The Undiscovered Style of MMA

[Goju_boi]

so what does anyone think about pankration in the ufc?

[UseoForce]

Sport pankration IS basically MMA, isn't it?

[elbows_and_knees]

same principle, different rule set though, I believe. Also, sport pankration is an art, wherea mma is a term describing a training methodology and fighting venue.

[UseoForce]

I thought pankration in this context was synonomous with MMA, whereas historical pankration most certainly is an art.

[Goju_boi]

I thought pankration in this context was synonomous with MMA, whereas historical pankration most certainly is an art.

well both sport and traditional/historical pankration are pretty much mma,but both are arts.It's just that the old school pankration is nastier on your opponent.

[CagedWarrior]

lol very true. I wish the UFC allowed wristlocks. Might see a hapkido guy or two:D!

I doubt it. Wrist locks only work when youre doing them on a grounded opponent.

Anyway- to the original question, that's the thing about MMA, it has shown what works and what doesn't. Fighting, basically, is striking and grappling. Grappling involves certain moves which you find in wrestling and BJJ, and sure you can say shoot fighting, freestyle wrestling, sambo, whatever... in the end it's all the same stuff- the stuff I call "wrestling and BJJ" because to me it's the simplest way to put it. Striking wise, it has been proven that Thai boxing is the best striking art, although western boxing has better hands. In the end, that's about what everyone does, with a little extra with some guys- like Chuck. You can call it kickboxing, thai boxing, karate... in the end it's all the same thing. I call it boxing/thai boxing because it's the simplest way to describe it, to me. One guy named Mike Swick calls his style "Swick Fu," obviously a joke, but who cares anymore? Everyone's style should be: striking and grappling. Prankration, Shootfighting, Boxing/Wrestling... it's all the same in the end, if you train right.

[White Warlock]

Anyway- to the original question, that's the thing about MMA, it has shown what works and what doesn't.

I disagree, at least not with the present day MMAs of UFC and Pride, with all their extra rules. In the early 90's, when it started happening here in the U.S., it was a great thing. Now, not so much... and people are focusing more on things that are 'within the rules' and that work best under the restrictions of said competitions.

Fighting, basically, is striking and grappling.

Well, no... it's more than just that.

Prankration, Shootfighting, Boxing/Wrestling... it's all the same in the end, if you train right.

You mean, if you train right "for MMAs."

I won't argue your opinions about which systems are better. It's rather pointless to do so.

[SubGrappler]

Anyway- to the original question, that's the thing about MMA, it has shown what works and what doesn't.

I disagree, at least not with the present day MMAs of UFC and Pride, with all their extra rules. In the early 90's, when it started happening here in the U.S., it was a great thing. Now, not so much... and people are focusing more on things that are 'within the rules' and that work best under the restrictions of said competitions.

Depends what it is you're referring to as "working the rules."

Today's fighters in the UFC are light years ahead of anyone who fought in the original ones. They would in fact maul any of those fighters regardless of the ruleset.

The biggest problem I have with the rules is the frequent standups, which heavily favors the strikers. Most of the rules instilled in MMA events favor the strikers over the grapplers. The exception being kicking a downed opponent (or an opponent on his knees) which is another one I really dislike.

However, looked at from a different perspective, this is technically a good thing, because it pushes the grapplers to incorporate striking into their style much more so than they would otherwise have to.

[Goju_boi]

striking and grappling arent evrything in fighting,just for sport.In the street you can use weapons and that's fighting

[White Warlock]

Okay, let me point out a few things (and only a few):

• If you throw down a person with force, against concrete or jagged rocks, you will likely end the fight and cripple them. However, if you throw down a person with force, against a padded floor... they bounce.
   
  
• If you scrape a person across the ground, and that ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you'll shred your opponent's back, possibly tearing major muscle groups. However, if you scrape a person across canvas, they'll get a mild rug burn.
   
  
• If your strength is in grappling, you can keep the person on the ground until you are able to 'end' the confrontation with a choke or a limb break. However, if someone 'interrupts' your groundwork, because the audience wants more action, you're thrown out of your element... and back into theirs.
   
  
• If you act like you're not going to fight, then thrust a pencil through thier neck, grab a handful of dirt and shove it into their face and eyes, then rip off their ears, bite their carotid artery and spit it out, stab a branch through thier indefensible underarm, tear off chunks of their hair, push a rock through their teeth, take a chair and bounce it off them a few times, toss a few cue balls off their noggin', grab a baseball bat and rearrange their jawline, maneuver them backwards to trip on items or slip on a puddle, impale them on a fencepost, distract them by exposing your nipples, break off a few fingers, pull their shirt over their head, drop their pants, and remove their reproductive organs... i think you just might have a chance of winning an encounter. However, if you're not allowed to do any of those things in your competitions... and don't practice such concepts strenously outside of these competitions... it is not likely you'll end up trying such in a real fight. A fight where your very existence may be on the line.

Closing comment: If you have the ability to avoid a confrontation altogether, and do so, that's absolutely fantastic. However, if both you and your opponent are set to fight, with stated rules... then the resultant survivor will be the one who is better able to 'abide' by those rules, and has thus adapted their fighting style by them. This, however, does not indicate who is the better martial artist (for the better martial artist would have been the one who avoided the confrontation as a whole), but who has better adapted themselves to work within the restrictions placed by a given competition.

The problem here is this: If you are conditioned by a particular type of competition, and then you are entered into a 'real confrontation,' where rules don't exist, it is exceedingly likely that you will 'still' abide by the rules you have 'conditioned' yourself to abide by. So, here you are fighting MMA competition style, pseudo-no-holds-barred, and here the assailant is... fighting 'truly' no-holds barred.

If you want, i could elaborate.