# Submissions has killed MMA



## silatman (Jun 4, 2005)

Is it just me or has the introduction of BJJ and submission Martial arts killed what MMA was or could have been. After watching UFC lately it seems that the only reason people are striking these days is to find an opening for a shoot to go to ground then look for a submission. When BJ Penn took the belt off Matt Hughes is their anybody who really believes that he was better fighter. He was without question the better submission guy but I think that if it was a stand-up fight the fight A - would have been alot better and B - could have resulted in a different outcome. I can understand the reasoning that the life span of a professional MMA fighter might be significantly reduced if submission wasn't allowed but I think that if that seriously was the case then we wouldn't see such dedicated and talented Muay Thai fighters around. I for one think that MMA should take a step back and really think about how the rules that they employ have changed the face of MMA and I think that the fan base is going to suffer for it. If I want to see rounds and divisions I will watch K1 or professional boxing. Bring back your style onto mine or at least fight to the finish not till a bell goes.


----------



## MJS (Jun 4, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> Is it just me or has the introduction of BJJ and submission Martial arts killed what MMA was or could have been. After watching UFC lately it seems that the only reason people are striking these days is to find an opening for a shoot to go to ground then look for a submission. When BJ Penn took the belt off Matt Hughes is their anybody who really believes that he was better fighter. He was without question the better submission guy but I think that if it was a stand-up fight the fight A - would have been alot better and B - could have resulted in a different outcome. I can understand the reasoning that the life span of a professional MMA fighter might be significantly reduced if submission wasn't allowed but I think that if that seriously was the case then we wouldn't see such dedicated and talented Muay Thai fighters around. I for one think that MMA should take a step back and really think about how the rules that they employ have changed the face of MMA and I think that the fan base is going to suffer for it. If I want to see rounds and divisions I will watch K1 or professional boxing. Bring back your style onto mine or at least fight to the finish not till a bell goes.



When the UFC first started, you saw many one style fighters.  As time went on, they began to see the need to cross train/cross referrence other arts to further round out their skills.  Being able to use set-ups to find an opening, is part of the fight game.  Also keep in mind, that at one time, the UFC was banned from PPV.  There is also an article on this forum talking about how is was banned in Boston.  This was mainly due to people who had no clue about these events.  Looking at them, it appears that they are such brutal events.  In order for them to make a comeback and to be sanctioned, rule changes had to be added.  

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24647

Mike


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 4, 2005)

I'll admit that I'm not a big fan of UFC, and silatman's reasoning is part of it.  (Note: I'm making a distinction between UFC and MMA as I have not watched K-1 or Pride events and to me, "UFC" is to "MMA" what "TKD sparring" is to "TKD").

 Most UFC matches I've seen, or at least he recent ones, I think are pretty boring.  I just watched UFC: Revolutions and I didn't care for it.  Like he said, each round was a little bit of 'striking' trying to set up an opportunity to get the other guy down in a submission and hold him there.  Not always, of course, but that seemed to be the bulk of it.  A minute and a half of punching in the face, three and a haf minutes of trying to hold your opponent or trying to get out of your opponent holding you.

 Part of it may be my expectation.  When I first heard the idea of "MMA" I thought it sounded really good.  Some guy who had skills from various arts and could apply them as needed; kick like TKD, trap like Hapkido, hand strike like Karate or something, grapple like Judo, something like that.  What I see in UFC is a sorta reductionism.  Kicking is very rare and is mostly to the thigh.  'Hand striking' is just 'punch the other guy in the face more times and harder than he punches me''.  No real defensive hand work; blocks, traps, etc (and no defensive footwork to evade).  I can't speak to the grappling/ground arts but I seriously doubt that entire art of Judo or BJJ are reduced to two or three moves.  I think maybe the rules or the scoring rules have ended up with this reductionism.  In the same way that the sparring rules of TKD end up with a very limited set of TKD techniques used in sparring that is well short of the total range of TKD, and leave out a lot of very effective TKD techniques, UFC fighting seems to have been reduced to five or six techniques.

 I don't think it's really "tha'ts what's the most effective" so much as "that's what's the most effective to win rounds in UFC".  "If I stand in with a guy and punch him for two minutes, that's two minutes he's punching me, too...but if I can get him down and hold him for two minutes...that's two minutes I'm not getting punched in the face.  If I can  win a round by punching him 50 times while he punches me 40 times...or I can win a round holding a dominant sumbmission position...hmm..."  To to say submissions are easy or anything, but because the point scoring is simply ten points or nine points, and you can win a round by holding a guy down longer..it's easy to see that submissions would be an attractive way to try to win a round.

 A counter example is TKD olympic sparring.  A kick is one point, a kick to the head is two points, a kick to the body is *supposed* to be a point but is rarely awarded.  The manner of awarding points has shaped what techniques and strategies are used.  In any competition, how points are awarded determines what techniques are used.

 If UFC used a point-per-technique approach, I think you'd see a lot more variety, particularly in striking.  Just as an example.

 What I seen in UFC, though, is a lot of things that are, frankly, not that smart if you were to do it in a street fight, so it's hard to say that UFC has honed down to a set of techniques that are effective.  They are effective at winning UFC matches, definitly.  But watch a UFC match with four things in mind; weapons, friends, asphault, 60 lb differential between opponents, and you'll see what I mean.

 Anyway just rambling/ranting


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> Is it just me or has the introduction of BJJ and submission Martial arts killed what MMA was or could have been. After watching UFC lately it seems that the only reason people are striking these days is to find an opening for a shoot to go to ground then look for a submission.


 I suppose you could just watch Muay Thai if you don't like grappling...

 There are also a good number of fighter that have strong counter takedown skills, like to keep the fight standing, and fight for knockouts.  In fact the biggest name with a belt right now does just that (Chuck Liddell)

 Submission are what make the sport unique, and why I enjoy it.

 You wear a guy down with strikes, burn out his energy and look for a finish.  Like in any strategy game.  If they get overly agressive and sloppy the fight can be turned around in a second.

 The beauty of MMA is that there are so many different strategies that can be used, fighters cannot rely as much on physical attributes, toughness and raw power.  They have to know all the skills, and how to deal with them to be competitive.

 You have to figure out where you can beat the guy, and them figure out how to get the fight to go there and how to keep it there.

 But you are right, strikes are used to set up takedowns and submissions.  Just as the threat of takedowns and submissions can be used to set up strikes.  See Randy Couture...  has out struck much better strikers because if they tried to return he would be able to take them down.

 MMA is a sport that the more you understand it, the more you appreciate it.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 4, 2005)

I have watched most of the UFC events & lots of Pride events & King of the Cage . I agree that there could definatly be big improvements . Lately there has been some decent stand up action , but usually only happens when both participants don't want to go to the ground . Even then it looks more like a boxing match . I think that there is alot of cross training that goes on & that will ultimatly make you a better fighter , but the skills are learned just to the level were it helps them to get to there desired position . So you will see alot of technical mistakes . especially when a grappler is doing stand up stuff , but he knows enough to set up the takedown . It's really more covering up , faking & timeing . I also think another thing that makes it totally differant then a street fight is the element of suprise . These fighters have either fought each other or seen the others fights & they have months to train for just that one type of fighter . Even though they all cross train they all have there own strengths & weaknesess . So really alot of the technics are just used as conduits to get them where they really want to be . When ever I watch the fights I always say were are all of the blocks that we all have learned ? Were is the good foot work ? Generally speaking you won't see alot of either . Although it isn't perfect I still watch it & learn alot , especially about submisions 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . I am entertained by maybe 30% to 40 % of the fights .There tends to be alot of stalling if a fighter thinks he is ahead . Also they do a great job of keeping the fighters relativley safe . Nobody wants to see any serious injuries . I'm refering to life threatening injuries . I definatly agree with you guys . I'd love to see more "martial arts" instead of clutching & grabbing . That being said I am a fan of MMA it has alot of good points & has taught us alot about combat .


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> I'd love to see more "martial arts" instead of clutching & grabbing .


 But good clinch skills is martial arts 

 I do know what you mean, not great for tv, but give it a try.  Do a little clinch work and get a better understanding of what is actually going on in there, I bet you appreciate the clutching and grabbing a lot more afterwards


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But good clinch skills is martial arts
> 
> I do know what you mean, not great for tv, but give it a try. Do a little clinch work and get a better understanding of what is actually going on in there, I bet you appreciate the clutching and grabbing a lot more afterwards


Andrew,
You are absolutly correct . I do practice alot of clinch work & I understand about how technical it really is . I didn't mean to diminish it's value . Like you said maybe not great for TV . In a close quarters fight if you don't know how to clinch & use your underhooks your in big trouble . You also brought up some great points in your first post ! I think that they are always working hard to make it more entertaining & keeping it safe .


----------



## RMACKD (Jun 4, 2005)

In Seikendo events submission are not alowed but striking standing up, wrestling and striking on the ground is. You could watch thatif you do not like submissions.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 4, 2005)

I think there needs to be a distinction between MMA and UFC. MMA is just "Mixed Martial Arts", it's knowing and training in many different arts. UFC is a sport competition that allows techniques that happen to come from various martial arts areas. UFC is not really MMA fighting, though. One thing Andrew said was "You wear a guy down with strikes, burn out his energy and look for a finish". That works in UFC but is not a good fighting strategy. 

