Is the UFC Bullshido?

**The Buzz** · Posted On: 4/04/2006 11:18pm

I have to say that hypothesis is cracked out.. UFC is definitely going the way of stand up and that's why I am losing some interest in it. If I wanted to watch Boxing, I would watch boxing, but I now have an appreciation for the grappling and would much rather see a chess game of sweeps and fighting for position and subs that the damn ref standing people up after 10 seconds. Then again Phrost nailed it. BTW most of the stipulations you mentioned seem to favor the striker much more than the grappler.

**bodar** · Posted On: 4/04/2006 11:46pm

Originally Posted by The Buzz

I have to say that hypothesis is cracked out.. UFC is definitely going the way of stand up and that's why I am losing some interest in it. If I wanted to watch Boxing, I would watch boxing, but I now have an appreciation for the grappling and would much rather see a chess game of sweeps and fighting for position and subs that the damn ref standing people up after 10 seconds. Then again Phrost nailed it. BTW most of the stipulations you mentioned seem to favor the striker much more than the grappler.

They only really stand them up if they are not actively working for position on the ground. They want even the groundfighting to be aggressive. Come on, tell me Diaz VS Sanchez and Stevenson VS Cummo weren't sweet to watch. Crowds want action. The UFC is meeting them halfway. It's a concession which limits grapplers' strategic options, sure, but I think it's what's best for the sport right now.

Oh yeah, and Jettore and DropthaBomb... you're retarded.

**RedGonzo** · Posted On: 4/04/2006 11:50pm

As long as they can still slap and pull each others hair, I'm happy.

**The Buzz** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 12:10am

Originally Posted by bodar

They only really stand them up if they are not actively working for position on the ground. They want even the groundfighting to be aggressive. Come on, tell me Diaz VS Sanchez and Stevenson VS Cummo weren't sweet to watch. Crowds want action. The UFC is meeting them halfway. It's a concession which limits grapplers' strategic options, sure, but I think it's what's best for the sport right now.

Oh yeah, and Jettore and DropthaBomb... you're retarded.

Iwas being dramatic with the 10 second thing but I get what you are saying and those matches were good. I just believe that without a healthy dose of grappling the UFC will become a kickboxing league, except for the occasional ninja. :)

**Dagon Akujin** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 1:03am

Some other stupid rules:

1. Butting with the head. (favors??? Cut doctors)
4. Hair pulling. (favors??? strikers/hippies)
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. (favors??? grapplers during a shoot)
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. (favors??? grapplers during a shoot and cut doctors)
21. Spitting at an opponent. (good rule IMHO)
23. Holding the ropes or the fence. (stupid rule IMHO)
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. (What the ****?!?)

Dagon Akujin

**Meager** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 1:16am

Originally Posted by Dagon Akujin

9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head. (favors??? grapplers during a shoot)

And strikers when they get their backs taken. It's a hell of alot easier to beat the **** out of the back of someone's head than try for an RNC.

10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow. (favors??? grapplers during a shoot and cut doctors)

And strikers when they get mounted/side mounted.

The only reason there are any rules in the UFC at all outside of no eyegouging, no biting, and no fishhooking is because it would've been shut down years ago otherwsie. All that **** is needed to get it by athletic commisions.

**Anna Kovacs** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 1:51am

I think it's cute that the people who criticize the rules of MMA and how they're unfair to strikers never actually compete in it anyways.

**Dagon Akujin** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 2:37am

Originally Posted by Meager

And strikers when they get their backs taken.

And strikers when they get mounted/side mounted.

Oh, of course. However, I tend to think that those two rules there favor grapplers a little bit more. I mean, during a low shoot, an elbow to the back is about the only defense available short of looking for better position during the takedown. Also, they are defensive moves at that point. Elbowing someone from the side mount/back mount is not the only option, and is really being mainly used to open the person up to more things/damage them (as opposed to protect yourself from being taken down as effectively). I'd say 66/33 split.

And no, I'm not trying to make an argument for th3 d3ad1y anti-gr@ppl3. I just like to see those moves used and available. I'd use the same argument for small joint moves too. Since they are normally used for escaping, I'd much rather see them allowed. I once had an RNC on a guy who fought in some local toughman competitions and also had about 150 pounds on me. He splayed my toes so I'd have to give up the choke, protect my toes, and reposition. Then he ankle-locked me. I thought that was fucking cool.

Originally Posted by Meager

All that **** is needed to get it by athletic commisions.

Oh, but of course! Still doesn't make them "good rules" as far as I'm concerned though. I like watching elbows.

Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity

I think it's cute that the people who criticize the rules of MMA and how they're unfair to strikers never actually compete in it anyways.

Yes, yes. We know that you are completely bad-ass. Were hockey fans not allowed to question the new NHL rules because they weren't actually players? Or baseball fans not able to say Bonds shouldn't have been using steroids? Should nobody in Detroit have given a **** about this?

Dagon Akujin

**bodar** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 2:38am

Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity

I think it's cute that the people who criticize the rules of MMA and how they're unfair to strikers never actually compete in it anyways.

Why would they? I mean, it's not fair! :icon_wink

**Anna Kovacs** · Posted On: 4/05/2006 2:47am

Until you compete under a ruleset you have no idea how much that ruleset is actually going to affect your game. I'm a big believer in competing under the most open ruleset one can get, my goal is to one day do an actual all out vale tudo match but the fact is that the rules are not really changing the nature of the fights and a straight up vale tudo match is not going to look paticularly differant from what we see in MMA.

Moy Tung family Ving Tsun is not suddenly going to become a premier striking art of the UFC if they go back to vale tudo rules. I'm sorry.