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.
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.