# MMA Rules and Groundfighting



## KumaSan (Apr 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> 
> *UFC and NHB also have rules.  Rules which were put into place to allow groundfighters to shine and glorify themselves and their limited arts. *



I've heard people say this before, but I'm not sure which rules exactly favor groundfighters. I am naturally biased that way, as I wrestled most of my pre-adult life, and I continue to do some grappling these days, as my schedule allows, so of course I only think it's fair  

Honestly I would appreciate a differing viewpoint on why the rules seem to favor going to the ground. I know that in the early days it seemed this way, primarily because those fighters either specialized in groundfighting or knew nothing about it, making it easier for the specialist to take them down.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to hear some other view on this. Thanks.


----------



## KumaSan (Apr 12, 2002)

Mods, go ahead and get rid of the above post. That really should go into a different thread.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 12, 2002)

Acctually, I just split it off.  Was an interesting point, and if ya don't mind, I'd like to leave it out there for some exploration.

I'm curious on the answers myself. 

:asian: 

(for anyone wondering where it came from, I pulled it outta 
http://www.martialtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=1540)


----------



## KumaSan (Apr 12, 2002)

> _ Originally posted by Jay Bell_
> 
> *UFC and NHB also have rules. Rules which were put into place to allow groundfighters to shine and glorify themselves and their limited arts.*




I've heard people say this before, but I'm not sure which rules exactly favor groundfighters. I am naturally biased that way, as I wrestled most of my pre-adult life, and I continue to do some grappling these days, as my schedule allows, so of course I only think it's fair  

Honestly I would appreciate a differing viewpoint on why the rules seem to favor going to the ground. I know that in the early days it seemed this way, primarily because those fighters either specialized in groundfighting or knew nothing about it, making it easier for the specialist to take them down.

I'm not looking to hear how you feel about MMA, or if you think it's good for the arts (that's why we have this thread). I just want to know if you feel the rules of MMA are tilted to make grapplers look good. Give me some good reasons why, or why not. Anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing some other views on this. Thanks.


----------



## KumaSan (Apr 12, 2002)

Thanks, now if you don't mind, could you delete the thread I just made for it in General? Thanks, you read my mind! :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 12, 2002)

I combined the 2 threads.  was a hair easier.


----------



## KumaSan (Apr 12, 2002)

Arigatoo Gozaimasu, Admin-san!


----------



## Jay Bell (Apr 12, 2002)

I'll be brief in this...but UFC was co-founded by the Gracie family.  Anyone ever remember the "Gracie Challenge"?

The few rules that did exist in the beginning were concepts of how to prevent groundfighters from winning.  Attacking the eyes, bone breaking, etc.


----------



## Klondike93 (Apr 12, 2002)

In the begining it did favor the grappler cause there was no time limit, and the grappler could lay there all day.

When they put in a time limit and the rule if there's no action on the ground they stand you up, it swung to the stand up guys.





:asian:


----------



## Icepick (Apr 12, 2002)

Once they started having rounds and more decisions, the rules started to favor strikers.   Few judges seem to award points for submission attempts, so unless a grappler gets the tap, the guy who throws more leather will get the nod.  The cage favors grapplers though, because there are no restarts, and it's easy to cut the ring down.


----------



## Kyle (Apr 13, 2002)

"Attacking the eyes,"

This was a safety thing.  Whether a striker or grappler, I don't anybody would willingly enter a content where the other guy is attempting to seriously maim you with a permanent disabling injury.

And if you really think that eye gouges are the magic pixie dust that would allow the striker to easily beat the grappler, you are mistaken.  It's a technique, like any other, that needs to be trained to be effective.

" bone breaking, etc."

:rofl:  It's called a joint lock, and last I checked, that's what a grappler likes to do.

    - Kyle


----------



## Jay Bell (Apr 13, 2002)

> This was a safety thing. Whether a striker or grappler, I don't anybody would willingly enter a content where the other guy is attempting to seriously maim you with a permanent disabling injury.