 The UFC strategy seems to be "strike until you go down", and if you perfer striking than the strategy becomes "get back up out of of the grapple to go back to striking" and if you prefer grappling and submissions than it's "stay down and try to gain the advantage position".

 Also, as has been pointed out, they seem to know who they are fighting a long time in advance. I doubt most people who get n fights have time to study the tapes of their opponent's last fights to form a strategy 

 In fighting, whether MMA or not, you don't get five or fifteen minutes to wear your opponent down. If you prefer striking, you break is leg, break his arm, shatter his trachea, but him down fast and hard *now*. You make the other person want to stop the fight, and if they dont, you make them unable to fight. If your prefer grappling and submissions, then get the guy down where he's in no position to move, but make sure you keep yourself strong and in control. Getting a guy into a guard may keep him still, but if he's got friends then you've got a problem. Also if you are expending more energy to hold him then he is to escape, than faitigue is an issue and there's no clock to save you.

 An example, TKD is, rightly, criticized because the scoring encourages high kicks that would not be nearly as effective on uneven or difficult terrain. UFC I think does the same thing. Try shooting in on someone with a knife, trying holding a guard against someone while you are lying on asphault or sand or broken trash

 So I think, in regards to the original post, that I don't think submission has killed MMA. MMA is still MMA and if you train mixed martial arts for fighting than I think you are likely to avoid those issues because your focus is different.

 Rather I think that submissions allow one person to 'control' a round, at least for a length of time, if you will, which makes it a good way to win a round and therefore it's an attractive place to go, so within the scoring of UFC, submissions has led UFC to become rather narrow in it's focus.

 Now, if you *like* to watch submission fighting, and that's your own perogative, than it's just a matter of taste.  For myself, personally, I'd like to see a wider variety of applied techniques; better use of footwork, both defensively to evade and offensively to close in.  I'd like to see more variety in the punches such as to the solar plexus or kidneys.  If you are defensively fast enough to block a punch then you should be fast enough to trap it and knife hand strike the tricep.  Lot of ways to strike to remove the will and the ability to fight then just punching someone in the face.  Etc, etc...etc...  I mean, for my personal taste there is a lot I would *rather8 see, but it's just personal taste.

 UFC has become what UFC has become because the the rules they use and the way they award points.  If you like it or don't, that depends on what you like to see.


----------



## hemi (Jun 4, 2005)

```
Most UFC matches I've seen, or at least he recent ones, I think are pretty boring. I just watched [url="http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60036081"]UFC: Revolutions[/url] and I didn't care for it. Like he said, each round was a little bit of 'striking' trying to set up an opportunity to get the other guy down in a submission and hold him there. Not always, of course, but that seemed to be the bulk of it. A minute and a half of punching in the face, three and a haf minutes of trying to hold your opponent or trying to get out of your opponent holding you.
```

Forgive me if that quote didn't work I am still new and learning to work this thing

I have to agree, I WAS a huge fan of the UFC but now no way would i pay $30 to $50 to watch it on PPV. I loved to watch when it was a standing man vs man no rules fight till you gave up or could not get up. I am not downing any of the styles that teach grappling but to me it is boring to watch IMHO. I could just watch the WWF it that was what i was looking for.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 4, 2005)

Getting back to the origional quote "Submissions has killed MMA" . I don't think that you guys are nessesarally saying that submissions are a bad stratagy & of course I think it's been proven how effective they are . You get caught , something gets broken , torn . Basically your screwed . Me personally I would use a submission in a heart beat even in a street fight if the situation was right . I think that the main problem that exist in the UFC is that the rules really favor the grappler or submission fighters . Think about it , a striker cannot knee strike a downed opponant in the head , they cannot soccor kick a downed opponant to the head , I'm not sure but I don't think small joint manipulation is allowed (ask anybody in LE how important SJM is ) . Theres more , but I think I'v made the case for the strikers . Now the grappler or submission fighter rules : they are aloud to use armbars , chokes , leg locks (which distroy the knee , ) , heel hooks , toe holds ect ect ect ... & If you don't tap your done . Last a wrestler can take you down & pound the crap out of you with punches , elbows ect ... Now all of that being said I don't think that there will ever be any big changes in the rules basically they have there hands tied . There is to much political pressure & quite frankly, if they allowed soccor kicks & knees to the skull of a down opponant someone would most likely die or suffer servier brain damage . Another rule you can't grab hair . which I think is kind of funny , but I guess they are worried about neck injuries . I guess the points i'm trying to make are that in the street you have many many more options (Groin strikes 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) So it really is alot differant then a street fight , but I would never wan't to face chuck Liddell in a street fight . As far as the rules I think it is what it is , but I'v always thought that the strikers had the deck stacked against them . Just a little , but look on the bright side it's helped to improve their ground skills . I'm a big fan of the UFC , PRIDE & MMA in general . So really I don't think that submissions or ground fighting has distroyed the UFC . I just think that the limits are there for alot of other reasons .


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> One thing Andrew said was "You wear a guy down with strikes, burn out his energy and look for a finish". That works in UFC but is not a good fighting strategy.


 Sure it is, in fact it is really the only one...



> The UFC strategy seems to be "strike until you go down", and if you perfer striking than the strategy becomes "get back up out of of the grapple to go back to striking" and if you prefer grappling and submissions than it's "stay down and try to gain the advantage position".


 Right...  Use your strengths against there weaknesses, sounds like a good idea...



> Also, as has been pointed out, they seem to know who they are fighting a long time in advance. I doubt most people who get n fights have time to study the tapes of their opponent's last fights to form a strategy


 Yup, and most people that get in fights outside of competition are not professional fighters.



> If you prefer striking, you break is leg, break his arm, shatter his trachea,


 Not easy to do...



> but him down fast and hard *now*. You make the other person want to stop the fight, and if they dont, you make them unable to fight.


 Sounds like what MMA fighters try to do...  unfortunately its not that simple.  But I think most fighters would prefer to end it in round 1.



> If your prefer grappling and submissions, then get the guy down where he's in no position to move, but make sure you keep yourself strong and in control. Getting a guy into a guard may keep him still, but if he's got friends then you've got a problem. Also if you are expending more energy to hold him then he is to escape, than faitigue is an issue and there's no clock to save you.


 Umm... No...  thats not the way guard works...  Top guy gets tired.

 Plus the grappler is not going to be the one on the bottom.



> Try shooting in on someone with a knife,


 Done, its not hard to train this.



> trying holding a guard against someone while you are lying on asphault or sand or broken trash


 Again, the grappler is not going to be the one on the bottom.  At this point you are already loosing and the asphault is the least of your worries.



> So I think, in regards to the original post, that I don't think submission has killed MMA. MMA is still MMA and if you train mixed martial arts for fighting than I think you are likely to avoid those issues because your focus is different.


 Actually the techniques are all the same.  The strategy might vary slightly.  You might actually have to break that arm instead of making him tap.  But for the most part, not much changes.



> Rather I think that submissions allow one person to 'control' a round, at least for a length of time, if you will, which makes it a good way to win a round and therefore it's an attractive place to go, so within the scoring of UFC, submissions has led UFC to become rather narrow in it's focus.


 No...  as soon as a submission gets on the fight is over.



> Now, if you *like* to watch submission fighting, and that's your own perogative, than it's just a matter of taste.


 I suggest you actually give it a try, it sounds like you aren't really sure about why it is the way it is.



> For myself, personally, I'd like to see a wider variety of applied techniques;


 Not much more can be added then in the old "No Rules" matches.  The few rules that are there now do change things for safety, but its not a big change in how they fight.




> better use of footwork, both defensively to evade and offensively to close in. I'd like to see more variety in the punches such as to the solar plexus or kidneys.


 And again, I suggest you actually give it a try.  There is a reason they fight the way they do, and there is a reason body punches are less common from a distance.



> If you are defensively fast enough to block a punch then you should be fast enough to trap it and knife hand strike the tricep.


 Blocking gets you hit, covering is much better for protecting yourself.  Trapping and striking the tricep is not very useful, and very difficult to pull off.



> Lot of ways to strike to remove the will and the ability to fight then just punching someone in the face. Etc, etc...etc... I mean, for my personal taste there is a lot I would *rather8 see, but it's just personal taste.


 Well, they do this quite a bit, they train to remove the will to fight from other people.  And what they do is the things that actually achieve that goal in reality, not in theory.



> UFC has become what UFC has become because the the rules they use and the way they award points. If you like it or don't, that depends on what you like to see.


 Points only matter to a certain point, and only when the fight goes the distance.  Some fighters go for points, but not all do.  Given the opportunity all fighters will end it before the time runs out.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 4, 2005)

In referance to asphalt being a problem on the ground . From my street fighting experiances in one on one battles I have more times than not taken the fight right to the ground . Reason being that I have a fair amount of grappling experiance & if I sensed that weakness in a foe I would usually take it to the ground & like you said Andrew I would end up on top . Unless the other person could grapple they were down there for the duration . people get very frustrated & worn out trying to fight back to their feet . Another thing that you have to watch out for against a good street grappler is slams . If your head bounces off of a hard surface like asphalt you will suffer severe head trauma . Alot of people with no grappling skills don't know how to fall , but alot of times if you have the fall side arm tied up the head hits first & it hits hard if you know how to throw . I know from experiance . Thats why all though people don't always agree on MMA or the UFC you have to admit it's done alot to help both strikers & grapplers . It's opened peoples minds to differant ways .


