Modern Day Pankration vs UFC

[Jay]

This is completly hypothetical as with todays PC world, and rightly so this would never be allowed. Im also not trying to come across as sadastic but thats hard

But what instead of the ufc we had a modern version of pankration.

Instead of mat we had dirt like ground hard and compact sort of like you find in a colleseum.

It was actually a 'no rules' competition, I know the original UFC was billed as this but generally there was good sporting behaviour and most people refrained from gouging and groin shots.

You would fight like the Roman Gladiators to the death but unarmed.

No time limits or rounds

I was wondering what effect do you think this would have on the fighting styles of the fighters?

Personally I think it would be pretty similar to what we have in the UFC. I think chokes would be much more prominant as people with broken arms would still have to continue to fight thus rendering arm locks less important (as finishers) . Throws would also be of higher importance as well as neck cranking techniques used to potentially perminantly injure the opponent. I also think exhaustion, dehydration and blood loss would become important factors as im sure they were in ancient pankration.

On another note I read that the spartans refused to compete in pankration because they couldn't bite or eye gouge

[isshinryu5toforever]

I think you're right. It was a sport though, not a fight to the death in ancient Greece. Deaths were common, but an opponent could submit, or the judges could halt the match if someone wasn't intelligently defending themselves. That would make all the stuff we see today, arm locks, leg locks, etc. important. Some people would fight with a broken arm, but quite a few wouldn't. Pankration wasn't gladitorial combat, it was a part of the Greek Olympics. Maybe they should consider bringing it back?

As far as the Spartans not competing, I'd believe it. First off, given their nature, they probably believed that it would be unfair, and they would dominate the competition, because they were professional warriors. Second, they were professional warriors. That's all they did. I have no reason to doubt that they would have dominated the competition even sans eye gouging and biting. They probably used it as an excuse to rest on their laurels. Why risk injury in a stupid game, when your ultimate goal is to have a clean (spiritually) death on the battle field?

[ps1]

It would look alot like this:

Seriously though, I think you're generally right overall. I remember a Pride fight when Renzo Gracie had his elbow dislocated. He simply shrugged it back into place and was upset that the referee called the fight. An unconscious opponent doesn't fight back.

[Capt Jakk]

From the history I have read, it appears the Spartans would choose not to compete unless they felt it was a guaranteed win in this event. Most fights were until one person submitted. Spartans were taught to never submit or surrender. A loss was seen as a huge loss of face for their entire society as they saw themselves as superior to all others and emphasized the group over the individual.

[algernon]

It much more closely resembles the UFC than the ancient competitions.

[Jay]

I think you're right. It was a sport though, not a fight to the death in ancient Greece. Deaths were common, but an opponent could submit, or the judges could halt the match if someone wasn't intelligently defending themselves. That would make all the stuff we see today, arm locks, leg locks, etc. important. Some people would fight with a broken arm, but quite a few wouldn't. Pankration wasn't gladitorial combat, it was a part of the Greek Olympics. Maybe they should consider bringing it back?

As far as the Spartans not competing, I'd believe it. First off, given their nature, they probably believed that it would be unfair, and they would dominate the competition, because they were professional warriors. Second, they were professional warriors. That's all they did. I have no reason to doubt that they would have dominated the competition even sans eye gouging and biting. They probably used it as an excuse to rest on their laurels. Why risk injury in a stupid game, when your ultimate goal is to have a clean (spiritually) death on the battle field?

I know that the original pankration wasn't a fight to the death but was wondering what it would be like if it had a more Roman outlook to it (i.e to the death) To me this would be the pinnacle of unarmed combat. You would really get to see who wanted to stay alive and thus who were the best fighters, like you did in the colleseum.

ps1-I always thought he was wearing a cup in that clip I think the dude throwing the shots lost that match in the end I can't remember. I was actually reading about the Kimura vs Helio gracie fight when I thought about this thread. It seems gracies don't give up unless forced.

[Nevinyrral]

In accient pankration they fought till one could not fight anymore or submited.

So deaths were common, as many did not wanted to surrender.

Acient boxing was sometimes more brutal, as they somethimes wraped their hands with leather strings. I even heard that they added some metal or wood pieces to teir 'gloves'

[isshinryu5toforever]

Ancient boxing was more brutal. They have dug up a few pairs of those boxing "gloves." They were basically metal pieces with a big spike attached in the middle.

[bushido_man96]

Yeah, the Boxing gloves usually had some studs in them. Pretty nasty.

I'd heard that the reason the Spartans wouldn't fight in the Pankration was because of the chance of losing...and the effect that would have on their image. I could be wrong, though.

As for the comparison of Pankration and UFC, I'd call the MMA the modern Pankration. MMA is basically an evolution of it, and to compare the two, in my eyes, would be like comparing NASCAR of the 50s to NASCAR now.