Then maybe grapplers should settle down on boasting on how effective in real combat their limited methods are and stick to their rules.

There are more ways to attack eyes then 'eye gouges'....and many ways to break bones beyond jointlocks.  Notice I didn't say "break joints"?   

I spent time studying BJJ and I'm fully aware of limitations that it contains.  People that dedicate themselves solely to striking have similar complications.


----------



## Kirk (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *Then maybe grapplers should settle down on boasting on how effective in real combat their limited methods are and stick to their rules.
> *



I agree.  In addition they're leaving out some facts, like that it's 
not effective at all against mutiple attackers.


----------



## Klondike93 (Apr 13, 2002)

I was reading a Gracie book and at least they adimited it's not very effective against multiple attackers. But they do show some ways of dealing multiples.

:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> 
> *like that it's
> not effective at all against mutiple attackers. *



This and the threat of weapons seem among the biggest arguments against a BJJ-only approach. In addition, going to the ground _willingly_ seems to open up other problems (stuff on the ground, injuries while going down, etc.). I have started training BJJ as an addition--I think it's important to be preapred for that possibility--but I'd use standing techniques first (strikes as well as throws, especially those that throw someone _away_ rather than _down_).


----------



## Baoquan (Apr 28, 2002)

I agree.

For me, grappling is a *part* of an overall skillset that i wish to attain. Grappling is a range, not a style of fighting.

Cheers

Baoquan.


----------



## bscastro (Apr 29, 2002)

Something that has been noticed in the few years since UFC and other NHB competitions are held are that many of the fighters are becoming more well-rounded. For example, Maurice Smith learned some grappling and many of the wrestlers worked in some boxing into their repertoires. I think this is a good thing because I think we can all agree that it is better to know both grappling and striking than to just know one to the exclusion of the other.

As for what rules may have favored grapplers, one example might have been from the Vake Tudo I saw in "Choke" with Rickson Gracie. Todd Hayes, the kickboxer, complained about the 6 oz. gloves they had to wear (I think they were 6 oz.). *However*, I think part of the reason was not to "weaken" the strikes, but to protect the hands. How many UFC's have we seen where the striker (e.g. Keith Hackney, Jon Hess, Steve Jennum) injured their hands from punching a guy in the face. 

Of course, it is hard to have a pure no-holds-barred competition because of safety reason. However, I think the whole NHB competition era has been good for martial artists in general as it has opened many minds to different martial arts. Of course, many of these views have been mentioned in other threads, but I think it is good to repeat from time to time.

Cheers,
Bryan


----------



## Damian Mavis (Apr 30, 2002)

Eye gouging
Groin striking
Biting

Those are the reasons alot of people think no holds barred isnt really no holds barred.  Forget about safety...I'm talking life and death.  I'm not a huge guy,  if I feel sufficiently threatened I'm going to shove my thumb or finger through your eye socket and try to grab some brain.  I'm not going to try to outduke or wrestle some maniac, I'm going to survive.  And if that means biting your groin...erm wait that didn't come out right.   Anyway, you get the idea.

Damian Mavis
Honour TKD


----------



## bscastro (Apr 30, 2002)

NHB is a sport, a competition. Self-defense is about survival. They are two different things. The original post was about grappling and striking in MMA/NHB competitions. Within that structure, it is about safety. 

I think there are many cross-overs that NHB/MMA competitions and the type of training that goes into it can have for self-defense-minded martial artists. As I've mentioned in other posts, _some_ of the skills utilized for NHB competitions are the same as self-defense, such as timing, speed, power, distance, etc. Also those who compete in these have learned to some extent to control their emotions and no freak out in a more intense situation (no, it's not the street, but I think many would agree that this type of "sparring" is quite intense).

As for groin biting, eye gouging, or what have you, the person in the better position has the better chance to utilize these tools. 