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 5, 2005)

I dont have anything against grappling, I think grappling is very important, most fights end up in grappling situations, and I enjoy watching it, but like yourself I also feel that lately too many fights end up in a stale mate and on the floor as a result for a long time where either is just trying to submit the other, which can be boring to the eyes.  In reality, its the nature of the beast, UFC is tough as hell, but even as tough as it is, it is not realistic, the conditions/set up and the rules prob make it more favorable for submission techniques than anything else.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 5, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> the conditions/set up and the rules prob make it more favorable for submission techniques than anything else.


 Actually, if anything,  the rules favour the stand up fighters right now.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Actually, if anything, the rules favour the stand up fighters right now.


How so ? Are you refering to the fact that they will stand you back up & restart the fight on the feet if the action stalls on the ground ? I can understand that , but I really can't think of another rule that favours the stand up fighters . Could you elaborate ?


----------



## RMACKD (Jun 5, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> Another rule you can't grab hair . which I think is kind of funny , but I guess they are worried about neck injuries . I guess the points i'm trying to make are that in the street you have many many more options (Groin strikes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think they should allow hair grabbing because barely any of the fighters have hair to grab. Would not make too much of a difference. If you are interested in mma with groin strikes watch the IVC, AFC, and there is also a recent swedish mma event that allows groin strikes but does not allow cups.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 5, 2005)

RMACKD said:
			
		

> I think they should allow hair grabbing because barely any of the fighters have hair to grab. Would not make too much of a difference. If you are interested in mma with groin strikes watch the IVC, AFC, and there is also a recent swedish mma event that allows groin strikes but does not allow cups.


No I'm really not interested in MMA with groin strikes . I was just saying that to point out one defferance between most MMA & a street fight . I was really saying it jokingly  . Besides I don't like to see anyone get hurt especially there  . Hair grabbing again another very effective move for the street . The UFC 185 pound champ is Even Tanner & he has very long hair . I wonder if he would cut it if they changed the rules ? I have seen MMA events were hair grabbing was aloud & it was used very effectively . You have to admit it would be pretty funny if everybody in the UFC were bald  . What would the woman do if they aloud hair grabbing in female MMA ?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 5, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> How so ? Are you refering to the fact that they will stand you back up & restart the fight on the feet if the action stalls on the ground ? I can understand that , but I really can't think of another rule that favours the stand up fighters . Could you elaborate ?


 Just go throw the list of rules and think about what range those are gonna help the most...  The majority are tactics that would be used in close, when grappling.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jun 5, 2005)

I dont think they should allow that, eye grabbing, biting, hits to the groin, hair pulling,  its a competition after all.  I dont want to see any of those guys seriously injured or disabled for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Just go throw the list of rules and think about what range those are gonna help the most... The majority are tactics that would be used in close, when grappling.


I think I understand what you are saying , but I'v seen many cases when a grappler misses a shot & a striker has to back off because he can't knee or kick to the head . Don't you think that is a very important weapon taken away from the striker ? Phil Baroni vs A russian fighter Sulueve ? comes to mind . Also in some of the pride events they aloud knees to the head of a downed opponant & it totally changed the complextion of the fights . Think about it a striker learns to sprawl what is the next logical move ? esspecially if the grappler is tired . I can't argue with you because as usual you make good points , but although I see your point I still think that the rules that don't favour the strikers affect them alittle more . Just alittle .
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 One more point . The rules that you are talking about are going to happen at a equal distance . Meaning if it is close quarters both competeters are going to be able to do almost the exact same thing to each other at about the same time the only differance would be top or bottom . If standing against the fench it would almost be equal positioning , most of the time . If you were a grappler would you want to be chest to chest with a striker if they could head butt , eye gouge , grion strike , grab hair ? Now on the other hand if a grappler shoots & misses which happens alot more nowadays when he has fallen that is a major positional advantage for the striker . Why are so many weapons taken away at that point of advantage ? Thats like telling a submission guy , hey you can't use a rear naked choke . LE dosn't use it because of accidental deaths . I think that you probably are talking about differant types of submissions that aren't aloud also . Of coure in that case it would help the grappler more . I don't know the hole rule book so I can't really argue that point , but I think they have a pretty good arsonal to work with .


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 6, 2005)

I think the rules favor grapplers over strikers in the way scoring is done, moreso than just a list of rules (although the rule about unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury would probably mean stuff like trying to break limbs...not that I think intentionally breaking limbs is a good idea for sport, but if you are thinking in terms of 'street fighting', then a lot what a striker would do is not really allowed, to say nothing of SJM, if that's your art)

 Anyway, the scoring, other than tap out or knock out, basically comes down to winning rounds.  For a striker to win, he would want to hit more than he is hit, and do so more destructively.  For a grappler to win, he puts his opponent in a certain position, and keeps him there.  Now look at a five minute round. over a two minute time period, a striker may strike any numbers of times, and risk getting hit himself in the process.  A grappler can execute one technique, and if successful, can eat up a lot of clock time just maintaining that position.  Mot successful techniques executed by a striker require that the striker get within range of the opponent, which is vulnerable.  The submissions I've seen keep the 'victim'in a position that it's not easy to strike back; I think that's basically what they are designed to do.

 So anyway, a grappler can eat up a lot of clock time and win the round bo dominating the round with fewer executed successul techniques.

 Look at it this way, if the rules were different.  Taken from Tae Kwon Do, say that each competitor was awarded points based on successful technique execution.  Scale the points to reflect a certain degree of risk, difficulty. Say a hand strike to the head is a point.  A low kick is a point.  A body kick is two points, a head kick three.  A takedown could be 1 or more points based on if it was done with a leg sweep, or shoot in, etc..etc...a submission held for 5 seconds would be five points, etc..etc...  whatever way you want to rank it and weight it.  I think this scoring approach would favor strikers because if you are down 5 five points with 20 seconds left in a round, then you know it's been a close round, but you can make up that difference with some fast hand strikes and a few kicks.  Making up that difference with a shoot in for takedown and then submission would be harder because they are slower to execute...you may not get it done in time.  Even if you kept all the same rules as far as what's illegal to do, just changing the scoring system could swing things in favor of fast striking.

 That's just an exampe, of course.  I'm not saying UFC should do this.  I'm just saying that the current scoring seems to favor grapplers because they can get in a dominate position and hold it there and tie up an awful lot of clock time and that seems to get them the win, from the matches I've seen.

 Think of the three point line in baseketball. It changed  the risk/reward for scoring, and changed the strategy of the game.  Also, the inventor of football initially had touchdowns worth just three points and field goals were worth six or seven, because he thought kicking a field goal would be a lot harder than scoring a touchdown.  Now, think of how the stragegy and execution of football would be today if *every* rule was the same, but they used that original scoring.  Tae Kwon Do point sparring and olympic sparring are completely different even though the mostly allow the same techniques; they just score differently, and as a result, point sparring uses a lot of hands but not as much high kicking and olympic sparring has little hard work and a lot of high kicks.

 I'm not even trying to say that (UFC scoring) is bad  That's simply the rules.  How you win a match influences how you play the match and it simply is what it is.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 6, 2005)

_I don't know the hole rule book so I can't really argue that point_

  From http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp, I think these are the rules

  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. 

  ----

 Now, 17 is allowed in the sparring I do. 9 we can do to the head but not the spine (I think) Most of them are fairly generic. In self-defense training we practice 8,9,10, and 11, at least. I'm fairly certain that tryng to break an arm or leg would fall under 22.  I don't really think any of them fall under the realm of prohibiting either a striker or a grappler from executing  a basic set of traditional techniques from their art in a safe manner


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 6, 2005)

I agree to much credit is given for ground control . A college wrestler should be able to control a karate guy on the ground , but what did the wrestler do when he had the better position . The submission guy gets alot of credit for going for the submission the whole fight , but he didn't get the submission ! The bottom line is that the striker dosen't get as much credit for an agressive standup attack as the wrestler or submission specialist gets for ground control or submission attempts . It's really no differant then scoreing in other contact sports , but when you take major weapons away from one style it tilts the scale . I think even the grapplers would admit that .


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 6, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _I don't know the hole rule book so I can't really argue that point_
> 
> From http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp, I think these are the rules
> 
> ...


Thank you Jay ,
I can see why Andrew didn't list these rules  .  :flame: How exactly would these rules favour the grappler over the strikers ? Are you kidding me ? Whats going to stop the strikers from returning the favour with more effect ! They are the strikers ! Now I understand why you wouldn't give to many details :uhyeah: . Just kidding  .


----------



## Marginal (Jun 6, 2005)

I think a lot of the action is lost on people who really haven't seen two things...

1) Bad MMA
2) Good MMA

Just pick up one of those King of the Cage 100 hours of fights for $10 DVD sets. (There are a few sets like these out there, and from different promotions, but the overall quality tends to be about the same.)

You'll see people trying jump kicks, people lying on top of someone else for 15 minutes straight, a few good matches mismatches and so on. 

