Do you think the rule set of UFC makes it difficult to translate a large set of martial arts?
- Thread starter dramonis
- Start date
Arguments about what?
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,949
- Reaction score
- 8,692
No.
Ok. Here is the premis. I had to prove once that 2+2=4.
And it is a hard concept to explain. The conclusion I came to was 2+2=4 because it is consistent with everything else.
1+1=2
1+1+1+1=4
And so on every way you come at the problem. Consistently gives you the correct answer.
This is how MMA works. Someone tries to punch you. You have a consistent solution.
If someone is on top of you holding you down. You have a consistent solution.
If you do some other martial arts that doesn't really change. You will face the same dynamics if you ufc rules fought with tkd guys or krav guys. Or if you shoved a rubber knife in there or whatever.
You can move outside the dynamics of the UFC rule set. But the basic problems encountered and overcome will be similar.
The UFC rule set is probably the easiest to translate in to other styles. As it gives the most opportunity for that style to present its strengths and expose its weaknesses.
Ok. Here is the premis. I had to prove once that 2+2=4.
And it is a hard concept to explain. The conclusion I came to was 2+2=4 because it is consistent with everything else.
1+1=2
1+1+1+1=4
And so on every way you come at the problem. Consistently gives you the correct answer.
This is how MMA works. Someone tries to punch you. You have a consistent solution.
If someone is on top of you holding you down. You have a consistent solution.
If you do some other martial arts that doesn't really change. You will face the same dynamics if you ufc rules fought with tkd guys or krav guys. Or if you shoved a rubber knife in there or whatever.
You can move outside the dynamics of the UFC rule set. But the basic problems encountered and overcome will be similar.
The UFC rule set is probably the easiest to translate in to other styles. As it gives the most opportunity for that style to present its strengths and expose its weaknesses.
Let’s assume the rule set does favor one or more arts. Why would that be a reason to change them?
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,949
- Reaction score
- 8,692
I think that is because UFC has less rules though.
We Recorded 500 Submissions to Get Real Data on What's High Percentage — High Percentage Martial Arts
What's really high percentage? Everyone has an opinion, but we have some actual statistics gathered from hundreds of BJJ matches across all belt levels.
www.highpercentagemartialarts.com
Statistically a very few number of moves are responsible for a very large number of finishes.
If you don't do those moves you are fighting against the odds.
OP
dramonis
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2022
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 7
- Thread Starter
- #8
I think is way more interesting to watch or even fight if there is more variety of tech used in the ring, as UFC evolve we see that they remove a lot of techs even in BJJ to fit MMA, 90's figures were more fun to see cuz was noticeable the difference of fighting styles now days seems that everyone has more o less same skill set, and sometimes ppl show some different moves but this is when the person excel on fighting
OP
dramonis
Yellow Belt
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2022
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 7
- Thread Starter
- #9
i think is because ppl try to be more effective on the limitations imposed by UFC, but i really don't know for sureI think that is because UFC has less rules though.
We Recorded 500 Submissions to Get Real Data on What's High Percentage — High Percentage Martial Arts
What's really high percentage? Everyone has an opinion, but we have some actual statistics gathered from hundreds of BJJ matches across all belt levels.
Statistically a very few number of moves are responsible for a very large number of finishes.
If you don't do those moves you are fighting against the odds.
we can't really tell cuz I can also relate to the belt of ppl, closer to black belt different tech we will see, and one thing to notice especially in brasil they tend to teach a lot more armbars than leg so... is also question of training.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,949
- Reaction score
- 8,692
But you can do all of sambo. All of judo and leg locks in MMA.
Ryan hall is one off the best leg lockers around for example.
ronki23
Yellow Belt
Fight under Pride rules. No elbows though
frank raud
Master of Arts
No.
Jared Traveler
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2022
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 399
I do think grappling would play a much bigger part of there were no rounds.
Venues like rounds though, it helps with profits at bars etc. It may be martial arts but it's a business for many.
punisher73
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
Hmmm.....so many answers.
Rules dictate tactics and techniques. For example, gloves were banned in the first UFC (yeah...we know Jamerson still had one glove on, but Rorion allowed it because he knew he was clueless). The Gracies were smart to know that many fighters break their hands and would be more "gun shy" to punch hard because of it. The early UFC's also had a softer floor that favored grappling over better footing for strikers to move quicker. Tank Abbott was the first to wear what eventually became the "mma glove" because he WAS a street savvy fighter.
If there were no time limits and no stand ups, you would see more ground based games again like the earlier UFC's. Standing fighters up when there is no action is an advantage to strikers.
The environment also plays a part between ring and cage (Pride vs. UFC) and will play into your tactics. For example, UFC uses the fence too its advantage for fighters. If it was an open area and much larger, you would see different tactics.
That being said. In the US, MMA is usually a mixture of wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ. In other countries, you don't always get this mix like we do here. Its easy to forget that the UFC is only one MMA competition in the world. But, most MMA will be techniques that are higher percentage moves that can be applied against a resisting opponent. Even in MMA, you will see moves done that are more "complex" when there is a much greater skill than the opponent. Think about some of the things that Anderson Silva could do in his prime.
At this point, the ruleset of UFC is meant to give the most entertainment value (while working within the legal contraints for safety). Before some of the rule changes, many people were losing interest because they didn't want to see a long drawn out ground grappling match. Remember, for the most part, the UFC's fan base demographic is the same as the WWE fanbase (which is also why you see it promoted now with the trash talking etc.)
