GNP - Worst thing to happen to MMA?

**Tacitus** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 10:01pm

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.

**Darkpaladin** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 10:12pm

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

**bwerb** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 10:37pm

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?

**Phoenix** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 10:51pm

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.

**bwerb** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 10:59pm

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?

**bwerb** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 11:25pm

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.

**Tacitus** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 11:36pm

I agree the 'standup' rule really takes away alot from BJJ's strategy and effectiveness in the UFC. But I don't really see how that rule in particular brings about the dominance of ground n' pound? You seem to be linking the two together, but I don't see it. I think even if the standup rule wasn't there, ground and pound would be used just as much.

**bwerb** · Posted On: 12/02/2005 11:55pm

Yeah, I agree that I'm linking a couple of slightly different thing together...they are more or less two topics...but hey it's a discussion board. Anyhow, what I'm asking is more or less...are the current rules of the UFC making fights less "real". Is GNP the most realistic and best possible "technique" to win in the UFC/MMA...if it is...then should we toss everything else aside if we are trying to be realistic or...alternately, do the various "arts/styles" still have some credibility above and beyond what seems to be the current tactic of choice to win?

**Tacitus** · Posted On: 12/03/2005 12:13am

Even though I think the early UFC's showed flaws in most ma's, I still think that it's sport fighting. Not that this takes away from MMA's effectivness. But, from the begining someone's grappling strategy is going to be diffirent in the ring than on the pavement. Just like a grapplers strategy is diffirent in a grappling event than a MMA event. I think we can judge a method of combat by it's abilty to adapt and be effective in multiple scenerios of differing rules, i.e tkd functions fine in a standup environment, but once it's allowed to go to the ground, it is ineffective. I think if a BJJ player is involved in the UFC and he has the ability to win the fight via GnP and dosn't because it dosn't confirm to what BJJ 'is', then that person is suffering from the exact same problem that TMA's suffer from. In a UFC environment, if that person wants to win, they have to adapt.

**lifetime** · Posted On: 12/03/2005 7:53am

I do like Pride rules where they restart fighters in the same position they were in. Personally I think it's great that referees can come in and restart the fight if nothing's happening. I saw a few early Prides with the Gracies, and those matches were just.. 40 minutes long with two men laying on top of each other doing NOTHING for the entire fight. They weren't working, weren't fighting for grips or position. Just laying there. It's terrible.