Then get something like Pride Cold Fury (even better since it can be found relatively cheap even new in the store). If I remember correctly, Heath Herring, and Enson Inoue put on a very entertiaining match. That's the kind of stuff that demonstrates that submission fighting doesn't have to look boring. Silva also demonstrates that striking's not dead.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 6, 2005)

I have the pride cold fury DVD good one ! Also the heavyweight elimination grand prix events are good to .


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2005)

sayoc FF said:
			
		

> I agree to much credit is given for ground control . A college wrestler should be able to control a karate guy on the ground , but what did the wrestler do when he had the better position . The submission guy gets alot of credit for going for the submission the whole fight , but he didn't get the submission ! The bottom line is that the striker dosen't get as much credit for an agressive standup attack as the wrestler or submission specialist gets for ground control or submission attempts . It's really no differant then scoreing in other contact sports , but when you take major weapons away from one style it tilts the scale . I think even the grapplers would admit that .



Good point!  IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at.  If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground. :idunno:   Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding?  Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down.

Mike


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 6, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Good point! IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is exactly what I mean . I'm not saying the grappler should be penalized for being a great ground man . I just think they give just a little to much credit for that type of control . I have also seen top control work against the bjj guy when he fights a wrestler . somtimes the wrestler will be awarded the decition based on top control , but the whole time he was fighting off submission attempts , but he wins because of top control . I don't think that the advantages are major in most cases , but they definatly exist . Even the fighters have said this . I just watched the UFC were Tito Ortize fought Vitor Belfore . Before the fight they ask Chuck Lidell for a prediction & he said somthing like Tito will probably win because he'll do what he always does take the guy down & lay on him . I'm sure he is not the only fighter that feels that way . For the most part I think the decitions are fair , but they could improve at least alittle . Maybe do somthing like K1 events where they go an extra round if there is no clear cut winner . Again I don't want to see any fighters get injured , but I think knees to the head of a downed oponant should be aloud . I know a grappler could do it to , but I think it helps the striker more . It would stop alot those happ hazard shot attempts that the grapplers make esspecially after they get rocked . To add an element of safty to the rule the ref would just have to make sure that after two or three uncontested strikes he either stops the fight or stands the fighters back up . All that being said this will probable never happen because of politics & safty issues .


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 6, 2005)

_ How exactly would these rules favour the grappler over the strikers ?_

 I was just assuming that Andrew was thinking along the lines of things like fishhooking and eye gouging.  Since those are close in techniques, they are more likely to be used by someone used to fighting in close, and therefore to disallow them takes away a weapon from the one used to fighting in close.

_ 1) Bad MMA
  2) Good MMA_

 Well, I was very careful to make a disinction between "MMA" and "UFC".

 To explain, (and I *don't* consider myself a MMA practioner), when we train for self-defense, we look at it in terms of distances, there are several distances away from you that the opponent can be,  and you use different techniques.  There is foot dictance (ie...futher out where you can strike with a foot), arm distance (striking with hands), elbow/knee distance, stand up grappling/wrestling and ground grappling wrestling. That's kinda basic but you get the idea.  We train mostly for the foot distance through the knee/elbow range, but we do some with the stand up wrestling, and also have takedowns from those reanges to get the person down in control.  (Our instructor has said that ground grappling will come as we go forward).

 Anyway, my thought of a MMArtist, at least one who does it for self-defense/fighting, is simply someone who employs various arts to work over all those ranges.  Kicking, hand strikes, SJM, takedowns and submissions, ground fighting, etc..etc...  

 Since I have *not* seen Pride, K-1, etc... I don't want to lump them all together and think that what I see in UFC is how all MMA competitions go, and how all MMArtists train, anymore than I want anyone to watch the TKD competition in the Olympics and think that that's how all TKD competition is and that's all the TKD does.

 What I see in UFC* is simply a very small sample of techniques; but I don't equate "UFC = MMA" so....



 *I've probably seen about a dozen or so total UFC matches, ranging from some of the stuff on that reality show a few months ago, to what was on the UFC: Revolution DVD I rented from Netflix.  I think it's fairly representative of UFC today, but I could be wrong.

_IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground.  Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding? Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down

 Well, I think part of the problem, if you will, is that different arts have different ideas for success.  Holding someone is not as good as a submission, but it's not bad if you can maintain it.  So it's hard to really want to penalize someone for doing something  that they would want to do anyway as a natural part of their art.  Unfortunately, with striking and SJM arts, a lot of what they would want to do is dangerous, so for a good, safe competition, you really don't want broken wrists and broken arms as a natural part of the competition 

 If the judges did not give as much credit just for holding someone, or if the judges gave more credit for someone being held but resisting going into a submission, that would certainly help, I think_


----------



## Marginal (Jun 6, 2005)

On the other side of the coin, why should the guy who couldn't avoid a takedown come out ahead on points just because the guy's lying on top of him? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

"Let's see... This guy controlled the tempo of the entire fight. Getting takedowns at will. But the other guy threw ineffective rabbit punches while he was on his back, so that's gotta be worth at least a zillion points...."


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 6, 2005)

Well, I think you are going to a silly extreme, Marginal 

 Let's say Fred and Bob are in a match together.  Fred throws ten good shots that land well, and then Bob shots in and takes him down.  So for the next 3 minutes, they sorta squirm on the ground, with Bob holding Fred but never submitting him, but Fred never really gets loose either.  So Fred executes ten good techniques and managed to avoid being submitted, but Bob wins the round because he 'controlled' more of the round...even though he only executed one really successful technique and never quite got the submission on.  He *did* manage to 'control'  the round, but only because he couldnt finish it.  Fred should get credit because he kept Bob from getting the submission, even though he(Fred) was held for three minutes.  Fred executed more successful techniques and blocked more of Bob's techniques from really being successful, but Bob wins...

 That's just sorta an example but..I've seen similar things happen.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 6, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> On the other side of the coin, why should the guy who couldn't avoid a takedown come out ahead on points just because the guy's lying on top of him? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
> 
> "Let's see... This guy controlled the tempo of the entire fight. Getting takedowns at will. But the other guy threw ineffective rabbit punches while he was on his back, so that's gotta be worth at least a zillion points...."


A big part of the reason that alot not all of the takedowns can't be avoided is because the way some of the rules are the striker is having alot of his weapons taken away . The grappler really dosn't have to much to worry about if he misses his shot & he is on both knees he is protected by the rules . Let him have to worry about a world class striker driving knees into his skull after he falls . Mark Kerr who is one of the best all around grapplers in the world got distroyed by Igor Vovchanchyn in pride using these technics . If you watch enough MMA you'll see grapplers actually crawl after guys to get a takdown because they really don't have much to worry about while they are on their knees . Usually the stand up guy will back up when he could be finishing the fight . I am basically a grappler first . I'v been involved in it my whole life . Thrust me in these instances the grappler has a hugh advantage .


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground.  Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding? Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down
> 
> Well, I think part of the problem, if you will, is that different arts have different ideas for success.  Holding someone is not as good as a submission, but it's not bad if you can maintain it.  So it's hard to really want to penalize someone for doing something  that they would want to do anyway as a natural part of their art.  Unfortunately, with striking and SJM arts, a lot of what they would want to do is dangerous, so for a good, safe competition, you really don't want broken wrists and broken arms as a natural part of the competition
> 
> If the judges did not give as much credit just for holding someone, or if the judges gave more credit for someone being held but resisting going into a submission, that would certainly help, I think_


_

True, but when fighters enter these events, they should have a clear understanding of the rules.  When the UFC first started, you had no time limits.  A fight could go on for 30+ minutes.  Examples of this are UFC4- Severn vs. Gracie and the Superfight between Shamrock and Gracie.  2 boring fights IMHO.  I love the UFC and the other MMA events, but I hate spending money to see 2 people lay on top of each other when they should be fighting.  

Dont get me wrong...I'm not against controlling the person, but at least be active while doing it.

Mike_


----------



## Marginal (Jun 6, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Well, I think you are going to a silly extreme, Marginal



That's the whole point of extremes.  



> Let's say Fred and Bob are in a match together.  Fred throws ten good shots that land well, and then Bob shots in and takes him down.  So for the next 3 minutes, they sorta squirm on the ground, with Bob holding Fred but never submitting him, but Fred never really gets loose either.  So Fred executes ten good techniques and managed to avoid being submitted, but Bob wins the round because he 'controlled' more of the round...even though he only executed one really successful technique and never quite got the submission on.



Yes, but there's still the question, why didn't the guy on the bottom get out/get up. He's not really doing anything either in that case. Kinda gives you a null set which leaves you back at square one with the issue of who had initiative.

Edit: I'm not really arguing for or against the UFC having rules that favor or don't favor grapplers. I beleive there are factors at work there that make things shake out the way they do for a reason though.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 7, 2005)

_
Yes, but there's still the question, why didn't the guy on the bottom get out/get up. He's not really doing anything either in that case. Kinda gives you a null set which leaves you back at square one with the issue of who had initiative.
_

Well not really.  If the goal of the grappler is to get a submission,as the goal of the striker is to strike, then keeping your opponent from accomplishing your goal is a good thing in it's own right.

Look at sports that score points.  A good defense can help to bolster the offense.  In baseball or TKD sparring, you only need to score once to win, if your defense is strong enough to stand up.