Check out the Straight Blast Gym  website for some other views on NHB and self-defense. Is it the only way to train self-defense, I don't think so. But I think NHB competition type training has something to offer martial artists.

Cheers,
Bryan


----------



## Damian Mavis (Apr 30, 2002)

The groin biting was a joke...damn no one ever gets my jokes.
Guess thats why I teach martial arts and don't do stand up comedy.

Damian Mavis
Honour TKD


----------



## bscastro (Apr 30, 2002)

Ha ha...well, maybe I wasn't! Um...okay, I was. 

I was watching a video covering "King of the Cage," a NHB competition, and two of the fighters, I think Frank Shamrock was one of them, had a discussion about the rules:

"Let's see, no groin strikes, fish hooks...hmm, they don't say anything about biting the groin!"

The other replied, "I bet they'll be more specific in their rules after a few good groin bites!" (or something referring to the groin bite).

The video (can't remember the name) wanted to take us into the mind of a NHB fighter. Maybe it succeeded, and now we want out! 

Cheers,
Bryan


----------



## Elfan (Mar 31, 2003)

The rules have changed a lot over the years and differ between events but one thing that seems constant is no kicking to a guy on the ground.  Now, out of all the rules this seems to be the one that most favors a "ground person."

Lets say I'm a striker. Now if on the street if the other guy goes down (ie I hit him, he trips, punches me and misses, is a dumb BBJ person and just falls down for me) I can kick him effectively.  However, in the UFC or similar events if he goes down ( and people really will just fall down and hope you jump on them) I have 2 choices, A) wait for him to get up or B) graple with him (not smart if he is a lot better on the ground).  Neither of those is a good option.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 31, 2003)

Fouls: 
1: Butting with the head. 
2: Eye gouging of any kind. 
3: Biting. 
4: Hair pulling. 
5: Fish hooking. 
6: Groin attacks of any kind. 
7: Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent. 
8: Small joint manipulation. 
9: Striking to the spine or the back of the head. 
10: Striking downward using the point of the elbow. 
11: Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. 
12: Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh. 
13: Grabbing the clavicle. 
14: Kicking the head of a grounded opponent. 
15: Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent. 
16: Stomping a grounded opponent. 
17: Kicking to the kidney with the heel. 
18: Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck. 
19: Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area. 
20: Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent. 
21: Spitting at an opponent. 
22: Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent. 
23: Holding the ropes or the fence. 
24: Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area. 
25: Attacking an opponent on or during the break. 
26: Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee. 
27: Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat. 
28: Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee. 
29: Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. 
30: Interference by the corner. 
31: Throwing in the towel during competition. 

fouls that directly hinder a striker:

4
9
10
11
14
15
16
17

So a little over 1/3 of the fouls are directed at strikers. This doesn't say anything about people who like to stay on the ground, it just limits the ability of people who prefer to strike as a means of attacking. The limitations on some of those dirty techniques also alter the way you defend against submissions on the ground.  Now I don't know if you would call JKD a traditional art, but given these rules alot of what JKD'ers do, both stand up and on the ground is out of bounds in the UFC. And if you think UFC is a street art, go roll around on a sidewalk.  You don't have to do stand up-takedown, just do UFC style fighting on a hard un-even surface. Do it in full street cloths (that's another thing.. shin kicks are not nearly as effective without shoes)..

Bottom line is to fight in the UFC I would have to change major elements of my training focus, yet to fight on the street I would not.. which brings up another element.. if you fight someone on the street they can quite effectively employ other methods than what you train against, in otherwords UFC style fighting can NOT be used as a scale to rate martial arts for street effectiveness because you can't fight against what you would fight against on the street. It's comparing apples and oranges.


The above was taken from another post here ... and I can't remember who it was that wrote it


----------



## ace (Apr 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I agree.  In addition they're leaving out some facts, like that it's
> not effective at all against mutiple attackers. *



Show Me a stand up art that is???/

Weapons Maybe But Multiple Attackers could Be
GRAPPLERS as Well There for if u can't beat 1 guy
WHAT MAKES U THINK U CAN BEAT MULTIPLES???????


