
From a governance and safeguarding perspective, this lack of clarity creates problems for:
Instructor competency assessment
Appropriate qualification recognition
Insurance alignment
Risk categorisation
Student and parent transparency
No Training Is Truly “General”
BMABA CIC does not recognise generalised or undefined martial arts systems.
All training, regardless of philosophy, is rooted in discernible technical foundations. A session may be flexible, adaptive, or eclectic, but it will always be anchored in one or more dominant combative systems.
Because of this, we do not endorse:
“General Martial Arts”
“Freestyle Martial Arts” (generic)
“Mixed Training” without definition
This applies equally across striking, grappling, and mixed disciplines.
How We Assess Freestyle-Labelled Disciplines
Where the term freestyle is used in conjunction with a defined base style, it is usually not an issue.
Examples include:
Freestyle Kickboxing
Freestyle Karate
Freestyle Taekwondo
Freestyle Self-Defence (with a defined technical basis)
In these cases, freestyle describes delivery and adaptation, not the absence of structure.
Our assessment is based on the dominant pedagogical foundation, not branding.
Typical Alignment Guidance
While each case is assessed individually, the following principles generally apply:
Stand-up, striking-dominant systems
→ Typically aligned with Kickboxing as the default combative framework
Systems incorporating takedowns, clinch, or groundwork
→ A BJJ, Jujitsu, or recognised grappling base is normally expected
Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)
→ Must meet BMABA CIC’s definition and expectations for MMA, including demonstrated competence across striking and grappling domains
Using “freestyle” does not remove the need for a clear, auditable base style.
Why This Matters
This position exists to ensure:
Clear instructor accountability
Proper safeguarding and risk management
Transparent communication to students and parents
Appropriate insurance and liability alignment
Consistent national standards
It also protects instructors. Clear provenance avoids ambiguity around competency, scope of practice, and responsibility.
In Summary
BMABA CIC does not endorse “Freestyle Martial Arts” as a generic discipline
This is not a rejection of freestyle practice or philosophy
We require endorsement and licensing to be based on discernible base styles
Freestyle may describe how something is taught, but not what it is
Where training is mixed, the dominant technical foundations must be identifiable
Clubs using freestyle terminology are encouraged to clearly define their primary technical bases when affiliating or applying for endorsement. Our team is always happy to support clubs in identifying the most appropriate classification.