In the above situation, Fred had good offense (he landed several strikes well) and moderate defense (he fought back well enough to keep the submission from happening, but not well enough to escape.  His defense was good enough to stymie Bob's goal, but not good enough to stop it completely).  Bob's defense was poor (Fred landed the attacks) and his offense was moderate (he was good enough to hold Fred, but not good enough to submit Fred).  The only really successul thing Bob did was a single takedown, but he wins the round

_ but I hate spending money to see 2 people lay on top of each other when they should be fighting. _

Well, one simple way to change the rules is to make the 'stalemate' position, that if neither fighter is really advancing position, not just trying to, more loose.  If you can't get from hold to submission in 10 or 20 seconds or whatever, then stand them back up again.

The only problem with that is that a submission is like a knockout, it's the fighters way of forcing the opponent to be unable to fight any more.  To force a situation that the grappler must get a submission to win, or else the hold is stopped is like telling a striker that if they don't get a knockout, they have to stop punching.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 7, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _
> Well not really.  If the goal of the grappler is to get a submission,as the goal of the striker is to strike, then keeping your opponent from accomplishing your goal is a good thing in it's own right._


_

On the other hand, the grappler's keeping the striker from doing anything but reacting to his sub attempts and whatever strikes the grappler attempts to throw. (Guess it depends on how you prefer to spin it.)

I can't see how the guy dictating the fight should be penalized. Pretty much any sport, the folks that are put on the reactionary side are the ones that will at the very least, be perceived as losing. 




			In baseball or TKD sparring, you only need to score once to win, if your defense is strong enough to stand up.
		
Click to expand...

Initiative goes a long way towards determining who nets a win in a TKD sparring situation.




			In the above situation, Fred had good offense (he landed several strikes well) and moderate defense (he fought back well enough to keep the submission from happening, but not well enough to escape.  His defense was good enough to stymie Bob's goal, but not good enough to stop it completely).  Bob's defense was poor (Fred landed the attacks) and his offense was moderate (he was good enough to hold Fred, but not good enough to submit Fred).  The only really successul thing Bob did was a single takedown, but he wins the round
		
Click to expand...


And he successfully prevented Fred from throwing any more strikes. 




			The only problem with that is that a submission is like a knockout, it's the fighters way of forcing the opponent to be unable to fight any more.  To force a situation that the grappler must get a submission to win, or else the hold is stopped is like telling a striker that if they don't get a knockout, they have to stop punching.
		
Click to expand...


Kinda like when a cut happens._


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 7, 2005)

_On the other hand, the grappler's keeping the striker from doing anything but reacting to his sub attempts and whatever strikes the grappler attempts to throw._

Within the time of the hold, yeah.  But if Fred was the one doing the striking before the takedown...

_ (Guess it depends on how you prefer to spin it.)_

Well, I think it depends on how you view that hold   I tend to view it as if one person is fighting to get from a hold to either a submission or a superior position that he can pound from, but can't and the other person is fighting to get free, but can't, then you are at a point of effective stalemate, because each is good enough to keep their position but not good enough to effectively advance it.  In which case you go back to the fact that Fred landed 10 good shots and Bob landed 1 good takedown, so Fred was overall more successful in executing techniques.

The reason I go that way is because I keep thinking back to the street fighting scenario.  I don't really like the idea of extended holding because I think it's dangerous because of the possibility of a third party involvement against you.  If dealing with mulitple opponents, a guy and his friends, a group, etc... you really want to even the odds by taking one guy out quickly  That will often take the fight out of the group, at best and at worse you have one less opponent.  A prolonged stalemate will allow others to attack, and the longer a fight goes on,the more possibility of accident or chance or bad luck, even with one opponent.  In grappling, you go from takedown to submission, and the submission is a control position where the opponent cannot fight back because otherwise you can choke them out or break something.  In striking, you use strikes to subdue, but if that doesn't work, or in the multiple attacker situation, you use strikes to disable.  Again, maybe if you are facing multiple attackers, that arm bar becomes a break simply because you don't have time to mess around.  And maybe

Now in a wrestling match, you have specifc rules, like in boxing or TKD sparring....it's not trying to emulate a street fight...it's just taking a few techniques from an art and giving it a scoring mechanism and going on from there.

But if UFC wants to call itself a fighting style that is close to street fighting as safely possible, I don't really like those extended holds that don't lead to a tapout because I don't think that's a good idea.

_I can't see how the guy dictating the fight should be penalized_

Because I don't see that he's really dictating it.  If he was really dictating it, he would be advancing his position, not just holding steady.  Fred is really 'dictating' as much as Bob because his keeping Fred from advancing.  Bob is keeping Fred from getting up and hitting him, but Fred is keeping Bob from submitting him.

Think of soccer.  TeamA scores a goal or two quickly, so TeamB just passes the ball amongst themselves passing it up and down the field.  They are not quite good enough to score a goal, but they are good enough to keep TeamA from getting the ball back.  At the end, do they give the win to TeamB because they 'dictated' the game?

_Initiative goes a long way towards determining who nets a win in a TKD sparring situation._

Well, yes and no, I've seen matches where one person got a few point score and then played defense the rest of the way, and effectively.  (That's a different tangent, though, I think)

_And he successfully prevented Fred from throwing any more strikes. _

"Any more" is the key.  Fred had already landed a few strikes when Bob took him down.  I was careful in wording it like that because I've seen something similar happen.  Noe, back to the soccer situation...if TeamA had not scored and TeamB scored a point or two and then TeamB just passed the ball around, then that's different.  TeamB is controlling the game from a position of having already scored more times.  If Fred had not successfully struck Bob before he took him down, then yeah, Bob wins because he did the takedown and Fred did not defend against it so Bob and Fred just holding steady is from a position of Bob already having done at least one more succssful technique.  So I have no problem with Bob winning that one


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 7, 2005)

_I don't really like those extended holds that don't lead to a tapout because I don't think that's a good idea._

 Well, ok, personally, I think they are boring to watch, too   So I guess it's a matter of personal preference....


----------



## MJS (Jun 7, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _
> Yes, but there's still the question, why didn't the guy on the bottom get out/get up. He's not really doing anything either in that case. Kinda gives you a null set which leaves you back at square one with the issue of who had initiative.
> _
> 
> Well not really.  If the goal of the grappler is to get a submission,as the goal of the striker is to strike, then keeping your opponent from accomplishing your goal is a good thing in it's own right.



True, and I agree with the thought of taking the person out of their fight game.  But, if the grappler is not doing anything more than just laying on the person, with little to no attempts to strike or submit, they should not be awarded points.  I remember when the Ultimate Fighter show was on TV.  The fight with Chris Leban and Josh Koscheck.  Josh had some good takedowns, but what did he do to Chris on the ground?  Even after the match was over, Chris, as well as some others, commented on how Josh didn't deserve the win due to him not doing anything on the ground.




> _ but I hate spending money to see 2 people lay on top of each other when they should be fighting. _
> 
> Well, one simple way to change the rules is to make the 'stalemate' position, that if neither fighter is really advancing position, not just trying to, more loose.  If you can't get from hold to submission in 10 or 20 seconds or whatever, then stand them back up again.



Yes, they're already doing something along those lines now.  In the above quote, I was referring to early UFCs.  I want to see some action, not end up paying to see a bunch of boring fights.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 7, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> And he successfully prevented Fred from throwing any more strikes.



True, but what did he do to try and submit him?  

Mike


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 7, 2005)

I think that no matter what your stand is . If there are no major rules changes as far as the allowable technics go & the judgeing criteria stays as it is now the grapplers in the sport have no incentives to change . If they are getting major credit for superior ground control why change ? The Josh Koshceck example was a good one . I don't really remember him landing that many blows . Now that was a perfect example of when the judges should have stepped up & called it a draw so they could fight one more round . I think all of the fighters on that show & Dana White were really suprised by that decition . The next fight Josh Koshceck fought on that show was against the eventual champ in that weight class & he got beat up bad . Now that was an example of a good ground battle & a good battle in general . The guy he fought was much more well rounded & is every bit the grappler Josh is . Bottom line is we are talking about making these fights as entertaining as possible & still being fair to the fighters & their styles . While keeping it an even playing feild . In my opinion the rules & the judgeing fovors the ground guy . Not by much , but enough to change the action of alot of the fights . It is an entertainment bussiness . Maybe one idea is to take points away from the control person for continual stalling . Or direct the judges to show alittle more balance . I don't think an extra round here & there would hurt . People love to see that . As long as they are fair to the fighters .


----------



## WilliamJ (Jun 8, 2005)

If you don't allow grappling and submissions it's hardly MIXED martial arts then is it? It would really make more sense for some of you to learn the sport before trying to alter the rule set. Pride FC allows kicks to a downed opponent. So the debate about shooting is no risk is completely false. Take downs, ground work, clinch control are all very important parts of a fight. If you don't like them watch K1 kick boxing and you won't have to see them.

