UFC Rules favour BJJ?

[DRLashambe]

I've read several posts where people have said that they believe the rules of the UFC (and by extension other MMA tournaments) favour grapplers and/or BJJ. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I really am looking for info and not making some point. Which rules are there that do this, and how do you believe those rules should be changed so that there is no preference to one art?

[Szczepankiewicz]

The ones where you
*can't execute joint destruction strikes
*strikes to vital spots such as the throat and eyes
*a confined fighting space that allows a grappler to 'cut off the ring' and eventually turn the fight into a grappling contest


The same rules that make it safer for the contestants are also the same ones that provide an edge for a grappler over a striker.

But if you took out these rules it would no longer be a sport.

This shows you just HOW MUCH better Royce Gracie was than everyone else he fought in the early UFCs.

[DRLashambe]

I actually didn't know about the joint destruction rule...I'm disappointed by that, as it can certainly be argued that grappling locks can result in the same levels of injuries.

As you say, in a sporting contest, restrictions do have to put in place for the size of the "playing field," and moves that are inherently designed to permanently injure. I don't know that a restrictive ring size is an advantage just to one style, however. I know some pretty amazing fighters in the "trapping" range who would love to cut off my attempts to get back to kicking or punching (I'm absolutely horrible at trapping techniques). I actually don't like cages for grappling because I always seem restricted when I'm against them (I can't shrimp properly, or I get stuck so that I can only move in one direction).

[DRLashambe]

I was just informed by an office friend that the UFC has banned kicking a downed opponent: that's got to be the most obvious pro-grappler rule.

[Szczepankiewicz]

The difference is in applicaiton. Grappling is very good at joint destruction. But the main difference is that grapplers can change the level whereas it is more difficult for a striker to change the level of the attact.

Restricted environment restricts mobility. For a grappler to grapple they must close the distance. With a limited playing field, it's just a matter of time before, in an adversarial contest, the distance will be bridged. Not inevitable as some strikers have adapted to keeping grapplers at bay.

That all said, the rules are the rules and each competitor should know them and adopt strategies as appropriate.

At the risk of re-opening Pandora's Box, you can see the difference between ring work and 'self defense' work. The situation changes and a good fighter will adapt as necessary.

Again, look at what Royce did. He fought his fight for 5 UFC matches and he made his competitors play his game.

[Crouchtig]

the most valuble lessom to be learned hear is:

UFC is not real life

it can still be enjoyed as sport as long as we can understand and accept thats what it is, nothing more

dont give up striking because it doesnt work in UFC

equaly dont give up on grappling because you dont see it used in a boxing match

another way in which UFC encourages grappling: you only have two people fighting. if more than one person attacks you going to the ground would be a very bad idea. also no weapons to use to strike people (does it still count as striking if you use a weapon?)

the confined space part is very biased to grapplers because it makes it easier to advance than to retreat, thus bringing the combatants ever closer

[DRLashambe]

I certainly don't want to get into the real vs sport debate here. Taping and broadcasting real fighting for entertainment does happen, but in my humble opinion is exploitation. That having been said, many different forms of martial arts have sporting events, and they are fighting for entertainment. The UFC concept is to have a sporting event in which most restrictions are lifted so that different kinds of fighters can compete. I don't see retreating as a serious tactic for most strikers. I've seen tons of kickboxing matches (Thai and North American), boxing matches, and grappling matches. There is a limiting surface in each of these (ring, mat, etc.). The difference with the cage, of course, is that you can't end up outside the fight area either on purpose or accidentally. I've fought a lot of strikers who wanted to eliminate the distance between us: knees and elbows are deadly when someone who knows how to use them does.

If you're close enough to punch me, you're close enough for me to grab you. No real competitor would run away in a ring.

[DRLashambe]

Crouchtig:

I know a lot of your MMA experience comes from playing Nintendo, but trust me, striking works very well in UFC and MMA in general. Don't let your video games be the only way you judge fighters, you might actually want to check out some real UFC matches.

[Crouchtig]

id like to see some ufc matches

when two strikers fight, they usualy stay just out of range when not throwing a technique. a grappler on the other hand wants to grab his opponent. grappling is better at close range, striking is better at long range. if you put a striker and a grappler in a situation where they inevitably move closer together the grappler has an advantage

but ive never even see a ufc match

your right all my knowledge of it comes from playground discussions and an unrealistic game

its not on the nintendo. its on the dreamcast (may it rest in peace)

[Crouchtig]

i watched something on brittish eurosprot that had "mixed fight"?

a number of matches including kickboxing muay thai and mixed fight. it was called viking fight (using people from scandinavia)

the mixed fights were good. it seemed quite a mixture of groundfighting and striking (1 match won by striking, two by tapout)

there was one guy who had a really funny stance (with his hands so high they were on his ears and leaning his body back)

they also had two muay thai fighters (at least the one who won was a thai boxer) but they were fighting to kick boxing rules

and one guy did some flips when he won

[DRLashambe]

Crouchtig:

Seriously, there are lots of strikers who want to fight in close range. More than half of the training I do is in stand up style fighting, and the guys I fight with love the clinch.

[crazyjoe380]

have you been watching ufc lately homes? or even pride..


ufc allows elbows .. fools are getting knocked out all the time.. look at robbi loller.. chuck liddle.. tito..

everyone is so good at both that it doesn't matter who's a grappler and who's a stand up.. get that garbage out of your head..


even pride.. kicking allowed in the face no elbows from what i know.. (correct me if i'm wrong)


but i think it's anyone's game..

[BellyOfTheBeast]

direct elbows to the head on the ground aren't allowed like they were in the old days or we would see guys with their eyes full of blood like the early ones. Forearms are allowed and pretty much up the whole arm, a few elbows get thrown in but usually by accident and not worth stopping the fight.

[crazyjoe380]

^^^^^^^


watch tito ortiz vs shamrock..

he does an up elbow twice.. that's all elbow.. and the overhead elbow strike was done too..


i have that fight on tape..

[Toudiyama]

Pride no elbows and if there is a significant weightdifference, the smaller fighter may decide if knees are allowed when on all fours
(seems these have more impact than with the back to the ground)