Thread: Is the UFC Bullshido?
4/05/2006 3:03am, #31
Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- DETROIT WHAT! (and surrounding upper-class burbs)
So what you are saying is, only those who do MMA can question MMA, and fans of the sport need to STFU?
4/05/2006 3:20am, #32
You're more then welcome to question MMA but i think you should let the athletes that compete in the sport decide how limiting a ruleset is to them, and as I said, until you've actually done it you have no idea how the rules will actually affect you because you probably think you can do things that you probably couldnt. Hey, i dont like some of the rules either but I dont feel that they're paticularly limiting or change the nature of the fights.
People that criticize the rules of MMA tend to do so from a position of "well this is what i would do if it wasnt against the rules". But it's a hell of a lot easier said then done to accomplish those things.
Like the spiking elbow to the shooter, good fucking luck with that, even if you land it you're still going to the ground in a shitty position, even with spiking elbows allowed the best response is to sprawl, thus preventing the takedown rather then trying to do damage despite it.
These little rules really just dont make that much differance in the majority of the fights, the people who are winning now would still be winning and they'd be doing it pretty much the same way.
Last edited by Anna Kovacs; 4/05/2006 3:23am at .
4/05/2006 3:37am, #33Originally Posted by Dagon Akujin
And yeah, fans can mutter all they want, since they pay the bills and all, but let's face it - they've never been. When they talk like they know what's up or they could stand in the place of the people they're ****-talking, they're usually just . . . sad, whiny jocksniffers.
Such fans might piss and bitch all day over the phone to Jim Rome or whatever, but let's see what they'd have to say to Conseco or Bonds to their faces (probably snif snif whiiiiiiiif please sweat on me and make me cool by association and justify the life I live vicariously through you sir)
Small joints and headbutts were taken out because they injure fighters too soon without having a conversely valuble affect on the outcome. Their removal favors the more conditioned of a pair of fighters, not strikers or grapplers.
Small joints and headbutts have also been legal in MMA leauges.
Last edited by JohnnyCache; 4/05/2006 3:39am at .
4/05/2006 4:58am, #34
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
I now need to clarify why rules listed favor the grappler over the striker, since logical objection so far has spanned from there. Also I need to clarify that by grappler, I was considering only the takedown-bjj/wrestlers. I've never see any of these types go for a traditional knockout throw that keeps them standing and the other guy incapacitated, thats something a traditional Japanese JuJutsu man would do (whose goal is not to go to the ground), or even Judo and to some degree, Kung Fu, Hapkido and Karate. But then again throwing someone on there spine or head is against the rules. So clarifying that by grappler, I was focusing BJJ/Wrestler guys that fight on the ground almost exclusively aside from there sloppy crap boxing and we're back to square one, now with comments.
In particular, the following fouls favor the grappling arts while on the ground....
2. Eye gouging of any kind. (digging at the eyes while combining it with other barred moves, like grabbing the clavicle or balls isn't going to make all that "chess like" manuvering on the ground very easy to accomplish unless your damned fast, accurate and efficient with your ground JuJitsu. It would at least end the 2 minutes of rolling around on the ground and would probably require the grappler to adopt simmillar animalistic techniques to survive/escape)
3. Biting. (same as above, effective on many areas such as tendions, or muscle)
5. Fish hooking. (the nose, probably not terribly usefull though unless combine with pulling at the groin in opposite directions which could possibly make the beloved Gracie guard position completely ineffective)
6. Groin attacks of any kind. (I'm sorry, the ability to attack the groin with ferocity is going to make it very difficult for someone to pull of that arm bar, at this point they are just going to want to get away)
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. (not a big deal here)
8. Small joint manipulation. (someone already discussed how this could be effective against submission wrestling, I'm sure even non-grapplers could use this to their advantage, combined with the other barred moves to level the playing field on the ground)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. (if the guy on the ground has a strong grip and gets ahold, this could end a fight on the ground very quickly, grappler or no grappler)
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. (obviously anyone could do this, and done in the right spot this is going to make it awful hard for the opponet to work out his armbar/leg lock whatever, again especially when combined with the other barred moves)
13. Grabbing the clavicle. (used in combination with other barred moves this could be very effective for escape)
And these fouls (with some overlap) further limit the stand-up artist...