----------



## Kirk (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *Show Me a stand up art that is???/
> *



American Kenpo



> _Originally posted by ace _
> *Weapons Maybe But Multiple Attackers could Be
> GRAPPLERS as Well There for if u can't beat 1 guy
> WHAT MAKES U THINK U CAN BEAT MULTIPLES??????? *



More of the incessant "my art is the superior art" garbage  

You're gonna sit there and say that because you grapple, you 
can beat up anyone from kenpo? karate? kung fu?


----------



## Elfan (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *Show Me a stand up art that is???/
> 
> Weapons Maybe But Multiple Attackers could Be
> ...



I'd rather be standing up vs 3 duys then be on the ground with one with his buddies free to stab me in the back.


----------



## Klondike93 (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *Show Me a stand up art that is???/
> 
> Weapons Maybe But Multiple Attackers could Be
> ...



Russian Martial Art - The System, or Systema if you prefer, is great for  all of those areas. Good stand up, weapons, multiple attacks, mass attacks and ground fighting.



> I'd rather be standing up vs 3 guys then be on the ground with one with his buddies free to stab me in the back.



This is so true and about the only major drawback of grappling for self defense and why the stand up crowd gives them such a hard time.


Klondike (aka Chuck)

:asian:


----------



## Kirk (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Klondike93 _
> *This is so true and about the only major drawback of grappling for self defense and why the stand up crowd gives them such a hard time.*



More like defend themselves.  The MMA/grappling threads are
full of slams against strikers.  I'd bet the count of slams against
stand up and/or traditional arts in these forums, plus the gen
forum will be higher than the slams against grapplers/mma'ers
on this entire board, collectively.


----------



## ace (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *American Kenpo
> 
> 
> ...



Nope , but Your gonna say because U
U study a stand up styel U can beat mutipal attacker?????


----------



## Kirk (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *Nope , but Your gonna say because U
> U study a stand up styel U can beat mutipal attacker????? *



I'm saying that those who've learned the entire American kenpo
curriculum have increased chances of beating multiple attackers ...
the system was DESIGNED with that purpose in mind.

I'm also saying that BJJ was NOT designed with that purpose in 
mind, and many of Gracies say that too.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I'm saying that those who've learned the entire American kenpo
> curriculum have increased chances of beating multiple attackers ...
> the system was DESIGNED with that purpose in mind.
> ...




Oh boy, to agree with Kirk , I hope he does not think bad of me, now 

In Modern Arnis, some of the drills we pratice are flow drills and these are used against multiple opponents. This does give an advantage against those who only study for one on one against the ground.

As with anything, what you train is what you will do. If you do not train for stand up and against multiple you might easily end up on the ground, and not doing well against your opponent and his friends. The same could be said of the stand up styles, that when / if they end up on the ground they will be at a loss for not having trained. 

Yet, In my opinion, the stand up or striker styles stand a better chance against multiple opponents since they would most likely have practice and trained this way. Also, some of the stand up styles train to not to go to the ground. Using timing and techniques to keep your opponents off of you and hopefully off balance. This may not allow you to engage and or take out the opponent, yet you have not gone to the ground where his friends can take "free" shots at you.

Train Well
:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Jul 13, 2003)

After about a year and a half of BJJ, I believe that the likelihood of biting and eye-gouging and such being of much value vs. a skilled groundfighter is fairly small. Of course it's worth trying if one is in that situation, but it sounds better in theory than in practice.

But I also feel that BJJ for self-defense doesn't worry enough about the possibility that the other person will draw a weapon. Not everyone draws their weapon at the start of a fight--be it because of time needed to draw it, not feeling the situation is that serious, not wanting to put oneself in danger of heavy jail time, etc. Many BJJ techniques would leave someone very open to a knife slipped out of a pocket and into the grappler.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 13, 2003)

:shrug: 

We are soooooo off topic right now.

