# Gloves ufc



## InvisibleFist (Feb 27, 2005)

Whats the deal with the gloves in the UFC?  Its been a while since I watched it, and the rules have all changed.  Orignally the knuckles had to be bare.  

 I'm guessing that they had too many broken knuckles?  But shouldn't htat just mean that they should avoid closed fist strikes?


----------



## Shawn C (Feb 27, 2005)

Broken hands, as well as trying to get MMA legalized in Nevada. I'm pretty sure the NSAC insisted on gloves.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 27, 2005)

Gloves also give less cuts (visible damage / tv friendly) and at the same time make it more sports commission friendly

 Public opinion means more then reality in more cases then just this.


----------



## BushidoUK (Feb 28, 2005)

I think I also remember to get the licence to show these fights, gloves had to be worn for "safety reasons", however, the gloves allow harder punching and a lot more knockouts..... go figure


----------



## Tim Osborne (Mar 1, 2005)

Guys starting wearing gloves originally to protect themselves.. (their hands) and the trend soon took off and even the none strikers starting wearing them.. It was more a trend then a rule for the longest time. The NSAC does insist on the gloves, amoung other protective equipment now. 

As for allowing them to hit harder.. I dont think that was the case.. It certainly helps your hands to take less damage from those punches with bad intentions though. Beyond the gloves, according to NSAC the hands must be wrapped as well.. similar to a boxers hand wrap. Again, this is strictly for the well being of the fighters hands..


----------



## RSJ (Mar 1, 2005)

As it's been said before, the primary reason for gloves is to prevent cuts. It's the same reason gloves were added to boxing with the advent of the Marquis of Queensbury rule.


----------



## clapping_tiger (Mar 3, 2005)

> Whats the deal with the gloves in the UFC? Its been a while since I watched it, and the rules have all changed. Orignally the knuckles had to be bare.



Accually the knuckles did not have to be bare, but gloves were optional. Remember very early on when a boxer came out and wore just one boxing glove? Most of the early UFC guys chose not to wear gloves because you could cut your opponent more easily, and there really was not a good glove made for grappling for the submission guys. When the modern type of UFC glove became more popular,  even before they were manditory, you could see guys slowly switching to it. Because the glove also protects your knuckles and allows you to hit things much harder without damaging you knuckles. However the KO effect is still the same with or without gloves.  Also look at the gloves the guys in MMA wear, they are little 4oz gloves and the padding is pretty solid compared to a boxing gloves (which are anywhere from 8-10oz I think). I have a pair of the MMA gloves, and love them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 5, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> Whats the deal with the gloves in the UFC? Its been a while since I watched it, and the rules have all changed. Orignally the knuckles had to be bare.
> 
> I'm guessing that they had too many broken knuckles? But shouldn't htat just mean that they should avoid closed fist strikes?


Like the bare knuckle fights of old, the UFC realized that bare knuckles meant LESS punches thrown. The gloves protect nothing but the hands, and ensure a better, more aggressive fight. Tank Abbott was the first UFC competitor to wear the gloves, and as everyone saw, it certainly didn't make him punch LESS effectively. Hell, if I were in a street fight and had the chance, i'd wear the gloves. The gloves mean I punch HARDER without the fear of breaking my hand or cutting it on a tooth.

I got a couple pair myself, and they add to the effectiveness of your punches. Bare knuckle punches cause cuts, 4 oz glove punches cause unconciousness.  The irony is that, as noted earlier, the public perception is that they are more "humane" or safer, so if they help give a better fight AND get the jackals who want to ban the sport off our backs, it's a win win.


----------



## InvisibleFist (Mar 7, 2005)

But that's the thing.  By wearing gloves, the fighter is using equipmet to help him...what's next?  Brass knuckles?  It seems to me that if the idea is to simulate real fighting, then the knuckles ought to be vulnerable.


----------



## Semaj (Apr 18, 2005)

The point is to protect the fighters.  A lot of hand injuries are prevented with the use of the gloves.  You think they are going to ban mouthpieces because they help a fighter out as well?  What about cups?  Yeah, they arn't what you usually see on the street (If I ever get into a brawl and someone pauses to put on a cup and a mouthpiece, I'm ging ot get mildly worried as I pounce.)

 But this is also about them trying ot get fights, not go back to backalley days.  All this helps protect the fighters, and protect the UFC's future.


----------



## JKogas (Apr 19, 2005)

The gloves were made mandatory to reduce the cutting.  The gloves really don't protect the hand that much (remember Ken Shamrock breaking his hand fighting Brian Johnston?  He was wearing gloves.).  Nowadays they're also wrapping the hands as well and _that_ DOES protect the hand better.  

But as someone here said, you have to promote the event, not drive it underground - if you're going to attract top level talent.  That's the way it's got to be.

-John


----------



## JDenz (Apr 20, 2005)

Not only that your best guys can't fight all that much when they always have stiches and broken hands.


----------



## Semaj (Apr 22, 2005)

Dont serious eye cuts take a really long time to heal properly before there is a real risk to reopen again?


----------



## JDenz (Apr 22, 2005)

Depends who stiches em but it usually means a month or so without training where it could get opened up agian.


----------



## BoxANT (May 11, 2005)

InvisibleFist said:
			
		

> But that's the thing.  By wearing gloves, the fighter is using equipmet to help him...what's next?  Brass knuckles?  It seems to me that if the idea is to simulate real fighting, then the knuckles ought to be vulnerable.



"real" fighting?  i don't think they ever wanted to have real fighting.  it they wanted that they'd have to throw in a couple broken beer bottles, 3 friends, a hidden knife and a genuine lust to kill. and none of this "rules" buisness.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 11, 2005)

Many "real" fights don't involve those things.  Not everyone that gets into fights wants to kill people...  Very often it is just two guys going at it, if someone else jumps in it could be to try and stop it, not beat help beat you up.  BTW, why do bad guys always have friends but martial artists never have friends in these arguments?


----------



## BoxANT (May 11, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Many "real" fights don't involve those things.  Not everyone that gets into fights wants to kill people...  Very often it is just two guys going at it, if someone else jumps in it could be to try and stop it, not beat help beat you up.  BTW, why do bad guys always have friends but martial artists never have friends in these arguments?




hehe, my comment was a bit tongue n' cheek.  

my main point is that situations in life (outside the octagon) are unpredictable.  

in the octagon, an attempt is made to make a controlled environment.  where the only variables are the two fighters.

but the fight is in a vacuum, and therefore (imho) it looses some of its reality.  no disrespect to the fighters intended.


----------