Rules dictate tactics and techniques. For example, gloves were banned in the first UFC (yeah...we know Jamerson still had one glove on, but Rorion allowed it because he knew he was clueless). The Gracies were smart to know that many fighters break their hands and would be more "gun shy" to punch hard because of it. The early UFC's also had a softer floor that favored grappling over better footing for strikers to move quicker. Tank Abbott was the first to wear what eventually became the "mma glove" because he WAS a street savvy fighter.
If there were no time limits and no stand ups, you would see more ground based games again like the earlier UFC's. Standing fighters up when there is no action is an advantage to strikers.
The environment also plays a part between ring and cage (Pride vs. UFC) and will play into your tactics. For example, UFC uses the fence too its advantage for fighters. If it was an open area and much larger, you would see different tactics.
That being said. In the US, MMA is usually a mixture of wrestling, Boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ. In other countries, you don't always get this mix like we do here. Its easy to forget that the UFC is only one MMA competition in the world. But, most MMA will be techniques that are higher percentage moves that can be applied against a resisting opponent. Even in MMA, you will see moves done that are more "complex" when there is a much greater skill than the opponent. Think about some of the things that Anderson Silva could do in his prime.
At this point, the ruleset of UFC is meant to give the most entertainment value (while working within the legal contraints for safety). Before some of the rule changes, many people were losing interest because they didn't want to see a long drawn out ground grappling match. Remember, for the most part, the UFC's fan base demographic is the same as the WWE fanbase (which is also why you see it promoted now with the trash talking etc.)
skribs
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 7,748
- Reaction score
- 2,699
I personally think the UFC is already open to a wide array of martial arts, and that those arts that are not very common are fine with not being very common in the UFC.
In Taekwondo, my biggest concerns were Taekwondo tournaments, learning what my Master had to teach me, and effectively teaching my students what he and I wanted them to learn. I wasn't even watching the UFC. I'd catch some highlights. If I saw a nice kick, I could appreciate it, whether it came from a Taekwondoist, Karetaka, Muay Thai-er, or whoever it came it from.
In Hapkido, my biggest concern was trying to get more people from our Taekwondo class to try out Hapkido as well. The fact very few people in UFC train Hapkido, or that almost everyone on r/martialarts can't even tell the difference between Aikido and Hapkido, none of that was of much concern to me. Again, my focus was on mastering my technique and my own progression, and learning what my Master had to teach me.
In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, I don't really care again about UFC. I haven't watched a UFC match since I started BJJ. I went and watched my professor and one of the upper belts compete in a recent tournament. I'm trying to learn how to do the basics. I'm trying to remember a technique long enough to hit it in sparring. The fact that it is popular in the UFC almost indirectly pushed me away from it, because of my experience with BJJ (and Muay Thai) folks on r/martialarts being very much of the "If you don't do BJJ your argument is invalid" type of discussion.
UFC, and MMA in general, have a fighting system which rewards other combat sports where you are encouraged to meet strength against strength. Other arts have other priorities. Combat sports (including MMA) do a very good job of sharpening iron against iron. Combat striking sports generally carry increased risk of concussion that point-based sports or self-defense arts do not. Combat sports in general tend to ignore anything that is out-of-scope of a sanctioned match. One big example is Fran Sands, boxing coach, who says "I teach boxing, not self-defense." (That's not to say you can't use boxing in self-defense, but he's focused exclusively on the sport, and not on any other application).
I've done arts that aren't in UFC. I'm doing an art that is (heck, the art that started it). I'm not planning on competing in the UFC, or even in an MMA fight, so I don't really see any reason to care one way or the other.
In Taekwondo, my biggest concerns were Taekwondo tournaments, learning what my Master had to teach me, and effectively teaching my students what he and I wanted them to learn. I wasn't even watching the UFC. I'd catch some highlights. If I saw a nice kick, I could appreciate it, whether it came from a Taekwondoist, Karetaka, Muay Thai-er, or whoever it came it from.
In Hapkido, my biggest concern was trying to get more people from our Taekwondo class to try out Hapkido as well. The fact very few people in UFC train Hapkido, or that almost everyone on r/martialarts can't even tell the difference between Aikido and Hapkido, none of that was of much concern to me. Again, my focus was on mastering my technique and my own progression, and learning what my Master had to teach me.
In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, I don't really care again about UFC. I haven't watched a UFC match since I started BJJ. I went and watched my professor and one of the upper belts compete in a recent tournament. I'm trying to learn how to do the basics. I'm trying to remember a technique long enough to hit it in sparring. The fact that it is popular in the UFC almost indirectly pushed me away from it, because of my experience with BJJ (and Muay Thai) folks on r/martialarts being very much of the "If you don't do BJJ your argument is invalid" type of discussion.
UFC, and MMA in general, have a fighting system which rewards other combat sports where you are encouraged to meet strength against strength. Other arts have other priorities. Combat sports (including MMA) do a very good job of sharpening iron against iron. Combat striking sports generally carry increased risk of concussion that point-based sports or self-defense arts do not. Combat sports in general tend to ignore anything that is out-of-scope of a sanctioned match. One big example is Fran Sands, boxing coach, who says "I teach boxing, not self-defense." (That's not to say you can't use boxing in self-defense, but he's focused exclusively on the sport, and not on any other application).
I've done arts that aren't in UFC. I'm doing an art that is (heck, the art that started it). I'm not planning on competing in the UFC, or even in an MMA fight, so I don't really see any reason to care one way or the other.
I would like the OP to give one example of a martial art style that is difficult to translate to MMA, along with the rule or rules that inhibit this translation. Also, how should the rules be changed to include this particular martial art?
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Taiji Quan for Self Defense- Latest: windwalker099
-
-