UFC question

[mai tai]

forgot the other part. also heal kicks to the kidney favored grapplers to much. bjj guys would get guard.(on the bottom with legs wrapped around a guys torso.)hold both arms and kick thereheal down on to the kidney

[Gumbi]

Stating that elbows are "NOT a strikers weapon" suggest that you have not spent time in a good striking program. We have elbow strikes in almost EVERY kata in Isshinryu (just one example style), when bunkai is examined properly, and have spent a good deal of time working them in the dojo.

Elbows are of course a strikers weapon, and yes they're actually legal in the UFC. There have been some real nice ko's by elbow on the feet.

But we're talking about specific kinds of elbows here. Are elbows a devesating weapon in a strikers arsenal? Absolutely. Do elbows play a crucial role in stopping takedown attempts? No.

The elbows we are speaking of are in reference to the current ruleset in UFC competition which states that fighters cannot throw elbows leading with the point of the elbow. This means that throwing an elbow down by your hips, say at the spine of your competitor, is illegal. Other types of elbows are still allowed, such as on the feet grabbing behind your opponents head and smashing his face with your other elbow, as well as on the ground throwing elbows from within the guard (Tito Ortiz utilizes this often).

[Gumbi]

im a bit confused why no head butts? why no heal to the kidneys? i can understand most of the rules but not all.

Heel to the kidneys is something thats much more of a long term strategy on fighters than short term. In other words, most of the damage done to the kidneys is irrelevant during the fight. Having very little impact on the fight at the particular moment, the hazards of striking the kidney outweigh its practical use in MMA competition.

As far as headbutts are concerned, they do an excellent job of opening up cuts on opponents. Excessive cuts lead to many cut stoppages, which leads to premature endings for fights.

[tufrthanu]

To say that kicks and elbows and head butts are not a strikers weapons but a grapplers is not to understand striking at all.

[MASIsshinryu]

The elbows we are speaking of are in reference to the current ruleset in UFC competition which states that fighters cannot throw elbows leading with the point of the elbow. This means that throwing an elbow down by your hips, say at the spine of your competitor, is illegal. Other types of elbows are still allowed, such as on the feet grabbing behind your opponents head and smashing his face with your other elbow, as well as on the ground throwing elbows from within the guard (Tito Ortiz utilizes this often).

We practice those as well, usually in conjunction with having attacked to disable the opponent's knees/legs, and specifically with the intent to strike the spine, base of the neck, shoulder or (if you have collapsed the legs and unbalanced them backwards) the face, throat or (on rare occasions) solar plexus.

My apologies, I interpreted your comment as meaning that you did not believe that strikers use any significant amout of elbows at all.

[Gumbi]

We practice those as well, usually in conjunction with having attacked to disable the opponent's knees/legs, and specifically with the intent to strike the spine, base of the neck, shoulder or (if you have collapsed the legs and unbalanced them backwards) the face, throat or (on rare occasions) solar plexus.

My apologies, I interpreted your comment as meaning that you did not believe that strikers use any significant amout of elbows at all.

I should have been a little more clear on what it was I meant- All too often, when people argue that MMA rules favor grapplers, elbows to the spine are often cited as one of the rules that would have a devestating effect on strikers abilities in the ring. More specifically, the idea that elbows stop takedown attempts.

[mai tai]

To say that kicks and elbows and head butts are not a strikers weapons but a grapplers is not to understand striking at all.

when i say that the kidney kicks and head butts favor a grappler. you must not understand what im saying.first of all grapplers can strike and when they do they do not cease to be a grappler. when i say grappler im refering to someone who has a bjj,wrestling or judo bakground.

its not the strike but the method that its delivered that makes it a grapplers weapon.

hear is the senerio. early ufc..... traditional standup guy gets taken down by world class wrestler. no, a swift kick to the head or elbows on the back didnt stop it. ussually only a sprawl will stop a good take down.

now wrestler sucks up his arms and lays on top of him. stand up guy cant get out cause his "dojo" didnt think grappling was important.

now wrestler starts to head butt standup guy until he is unconcious

kicks to kidney

bjj guy fights wrestler or standup guy. (ill say wrestler).

wresler guy gets takedown. bjj guy pulls gaurd and while they pummel for arm position bjj guy uses the leg that he has wrapped around the guys torso to dig his heals into the guys kidney.

its not the strikes that make them a grapplers weapon but the grappling expertise that allows them the position to use them.

its interesting that i dont understand striking considering i have boxed and fought muay tai professionally.

i am much less versed in grappling and while i want to evolve into a ballanced fighter, i would at this point consider myself a striker.

this does not proclude me from recognizing some truths about grappling.

[tufrthanu]

Then you did indeed misstate yourself. It becomes not a case of the techniques being a grapplers but of the knowlege of positioning being a grapplers. Given the same position a striker could implement any of those techniques.

[Gumbi]

Then you did indeed misstate yourself. It becomes not a case of the techniques being a grapplers but of the knowlege of positioning being a grapplers. Given the same position a striker could implement any of those techniques.

If you're trying to suggest that a pure striker would be able to make those techniques noted just as effective as a grappler would, Im afraid thats highly unlikely.

Striking on the feet has to do with timing, speed, power, distancing, and so forth. Striking on the ground has little to do with any of that, since your opponents movement is so limited. As a result, positioning becomes much more important than say, speed or timing.

Fighting on the ground is much more than just a simple collection of techniques. Theres a feel for it, much the same you could say about striking on the feet. Having a strong base on the ground when on top is often crucial to being able to strike effectively, since you cant hit too hard if you're off balanced. A good grappler will have a good base and good balance to deliver some good shots should he be on top. The same can not be said for someone who's not experienced on the ground.

[tufrthanu]

I disagree.