Which UFC rule do you think has the most bearing on fight outcomes?
In other words, if one of the "fouls" in UFC were to be allowed, which do you think would have the most bearing on match outcomes, i.e. which is the most significant limitation?
I think this topic is valuable to discuss in order to identify which techniques ought to be studied by Sport stylists who train primarily for Self-defense (like me) and also in order to show that most of the fouls probably have very little bearing on fight outcomes (you may disagree with that last point ; )
The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC) on UFC has a list of the fouls under the Nevada State Athletic comission.
I discuss UFC here for simplicity but other MMA venues such as Pride and so forth are equally interesting to discuss.
Personally I believe that the prohibition against headbutts would change many match outcomes if lifted, changing the dynamics of most clinch situations and also the dynamics of mount and guard a good deal. I except that people fighting with someone in their guard would have to devote more attention to controlling their opponent's head in order to prevent butting and so would have a harder time with sweeps etc.
Clinches would also probably tend to conclude more quickly due to headbutts. Although obviously fighter currently do basically nothing to guard against headbutts, I think that in some bizzaro universe where headbutts were legal fighters would devote a lot of energy to defending them and so other tehcniques would therefore see a rise in success rates.
EDIT: P.S: I'm not going to bother discussing things that don't apply to a no-rules fight, like not attacking a fighter under the ref's care, etc. ; )
Since we're not discussing the limits due to safety I'd say the rule that effects the most fights is that the fight should be stopped if there is significant bleeding. I'm sure we've all seen at least one match with a fighter losing because of a bad cut while still having the heart to continue.
Last edited by HearWa; 11/19/2006 9:58pm at .
No kicks/knees to the head of an opponent on the ground was one that sucked for this UFC.
i'm with you on headbutts being studied for SD. those could be really damaging.
i think eye-gouge defense is included in face-punch defense, so i can't see that being a problem.
i think SD-interested players should also be conscious of if your opponent's hands can reach your groin. i mean, certain pins are just asking for something like that.
admittedly from side control you could BOTH grab each other, but nobody wants to decide a fight based on *that kind* of testicular fortitude.
D'you think that a lot of UFC matches would end differently if they happened under Pride rules?
Originally Posted by Kidspatula
The rule about bleeding is a great one to get rid of, after that my second choice would be throat attacks. Anyone who trains in self defence can see the value in tracheal chokes and striking.
Just so we're clear, I'm not saying the UFC should get rid of any rules - just asking which ones most drastically alter the outcomes from the outcomes that would occur in a no-rules one on one unarmed match, if you will.
Originally Posted by richtully
P.S: Lol at fights being determined by a game of testicle-crushing chicken in side mount. I'd pay to watch that!... no, wait, that's not what I meant!
P.P.S: Axelton, your signature still says that you don't have a vid of the fight in your avatar, but your current avatar is some sort of hideous troll monster from hell.
Last edited by Epicurus; 11/19/2006 10:15pm at .
eye gouging and fish-hooking.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO