Opinion on UFC

[Adonis]

It depends on the inviduals traning expeirence. some grapplers do it for the sport others for self defense. I know quite a few who took Jeet Kune do or other matial arts were grain grabs/strikes or bitting has been taught as well.

trained grappler is my opinion is better prepared because of there ability to control an opponent on the ground. They can utilize the dirty tactics more. on mount controling the arms.

ie. One knee on a bicept and pinn the other hand down with one arm gives you a free arm to strike the throat gouge the eyes and what not.

[Kajukenbopr]

trained grappler is my opinion is better prepared because of there ability to control an opponent on the ground. They can utilize the dirty tactics more. on mount controling the arms.

ie. One knee on a bicept and pinn the other hand down with one arm gives you a free arm to strike the throat gouge the eyes and what not.

depends on the situation, If the striker is explosive it will be hard to pin down...

[Adonis]

True depends on the fighter and weather or not who cross trainins more as well as physical attributes.

around same size usually grappler wins unless striker knows grappling also.

[White Warlock]

My high school / college wrestling / judo coach was a whopping 5' tall. Repeatedly he would tie up his 'champion' students, with one hand dangling in the air half the time, like he was riding bronco. All weight classes, didn't matter to him.

Skill is a major factor that simply cannot be arbitrarily dismissed based on a person's size. Just thought i would toss that out to further tangentialize these discussions.

[Adonis]

well true white warlock if the grappler had a few months of training and striker been training for years then I wouldn't bet on the grappler at all.

[cleung]

I think that UFC is an eye opener on what is effective in fighting but as a spectator sport, I personally think it's pretty boring to watch a fight once it stays on the ground.

[Charlie]

I think that UFC is an eye opener on what is effective in fighting but as a spectator sport, I personally think it's pretty boring to watch a fight once it stays on the ground.

My wife thinks UFC is boring for the same reason. But, I like watching grappling as much as stand-up fighting so I don't get bored. Nevertheless, I think it's significant that one of the biggest, professional MMA organizations in the world- K1, structures most of its matches as stand-up fights. I think many find stand-up fighting to be more entertaining which is a reason that I think Chuck Norris' new World Combat League has a chance at catching on.

To change the subject a little, I think it's interesting what often happens in UFC matches when both fighters' core skills are in grappling. I've seen it happen several times in this situation that they both will "duke-it-out" instead of either one trying to take it to the ground.

[SatyagrahaKF]

It's great if your into ground battles, primarily mma. There are no definable fighting styles, it can be boring.

[Tommy_P]

I personally believe they have taken care of the problem of "boring fights" by changing the rules. They now return the fighters to their feet if nothing is happening on the ground. I really enjoy watching UFC.

However I do have a question for you MMA guys. There are a lot of discussions and much debate between the MMA fighters and the traditional karate folks. It pretty much amounts to stand up verses ground fighting. I won't go through any of the rhetoric by the stand up guys but my confusion comes from the MMA faction themselves.

While they push the idea of ground fighting necessity and even go as far as saying how the stand up or karate practitioner should get in the MMA ring and see how far he gets, I think they are missing something.

What about the guys already in MMA who prefer not to fight on the ground. I watched three matches the other day and none went to the ground. As a matter of fact I watched a guy who was introduced as a Muay Thai fighter only, no grappling in his resume go against a boxer/jujitsu (and maybe TKD?). The Muay Thai guy ended it in 11 seconds with one punch. I also watched (help me with the names here) Kim Silva? against A. Silvia? one guy was 6'8" in height. All stand up.

I have always believed that it's personal fighting preference and how well you train it that wins. For stand up fighters that don't want to go to ground they should train to "not" get taken down. Be better at their standup game than the other guy is at his ground or take down game.

Just like some of the best MMA guys out there are already doing.

So this is where my confusion comes from. For the fierce debaters out there that go on about ground fighters and MMA. What about the UFC fighters (who I would imagine you would respect because they belong to the branch of fighters you deem the best) who are stand up fighters and win that way?

Tommy

[DokterVet]

I have always believed that it's personal fighting preference and how well you train it that wins. For stand up fighters that don't want to go to ground they should train to "not" get taken down. Be better at their standup game than the other guy is at his ground or take down game.

Just like some of the best MMA guys out there are already doing.

Training to not be taken down is called wrestling. The "sprawl and brawl" style of fighting you see strikers like Chuck Liddell, Mirco Filopovic, Maurice Smith, and others use works because of their wrestling skill, particularly in sprawling. Liddell, for example, was a national level wrestler in college, yet he is billed as a "kickboxer." He uses his wrestling skill to allow him to keep the fight standing so he can use his strikes.

Also, MMAers these days train for all ranges of combat: free-moving/striking, clinch, and ground. Even those billed simply as "Muay thai" or "kickboxing" train in all these ranges in order to be able to defend themselves in all phases of combat.

Do you?