On another thread...which is 300+ posts...many of which are completely O/T, the statement was made that Ground and Pound strategy was/is the worst thing to happen to MMA. I'd like to explore this statement in some more detail.

At a BJJ seminar last weekend, the topic of MMA came-up as it related to earlier UFC performances and strategy vs. the current state of affairs. The response was that if you want to be a champion MMA fighter, get as juiced-up as possible, hit the weights, learn some slams/takedowns and go for the against the cage GNP.

The "technique" of BJJ and the methodical positioning, guard work etc. which was so prevalent in the early UFC has been more or less eliminated with the desire to make the sport palatable/exciting to an uneducated audience. This isn't news to anyone but...it certainly does move the game/sport away from domination by pure BJJ fighters.

The newer ruleset seems to be a handicap against pure grappling...even though if one of MMA's purposes was supposed to showcase the dominance or strenghths/weaknesses of one "art" or "mixed-arts" vs. one another...it seems it's current state of affairs is to more or less acknowlege that "pounding" is more fun to watch than true grappling, so it is promoted at the expense of a technique which has been shown to regularly dominate fights with fewer rules.

What do you think?

I guess another way of looking at it and opening up the discussion would be to ask the question, is the current state of MMA (UFC) truly the best indicator of fighting prowess with a ruleset which favors "entertainment value" over technique?

That's why I don't watch UFC.

"Pure" stylists will never again dominate MMA

What if he trains in pure Wicked Awesome?

But...is the new "style" which will dominate, one which is not actually based on "winning a more realistic fight", but instead one which is more entertaining to watch. Is this more or less creating a "new wrestling"? Not taking away anything from the athletes/competitors but suddenly the argument that MMA isn't a "style" seems to be fading as techniques which work are being reduced/removed in favor of what looks good.

could UFC = WWE in the future? Seems like there could be a shift in that direction which is not good.

How is standing over someone on their back while repeatedly punching them in the face not a realistic way to win a fight?

I've read this argument as it relates to Sanchez' win over Diaz on other boards, about how Diaz' jiujitsu was way better and his guardwork was really busy and blah, blah, blah. Regardless, he got punched repeatedly about the head and shoulders without any answer.

I think perhaps you should be able to sweep/sub out of a GNP position. Perhaps some fighters' jiujitsu just isn't as good as the opponent's GNP?

If this all relates to using the cage as a tool for the fight, then nevermind. But I believe the GNP is a viable and realistic MMA toolset, just as I believe that a good jiujitsu practicioner should be able to use the guard to get out of it.

It's called evolution imo. G-n-Ping a guy on the street against a fence or wall=kick ass SD skills.

GnP is way more refined than it was in early UFCs, too. I dropped out of watching MMA for a few years, and when I saw striking on the ground after that, the difference was huge.

I think it's also the fact that learning the skill set involved in GnP takes a lot less time to learn than learning advanced submission tactics. Therefore, one can become a 'master' of the GnP in a lot less time than you can in BJJ. I think for this reason, a lot of the newer guys are more confidant with ground and pounding someone, rather than going for the sub. As well, someone well learned in subs, may be beaten by the GnPer, because it's just an easier thing to master.

That's the reason it's mixed martial arts. Grappling isnt' just grappling, standup isn't just standup. That's what makes it good.

But...what I'm saying is...the rule change to "stand-up" fighters is in effect, negating the game plan and technique of a dedicated BJJ player. The rules are now taking what was effective in winning and putting a handicap on it, not because it wasn't an effective and winning tactic but simply because the great unwashed didn't understand what was going on.

Yes GNP is effective, yes it is great self defense but...is it really the "ultimate" or does it appear to be the most effective "style" of MMA because of the rule changes?

I think the only real problem people have with GnP is that it doesn't look pretty. But looking pretty ain't what a real fight's all about.

Phoenix, it is "entertaining" but since they stand the fighters back up aren't they in effect negating and changing what is more "realistic" once they are on the ground? I don't see bystanders standing guys back-up if they aren't being "active" enough.

Since the rules now state that you have to be "active" on the ground, the GNP seems to be the most effective technique. But if you were allowed to tie-up and do the old "position before submission" as long as it can take and as "unexciting" as it can be for onlookers, aren't you in effect making the "fight" quite unrealistic?

I totally agree that it's common sense but...let the fighters fight. If they hit the ground and it isn't "thrilling"...let it play out. It's a great deal more realistic than allowing a ref to step in and let everyone regroup. That's all I'm saying.

Obviously in the ring/octagon/cage, there are rules, it's a sport after all, I'm just questioning making rules for fighting based upon what is more interesting to watch vs. rules which protect the participants. I see the MMA progressing towards the former instead of simply enforcing the latter.