A great many strikes have made good names for themselves in MMA. But instead of complaining about how grappling is unfair they just trained the needed skills to win. Cro Cop trains with Fabricio Werdum, a world class BJJ guy. Silva is a black belt in BJJ. Lidell has a background in wrestling. Rich Franklin trains grappling with Jorge Gurgel last I heard. MIXED means you work on all the skills, not just a small subset of them.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 8, 2005)

WilliamJ said:
			
		

> If you don't allow grappling and submissions it's hardly MIXED martial arts then is it? It would really make more sense for some of you to learn the sport before trying to alter the rule set. Pride FC allows kicks to a downed opponent. So the debate about shooting is no risk is completely false. Take downs, ground work, clinch control are all very important parts of a fight. If you don't like them watch K1 kick boxing and you won't have to see them.
> 
> A great many strikes have made good names for themselves in MMA. But instead of complaining about how grappling is unfair they just trained the needed skills to win. Cro Cop trains with Fabricio Werdum, a world class BJJ guy. Silva is a black belt in BJJ. Lidell has a background in wrestling. Rich Franklin trains grappling with Jorge Gurgel last I heard. MIXED means you work on all the skills, not just a small subset of them.


So whats your point William ? Pride allows kicks to downed opponants & they also give out yellow cards for stalling ! Thats why pride fights are better & the fighters are alittle better . So basically all the whining you just did proved my point .
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Just because they allow kicking to downed opponants in Pride dosen't make the debate false . It's harder to get a takedown in Pride & fights are won & lost by kicking a downed opponant ! Do I need to list the fights for you ? Probably not because your such & expert & were all idiots 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . So why dosen't the UFC allow kicks to downed oponants & give out yellow cards ? Oh yeah , did I thank you for proving my point ? Thanks William 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . BTW , we were discussing how to make the UFC a little better not how to elimanate grappling . Maybe they should take a lesson from PRIDE . The rules & scoreing in the UFC favours the grappler . Anybody with eyes can see that , even the fighters . BTW . Pride has not always allowed kicking to downed opponants . They have been back & forth with that rule , but it seems like they think it is a better way to go & I agree & so do the fighters 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Marginal (Jun 8, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> True, but what did he do to try and submit him?
> 
> Mike



Why's Fred still just lying there under the other guy?  Why doesn't he get up?  

Kinda gets circular from here on out.... 

But anyway, as Iwas trying to point out, there's more out there than just the UFC. If a thread's titled, "Submissions have ruined MMA." seems like the basic claim is broader than just what's going on in the UFC.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 8, 2005)

_
Why's Fred still just lying there under the other guy? Why doesn't he get up?

Kinda gets circular from here on out...._

I agree.  That's sorta what I was trying to allude to...it's pretty much a circle...One's not good enough to submit  the other...one's not good enough to escape the other.  Both are doing something right...but not quite enough.  Neither really deserves to win....neither deserves to lose...but under UFC rules, Bob would win.

_
But anyway, as Iwas trying to point out, there's more out there than just the UFC. If a thread's titled, "Submissions have ruined MMA." seems like the basic claim is broader than just what's going on in the UFC._

I agree.  I was careful to point out that difference


----------



## MJS (Jun 9, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Why's Fred still just lying there under the other guy?  Why doesn't he get up?
> 
> Kinda gets circular from here on out....



Absolutely!! :ultracool   Why is Fred laying there?  Probably a number of reasons.  I'm just giving my POV on what I see.  Pretty much, unless there is a rule change, the fighters are stood back up after little or no activity, it goes like this.  Fighter A takes Fighter B down.  A maintains good position, not allowing B to escape.  However, A makes little to no attempts to submit or strike.  Round ends with it going to A.  This same scenario plays out for the next few rounds.  End result: A wins.  This tells me that A, while he has good takedowns, needs serious work on submissions and striking.  B needs work on escapes.



> But anyway, as Iwas trying to point out, there's more out there than just the UFC. If a thread's titled, "Submissions have ruined MMA." seems like the basic claim is broader than just what's going on in the UFC.



Agreed! :ultracool 

Mike


----------



## WilliamJ (Jun 9, 2005)

The name of the thread is submissions have ruined MMA, not UFC alone. Pride has allowed kicks to downed opponents since 2000, they have not waffled on it since then. But I would have thought an expert in MMA like yourself would have known that.

Takedowns and submissions are used because they work, plain and simple. So now you want to put rules in to limit them because you don't understand what you are seeing and are getting bored. If there is a tweak needed by the UFC they need to give more points for control from the bottom, but they are boxing judges so they don't reall understand grappling.

As for whining, it sounds like you are the one whining about the way things are. Which just further proves that people like you, who do not understand fighting, shouldn't watch MMA.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jun 9, 2005)

_End result: A wins. This tells me that A, while he has good takedowns, needs serious work on submissions and striking. B needs work on escapes.
_

If that's *all* that happens then it's hard to really complain.  What I object to is when Fighter B gets in 30-45 seconds of superior striking first, and then get's taken down and Fighter A gets the because he 'controlled' the round.


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 9, 2005)

WilliamJ said:
			
		

> The name of the thread is submissions have ruined MMA, not UFC alone. Pride has allowed kicks to downed opponents since 2000, they have not waffled on it since then. But I would have thought an expert in MMA like yourself would have known that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does this mean that the judges for the UFC shouldn't watch either, because as you pointed out, they really don't understand this type of fighting either ???

As for the title of the thread, it was explained in previous post that it was refering more to the UFC not MMA in general by the thread starter . As for the Pride rules , all I said was that they have been back & forth on this rule . Whats the differance if it's been the same since 2000 ??? Prides been around alot longer then that ! So again you've made a weak attempt to make a point & further proved my point that they have been back & forth on this rule . BTW , I new the year , but it meant nothing to my argument . If anything it further proves my point . It kinda looks like the UFC is alittle behind the times 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . This time I'm not going to thank you for proving my point , your argument is to selfserving 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


As for takdowns & submissions , we are talking more about putting in rules to stop the top control guy from stalling & recieving to much credit for control when he wasn't really doing much but holding . 

As for more points for the bottom guy or the submission fighter . I myself addressed this in a previous post on this thread . I said I have seen fights were the submission fighter gets screwed because he is on the bottom & to much credit is given to the wrestler just because he is on top . That has always been one of my biggest problems with the UFC judging . BTW , I'm a wrestler & I can see that ! But , I try not to be byast , unlike some people 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .

As far as the judges being boxing judges & not really understanding what the hell they are looking at , I have an idea . How about along with the rule changes that I been suggesting they either educate these boxing judges or get new judges who know what they are looking at ??? These guys don't even get boxing matches right half the time ! Again your argument only proves there needs to be changes .
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




People like me are the ones who are paying the fighters salaries 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .


----------



## Knarfan (Jun 9, 2005)

BTW , I'v seen all but one UFC event & have been to live UFC events . I'v also seen plenty of Pride & KOTC . So really I think Dana White wants me watching . I may not know anything about fighting:whip: , but I am a paying customer :uhyeah: .



Frank AKA clueless :idunno:


----------



## NotQuiteDead (Jun 22, 2005)

IMO, it it weren't for submissions, mma would be just two guys going in there to hit eachother... I don't think training would be as important as raw aggression and strength. A lot of people already think mma is just unskilled brawling, imagine how they would percieve it if it was just striking and ground and pound.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 23, 2005)

I'm not sure how many of you outside the UK have ever seen "Cage Rage"...

but it claims to be a "MMA" competition like Pride and whatnot...
 All these things seem to be now is nothing more than a ToughMan competition in a funny shaped ring.
There is no style,technique.....nothing!
 In 18 straight fights I have watched so far...ONE armbar!
It's all ground and pound! A few extreeeemely lame kicks,haymakers galour and straight to the ground....thats it!
 I am just wondering,what exactly DOES a Mixed Martial Art consist of these days?
 I thought the term was meant for someone who could stand up and fight as well as well as ground fight.
It all seems one sided in my opinion.
Rasslin with punches.
The last good "mma" fight saw was when Keith Hackney beat that 600lb sumo wrestler in UFC 3 or something like that.
Since then.....
:shrug:

But thats just my opinion


----------



## Blindside (Jun 23, 2005)

Funny, I recall watching that fight (Hackney v Yarborough) and thinking "doesn't this guy know how to do anything other than club the guy with his forearm."  I'm not sure that is the fight I would pick as an exemplar of "style and technique."

Lamont


----------



## NotQuiteDead (Jun 23, 2005)

Bammx2, have you ever trained in grappling? A lot of times people who have never grappled don't understand technique when they see it and think it's boring.


----------



## ace (Jun 26, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> Is it just me or has the introduction of BJJ and submission Martial arts killed what MMA was or could have been. After watching UFC lately it seems that the only reason people are striking these days is to find an opening for a shoot to go to ground then look for a submission. When BJ Penn took the belt off Matt Hughes is their anybody who really believes that he was better fighter. He was without question the better submission guy but I think that if it was a stand-up fight the fight A - would have been alot better and B - could have resulted in a different outcome. I can understand the reasoning that the life span of a professional MMA fighter might be significantly reduced if submission wasn't allowed but I think that if that seriously was the case then we wouldn't see such dedicated and talented Muay Thai fighters around. I for one think that MMA should take a step back and really think about how the rules that they employ have changed the face of MMA and I think that the fan base is going to suffer for it. If I want to see rounds and divisions I will watch K1 or professional boxing. Bring back your style onto mine or at least fight to the finish not till a bell goes.



ok I may be real Late to answer this But Didn't Bj Knock down Matt with a Punch. Then Proceed to Choke him out???