The rules that were listed in a previous post on this thread are not the original rules.  The original rules of the UFC were:

1)  No eye gouging.

2)  No biting.

3)  No fishhooking (fingers in the nose or mouth).

These don't seem to favor anyone, in my book.


Add to that the following:

-In UFC #1, Gerard Gordeau _did_  bite Royce's ear in the finals.  Get your video out and watch it carefully.  That's why Royce held the choke a little extra long at the end.  Check Royce's ear in the post-fight footage.  It's pretty obvious then.

-In Japan Vale Tudo #2, which is in "Choke", Japanese Fighter Yuki Nakai loses an eye to repeated face stomps by (hey, coincidence) Gerard Gordeau.  GG stomps his face with his heel repeatedly, and then is leglocked by Nakai.  A couple of weeks after the event, Nakai lost the eye permanently. 

While I don't feel Nakai "won the battle" in this case, neither man was hindered by these attacks, even though they were against the existant rules.   

~TT


----------



## MJS (Jul 13, 2003)

As for the rules.  Well, of course you have to have rules, otherwise there would only be one person walking out of the cage--literally!!!  The other would be carried off to the cemetary!  People get so wrapped up in what you can and cant do.  First, people need to realize that this is just competition.  Just because a grappler does not eye gouge, bite, hit the groin, etc. in the cage, does not mean that on the street they will not do it.  

Another thing to keep in mind, is that the rules and things we can and cant do, is because of the country that we live in.  If you watch Pride, which is in Japan, they can kick the downed opp.  The fights in Brazil allow pretty much everything..hense the name Vale Tudo---Anything Goes!!!  People always talk about rolling around on the ground.  IF you watch some of the fihgts in Brazil, they take place on the ground, the beach, hard floors...not always on a padded mat.

When the 1st UFC came out, it was billed as anything goes---I think that was the first mistake, cuz there were rules.  Anything goes, would mena you can do the things that are banned.  

TT is correct in his post about the original 3 rules.  Don't forget the fight with GG and the Sumo guy.  He was down on all fours, while GG kicked him in the face!!

Also, remember we are talking about sport.  No matter how you try to coat it, it is still a sport.  You can however add the street flavor to it.  Look at Paul Vunak.  He talks about Kino Mutai--the art of biting!  It looks and sounds easier than it is, but pick up his tapes on it.  It will open your eyes!  Alot of people think that a grappler will be defeated on the street by the strikers advantage.  Well, look again.  Alot of the BJJ guys are learning how to punch and kick.  Belfort has some excellent punching!  Marco Ruas also trains Muay Thai.  So for anyone to say that the grappler is at a disadvantage, needs to look again!

Mike


----------



## Elfan (Jul 13, 2003)

Acoordint to the annoucer at UFC 1, a violation  of the "rules"  was not a fowl or penalty, just a $1000 fine.


----------



## twinkletoes (Jul 13, 2003)

The other penalty is that it makes Royce mad  


I think that those who combine "dirty" tactics like biting and gouging with their fighting understand that grapplers can nullify these attacks:  it is actually pretty easy to work in those defenses if you have a proper delivery system like BJJ.  I'm not saying you can do it all the time--I've been bitten by Roy Harris--but you can do it a lot of the time.  And if you've trained these things in conjunction with your other stuff, you are better prepared for an adversary who is going to do them too.  (Especially as opposed to peope who reference them constantly as effective counter-grappling tactics but never try them live.)

So bringing this back to the original topic, I don't think that the rules favored anyone, especially since allowing those moves wouldn't really have helped the strikers any.  Hair pulling and groin striking was allowed until somewhere around UFC 4:  did that counter the grapplers?  

For those of you who think the rules favored grapplers, what rule changes would you suggest to make it more fair?  (I am speaking of pre-UFC 4, here.  I think recent rules limit both striking and grappling). 

~TT


----------