2. Eye gouging of any kind. (this basically limits you to knockout type blows and boxing jabs, nothing quick and accurate allowed like a finger strike)
6. Groin attacks of any kind. (Can't even kick the guy in the balls, one less thing the grappler has to worry about when standing up. Kicking to the balls wouldn't be terribly usefull if he was actually in the process of going for the takedown, but before that it's just something he doesn't have to defend against and allows him to keep a wider more open stance while at the same time giving him more protection to plan his takedown)
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. (again, no accurate, fast type strikes allowed here)
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. (think getting someone in a standing armbar, taking to the ground and finishing with a kick while your still standing)
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. (same as above but not nearly as usefull)
16. Stomping a grounded opponent. (this means if you knock someone down all you can do is really kick him in the legs and the sides, thats pretty useless)
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel. (can't throw a straight front kick or spinning back kick to the kidney?)
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. (can't use a standing throw to end the match?)
Basically, the ground is artificually made a relatively safe place to take your sweet time and use "chess-like" maneuvering to set up strategic armbars and leg locks. Throw the rules out the window and the ground is no longer a chess match, thats for damn sure.
First and foremost, above and beyond all the rules. I'm not seeing any talented strikers signing up for these events to begin with!!! Take this video as an example of what I consider talented strikers.
I'm sure you've all seen this clip before, but these guys can kick, fast and accurately and with quite a bit of force, in particular I'm focusing on the Monk in orange. I find it hard to believe one of these so called Jujitsu experts would have an easy time taking him to the ground in the first place, let alone surviving any type of contact from one of their strikes. Thats pretty much why there is no contact this video. The Tae Kwon Do guy really can't hit the monk at all and the monk has too much self respect to injure the TWD practitioner, nor do they need to connect to know who would be connecting, it's plain as day. The strikers I have seen in the UFC are sloppy strikers, even the somewhat successfull ones who have managed knockouts but double in solid groundwork, and most especially the pure standup guys that have decided to enter. I have yet to see a striker with this sort of speed, accuracey, balance and reaction time enter the ring.
So all the BS rules aside, the bottom line is that if these guys were in there with someone as fast and skilled as the man in orange, they would never even get close enough for grappling to come into play. It would be a moot point, yet strikers like this simply don't exist in the competitive MMA sporting environment. Yeah the UFC is looking for strikers to entertain it's fans, but they sure as hell don't want this guys like this in the ring killing people either.
Last edited by Jettatore; 4/05/2006 5:13am at .
4/05/2006 5:19am, #35
4/05/2006 5:54am, #36
Why does the inability to do all these things inhibit the striker more than the grappler? If the striker can gouge eyes from the bottom then what's to stop the grappler doing it from a superior position?[/Standard bullshido response]
I agree that the lack of stomping and kicking the downed contributes to some silly tactics in the UFC (Louiseau's turtle springs to mind), which is one reason I prefer watching Pride. Where, incidentally, spiking on the head is legal, and standing throws almost never end fights.
The notion that the UFC is favouring grappling over striking is nonsense to anyone who knows what they're talking about. Every time they stand people up quicker and quicker they're looking for knockouts to please the rednecks. If they were so interested in grappling they wouldn't have short rounds either.
As to your monk, what makes you convinced of the deadliness of those, admittedly very fast, strikes? What exactly is your theory on why no one has used them succesfully in any MMA event, ever? Is it possible that jumping up the in the air is perhaps not the greatest idea if part of your fighting strategy is 'avoid falling over'?
4/05/2006 6:19am, #37Originally Posted by Jettatore
i'm not going to bother explaining to you why you are wrong, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. you are completely uneducated and have very little idea of what does and does not work in single unarmed combat.
i'm sure you're a nice person, i'm just telling you how it is.
4/05/2006 7:01am, #38
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- near L.A.
This has to be a joke account.
How could anyone think any of that or link to that video?
4/05/2006 7:27am, #39Originally Posted by Hurt
4/05/2006 7:35am, #40
Originally Posted by Jettatore
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
So you're pitting a Kung Fu Monk, who you don't need to see connecting his shots, (you just feel deep down in your testicles that he will), against professional fighters? Many of whom have extensive kickboxing backgrounds?Who, for Pete’s sake! Is opposing science? In fact, we want MORE science by CRITICALLY ANALIZING the evidence-Connie Morris, Kansas State BOE (bolding and underlining part of original quote, red is my emphasis)
As long as you try to treat your subjective experiences as if they were objective experiences, you will continue to be confounded by people who disagree with you.-some guy on an internet messageboard