As a MMA Fighter I am alway's searching to end the Fight by Submission
I for 1 prefer to Grapple then Strike.

How ever to Make it in this Sport You have to practise both.
The better fighter is the 1 who stay's 3 stepd ahead of the Game.


----------



## nhbSDMF (Jun 27, 2005)

How is it possible that submissions have done anything but advance MMA as a whole?  In no way have catch wrestling, BJJ, or any other type of submission fighting detracted from the level of competition in MMA, nor have they diminished its fan base.  

silatman, in your opinion you would rather have standup only and no grappling?  How does that make for better competition?  The reason submissions in any form are being so widely adopted by practitioners of every art when it comes to MMA is simply because they work.  Its the same reason wrestlers and BJJ players train western and thai boxing.  Fighters must be multidimentional in order to succeed in MMA, no one side of the game is enough anymore.  In the MMA competitions fighters do what is most functional, if they don't they will pay for it.  If submissions were not useful, fighters would not employ the techniques.  Same goes for standup.

Submissions also do not by any means extend the in-ring lives of MMA players either.  Understand the dangers of a heelhook or even a straight arm bar and tell me that submissions are "safer" than stand up.  It is very difficult not to flame you when you come in here and make a statement like "Submissions Killed MMA".  I will instead simply ask that you learn more about submission fighting before making such wild accusations.


----------



## silatman (Jun 28, 2005)

nhbSDMF said:
			
		

> How is it possible that submissions have done anything but advance MMA as a whole?  In no way have catch wrestling, BJJ, or any other type of submission fighting detracted from the level of competition in MMA, nor have they diminished its fan base.
> 
> silatman, in your opinion you would rather have standup only and no grappling?  How does that make for better competition?  The reason submissions in any form are being so widely adopted by practitioners of every art when it comes to MMA is simply because they work.  Its the same reason wrestlers and BJJ players train western and thai boxing.  Fighters must be multidimentional in order to succeed in MMA, no one side of the game is enough anymore.  In the MMA competitions fighters do what is most functional, if they don't they will pay for it.  If submissions were not useful, fighters would not employ the techniques.  Same goes for standup.
> 
> Submissions also do not by any means extend the in-ring lives of MMA players either.  Understand the dangers of a heelhook or even a straight arm bar and tell me that submissions are "safer" than stand up.  It is very difficult not to flame you when you come in here and make a statement like "Submissions Killed MMA".  I will instead simply ask that you learn more about submission fighting before making such wild accusations.



Hey if you want to "flame me" flame away, I thought the idea of a forum was to hear the different opinions of alot of different people ALL of whom are valid, even yours.

I do understand and train for submissions and I stand by my comments. 
When do you get the chance to tapout between strikes?
Most MMA fighters understand that what you do is what you get, ie, you snap my arm, someone will snap yours, you submit a guy with respect you will get the same in return.

 You have to remember that MMA is a sport and as such is fully reliant on its fan base, its not only martial artists that watch it. As a martial artist you can watch a grappling match and appreciate it for the skill involved but what about the guy who has no training? Do you really think that he is going to put up with endless bouts of two guys rolling around on the floor? People watch MMA for the fight not for the subtleties involved in a submission. Why do you think that car racing is so popular, its not for the speed or the shiny paintwork, its for the chance to see a high speed crash. The same goes for MMA, in MY opinion the sport needs to continue to be flashy or it will lose its fan base.

Submission would be fine if it was used as just another tool in the arsenal of a MMA fighter but it is now used to such an extent that the stand up is now only used as a bridge to get a shoot or a takedown, there are very few fighters who now want to fight a stand up battle and so for me in my opinion submission has killed MMA.


----------



## nhbSDMF (Jun 28, 2005)

I didn't flame you.  I essentially said I wanted to but I didn't.

MMA is not about, nor should it be about uneducated spectators.  If they want to see flashy martial arts then they can go rent a Jean Claude Van Damme movie (Ask Chuck Zito how effective that is...).  MMA as a sport is about who is the best fighter and what techniques are most effective.  Flashy techniques are not effective or you would see them used more often.  Some fighters do prefer to play the stand up game and are successful with it, take Chuck Liddell for example.  Other fighters prefer to grapple and work only that angle, like Royce Gracie.  Most combine the two because it is the most effective.  Chuck Liddell is a striker but trains submissions, Royce Gracie is a BJJ player but has worked with striking.  If you are interested in seeing the best fights you can't have one side of the game without the other.  

The attitude that any aspect of fighting (striking, submissions, or otherwise) should be limited or eliminated for the sake of the casual uneducated fan's entertainment will only produce incomplete fighters and diminish the quality of the sport.  That is what will kill MMA.


----------



## ace (Jun 28, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> Hey if you want to "flame me" flame away, I thought the idea of a forum was to hear the different opinions of alot of different people ALL of whom are valid, even yours.
> 
> I do understand and train for submissions and I stand by my comments.
> When do you get the chance to tapout between strikes?
> ...




Since the eduction of the Public has grown since 
the day's of the 1st UFC I think more people have grown to understand
what Martial Arts are.

When Royce won the 1st & 2nd UFC people went frenzy over
learning Ground Grappling. This shot Life into Martial Arts.

Up untill that point Most average people thought of Martial
Arts was what they saw In the Movies.

Today there is are people Questioning what they Learn
50 years ago that was Blasphamy. 

This is "Y" MMA is about chooseing what Works.

Im not gonna put Any art down cause there is 
Something for everyone. 
MMA say's the Choice is Yours.


----------



## Marginal (Jun 30, 2005)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Funny, I recall watching that fight (Hackney v Yarborough) and thinking "doesn't this guy know how to do anything other than club the guy with his forearm."  I'm not sure that is the fight I would pick as an exemplar of "style and technique."
> 
> Lamont



I was watching one of thsoe news magazine shows (could've been Dateline or not...) That featured an interview with Hackney on that fight. He basically said "Nothing I was doing was hurting him, so I started pounding on the base of his skull when he fell down." 

Then the reporter played the clip in slow mo and said that hitting someone on the base of the skull likee that was a DEATH BLOW. Went from there to comments from Mcain on how evil the sport was...


----------



## Shogun (Jul 1, 2005)

> Then the reporter played the clip in slow mo and said that hitting someone on the base of the skull likee that was a DEATH BLOW. Went from there to comments from Mcain on how evil the sport was...


Oh its so evil. even more "_eviler_" than skelitor. haha. j/k

The base of the brain is where common motor functions such as movement are derived from. due to this, the body has created a unique defense called _the skull_ to protect it. It takes an insane amount of pressure to actually kill someone hitting them there. what hackney was doing would simply be stopping him from getting up. Now, if had hit lower, about 4 inches, it wouldnt take as much pressure because there lies the _Vertabrae. _obviously I am treating this wonderful bit of priceless medical info as kind of talking down to calling hitting the base of the skull a death blow. can it cause death? absolutely. will it? most likely not.


----------



## SammyB57 (Jul 2, 2005)

Silatman - If you want stand-up, go watch Boxing or Muay Thai.

Complaining that submissions has killed MMA is ridonkulous.... Submissions is exactly what makes MMA different and enjoyable to many people.


----------



## silatman (Jul 3, 2005)

What I want in MMA is a ROUNDED fighter and therefore an exciting fight, yes this does include groung fighting and submission.
My complaint stems from the fact that some of fights now days rely too much on submission to the detriment of the sport.
When the fight is fought mainly on the ground the fight is BORING to the spectators.
Use submissions when they are appropriate not as the entire match, if you want to be a submission expert go play BJJ and keep out of Mixed touraments. 
Surely Mixed means the entire fighting arsenal not a couple of aspects.
As mentioned previously the fighters are all training for striking as well as for ground work so why dont they show case all their skills, if they cant mix it up during stand up what the hell are they doing in a professional arena.


----------



## SammyB57 (Jul 3, 2005)

People probably take fights to the ground because they know they can't win standing up.
And Vice Versa.

example: When Randy takes Chuck down, Randy beats Chuck. When Randy doesn't take Chuck down, he gets knocked out.


----------



## silatman (Jul 3, 2005)

SammyB57 said:
			
		

> People probably take fights to the ground because they know they can't win standing up.
> And Vice Versa.
> 
> example: When Randy takes Chuck down, Randy beats Chuck. When Randy doesn't take Chuck down, he gets knocked out.



If you could only watch one fight which would it be, the knockout or the submission?

My point is that I believe the majority of spectators would pay to see the knock out.
Fans = Money, Money = more MMA


----------



## Ubermint (Jul 3, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> If you could only watch one fight which would it be, the knockout or the submission?


If it's well executed, with good technical groundwork, probably the sub.



> My point is that I believe the majority of spectators would pay to see the knock out.
> Fans = Money, Money = more MMA


Tell you what, we'll leave the shamanist cannibalistic arts to you silat guys and we'll worry about the whole cagefighting thing, ok? 

Which MMA events have you watched anyway?


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 3, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> Is it just me or has the introduction of BJJ and submission Martial arts killed what MMA was or could have been. After watching UFC lately it seems that the only reason people are striking these days is to find an opening for a shoot to go to ground then look for a submission. When BJ Penn took the belt off Matt Hughes is their anybody who really believes that he was better fighter. He was without question the better submission guy but I think that if it was a stand-up fight the fight A - would have been alot better and B - could have resulted in a different outcome. I can understand the reasoning that the life span of a professional MMA fighter might be significantly reduced if submission wasn't allowed but I think that if that seriously was the case then we wouldn't see such dedicated and talented Muay Thai fighters around. I for one think that MMA should take a step back and really think about how the rules that they employ have changed the face of MMA and I think that the fan base is going to suffer for it. If I want to see rounds and divisions I will watch K1 or professional boxing. Bring back your style onto mine or at least fight to the finish not till a bell goes.



Sorry, this is one of the few times I haven't read through the entire thread before respondng, but I feel compelled to respond immediately to this. Basically, you're corresponding a sport, and a very regulated and specialized sport, to a style of fighting. When I think of MMA, I think of training for the stand-up game and the ground-game with no rules whatsoever. 

In real fights, there are no rules. However, you can't train that way. Whenever I learn or teach a lock, it's basically, "ok, at this point, you can either make the person submit , break, or hyperextend that bone or joint. We'll now learn that maneuver to the point of discomfort."

If you're in school that doesn't teach how to disable your opponent, just submit them, then you're probably in the wrong school if you want to learn self defense. It's sport-oriented, just like TKD has a sport-oriented faction.

UFC is a gentle form of combat compared to self defense. May not look like it, but it is.

Personally, I think the UFC does a great job keeping the fighting competitive without endangering the fighters. It's safer than boxing, though often more bloody. It's great sport. "Sport" should be emphasized. 

In my time as a wrestler, I remember wrestling seven matches in a day. Then I wrestled the next day in practice. MMA isn't a bloodsport. It's a war of wills and tactics; whether success is derived by a strike or submission is really irrelevant. It's the first who says "UNCLE" by TKO, KO, or submission. 

There's so much more to say here, but I'll think I'll leave it at that.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 3, 2005)

silatman said:
			
		

> If you could only watch one fight which would it be, the knockout or the submission?
> 
> My point is that I believe the majority of spectators would pay to see the knock out.
> Fans = Money, Money = more MMA


I think the point of MMA was to determine what works, as close to realistically as possible, in a real fight. It was submission guys who STARTED MMA.  MMA without submissions = Boxing/Kick Boxing.  We already have boxing and kick boxing.  I like boxing, I like kick boxing.  They already exist.  If I want to see knockouts, devoid of submissions, i'll watch Boxing or K1.  If I want to watch well rounded fighters using a wide array of tools at their disposal to win the fight, I watch MMA.

Answer to the question :"If you could only watch one fight which would it be, the knockout or the submission?"  Isn't it wonderful we live in a world where we can have both.  That's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.


----------



## SammyB57 (Jul 4, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> In real fights, there are no rules. However, you can't train that way. Whenever I learn or teach a lock, it's basically, "ok, at this point, you can either make the person submit , break, or hyperextend that bone or joint. We'll now learn that maneuver to the point of discomfort."
> 
> If you're in school that doesn't teach how to disable your opponent, just submit them, then you're probably in the wrong school if you want to learn self defense. It's sport-oriented, just like TKD has a sport-oriented faction.
> 
> ...


You realise if someone doesn't tap to a joint lock, they are in danger of serious injury? The moves in the UFC aren't just intended to submit, they are very capable of ending a career. If people couldn't tap out to heel hooks, MMA careers would be very short.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 4, 2005)

SammyB57 said:
			
		

> You realise if someone doesn't tap to a joint lock, they are in danger of serious injury? The moves in the UFC aren't just intended to submit, they are very capable of ending a career. If people couldn't tap out to heel hooks, MMA careers would be very short.


 I heard that.  I accidentally dislocated someone's ankle using a heel-hook.  They didn't even feel the pain until it popped.


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 5, 2005)

SammyB57 said:
			
		

> You realise if someone doesn't tap to a joint lock, they are in danger of serious injury? The moves in the UFC aren't just intended to submit, they are very capable of ending a career. If people couldn't tap out to heel hooks, MMA careers would be very short.


Whether to tap or not is up to the athletes. Hopefully the refs can step in at the appropriate moments, but those moments are really hard to discern when it comes to locks. Of course the same techniques that can deliver pain taken a step further can deliver permanent damage.


----------



## SammyB57 (Jul 5, 2005)

I guess the summary to this thread should be....
Chokes, armbars, shoulder locks, leg locks are boring and should be taken out of MMA since in a street encounter it would be dumb to try to choke your opponent out or break his arm.

Okay, so I'm being a little facetious....


----------



## SammyB57 (Jul 5, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Whether to tap or not is up to the athletes. Hopefully the refs can step in at the appropriate moments, but those moments are really hard to discern when it comes to locks. Of course the same techniques that can deliver pain taken a step further can deliver permanent damage.


Tim Sylvia vs. Frank Mir. The ref stepped in when Tim's forearm broke. I kind of wish it would have went on, just out of curiosity whether Tim would have had a chance with one arm, but it was probably in the fighter's best interest for the ref to stop the fight.

If you watch the actual fight, you can see where the bone pops. It broke in two places and severed a tendon. Tim had to undergo surgery and was out for months.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 9, 2005)

SammyB57 said:
			
		

> Tim Sylvia vs. Frank Mir. The ref stepped in when Tim's forearm broke. I kind of wish it would have went on, just out of curiosity whether Tim would have had a chance with one arm, but it was probably in the fighter's best interest for the ref to stop the fight.
> 
> If you watch the actual fight, you can see where the bone pops. It broke in two places and severed a tendon. Tim had to undergo surgery and was out for months.


 To paraphrase Mir at the end of the fight "Next time I can just rip it off."


----------



## Shogun (Jul 9, 2005)

> What I want in MMA is a ROUNDED fighter and therefore an exciting fight, yes this does include groung fighting and submission.
> My complaint stems from the fact that some of fights now days rely too much on submission to the detriment of the sport.
> When the fight is fought mainly on the ground the fight is BORING to the spectators.
> Use submissions when they are appropriate not as the entire match, if you want to be a submission expert go play BJJ and keep out of Mixed touraments.
> ...


I was gonna post a comment but someone got to it before me:


> I think the point of MMA was to determine what works, as close to realistically as possible, in a real fight. It was submission guys who STARTED MMA. MMA without submissions = Boxing/Kick Boxing. We already have boxing and kick boxing. I like boxing, I like kick boxing. They already exist. If I want to see knockouts, devoid of submissions, i'll watch Boxing or K1. If I want to watch well rounded fighters using a wide array of tools at their disposal to win the fight, I watch MMA.


The only part I disagree with in that post is the whole "what works in a real fight". I am NOT debating it, (as many have) Its just we are talking about a different animal here. However, it does prove two things: knowing all aspects gives you a serious edge on the street; and before MMA, groundfighting was overly neglected.
but honestly, submissions work and that what people will use to win. its no sports entertainment, its competition.


----------



## mad_boxer (Jan 17, 2006)

I SERIOUSLY disagree with a lot of what has been said about limited skills. yes there arent a HUGE variety of techniques used but this is because only the most effective ones are used. when u r against a serious opponent who wants 2 knock u out why would u go for a move that is less effective and harder to pull off than simply the most effective one? the answer is you wouldnt. there are many proffessional grapplers in the ufc do u think it would be wise to risk missing a headkick to the likes of Matt Hughes or Mike Kyle? i dont think so, you would be slammed to the matt so hard and fast. or trying to pull fancy ineffective submission holds on Royce Gracie hell no u would be royally screwed. i personally think that the ufc has done a good job of weeding out some ineffective showy techniques and forced fighters t use only the best


----------



## SAVAGE (Jan 17, 2006)

MMA is MMA...I am a MMAist...TKD,HKD,Judo,Boxing,Goju Ryu (yes I do find time to have a life). I dont compete...MMA is not about a cage...it is like any other martial art a means of defending yourself....if you look at the techs that are used to submit...they are legitamate bone snappers...so you decide whether you are a fighter or a sportsman!


----------



## Josh (Jan 20, 2006)

I agree.




When the UFC first came out.  I remember seeing Commercials about it and they had tapes at Blockbuster of it and it was Awesome.



They wore NO gloves and the guys were much BIGGER and The Styles were Way More Varied.



It was Karate vs. Wrestling
Wing Chung vs. Kickboxing
Etc...

Just everyday Randomn martial artists knocking on each other.  You don't even remember their names.





Nowadays, i don't even wanna watch it. It stinks!!! Pride is still Efficient but i don't know why. They're the same thing right?


Anways, UFC is too Modernized and too Overrated now. Celebreties now show up at these "Spike TV" events just to make themselves look better but oh well, stupid mess. And that dumb show "Ultimate Fighter" stinks!!! They get these clean cut/whiney/bratty 20 year old BJJ practicioners and the house is just full of drama.  What a dumb show. 


It's all boring. I don't even like Chuck Liddel's style, and they all just dance around the ring and throw attakcs every now and then but the Crowd and Announcers STILL GO WILD!!!!!! They need to throw their Food in the ring and let them have a Food Fight instead of a boring MMA fight!!!


----------

