Watching MMA for a more "traditionalist"

[RW]

I think the very first UFCs banned the follow (there may have been a few more things banned, but these are the ones that come to mind):

Groin strikes and grabs

Eye gouges

Fish hooking the mouth

Knee joint kicks

Pressure point strikes

I remember George Dillman immediately using the phrase "See why it's banned by the UFC!" in his kyusho (pressure point striking) ads.

Kicking a downed opponent was banned immediately after the Savate stylist roundhouse kicked the Sumo stylist in the face while he has down and sent his teeth flying.

Justifiably or not, I remember the strikers immediately stating the rules were biased against strikers pretty much since day one. The complained that just about every banned technique was a strike and it wasn't truly "No Holds Barred" as it was being promoted.

As for me, I lost interest pretty quickly. Taking someone to the ground and holding them there to wear them down for what seemed like an hour didn't remotely resemble any real fight I had ever seen before nor since. Every time I've seen a fight go to the ground, it was accompanied by several others stomping, kicking, or hitting one or both of them. The guy on top usually gets a beer bottle to the back of the head. All this coming from a guy (me) who was wrestling and studying karate at the time.

I'll take a good boxing match any day of the week. Not even close to how boxing was back in the day.

Yeah, that kick to the sumo's head was brutal. He lost a tooth I think

[Wado Heretic]

The story I have gathered from the disparate interviews with the participants of the first UFC is that the meeting to determine the rules was a fiasco. The only rule I know for sure was enforced was a non-weapon rule, under which Ken Shamrock was disallowed his foot wear. The Gracie's had wanted what is called in the lingo, as it were, "courtesy rules"; in other words no biting, or gouging, and the like. However, no rules were agreed upon because the meeting to discuss them fell apart. This was slightly different when organising the following UFC events, when rules were decided in advance before participants signed up, and the so called courtesy rules were enforced; barring a few things which would now be considered illegal.

Modern rules I would argue are quite well balanced in a sense. The short rounds are advantageous to strikers and wrestlers, who favour and require an explosive approach to fighting, whereas it disadvantages grapplers and submission artists who might not find the opportunity to submit their opponent in a five minute window. If one looks at jujutsu or submission wrestling matches; it is not unusual for someone to "turtle" to gather energy or wait out their opponents offense, but in a sport with aggression or stand up rules this strategy is not possible, and could cost one the match if attempted. However, one also needs to acknowledge the limitations placed on a strikers arsenal; though most I feel are justified in terms of safety, but one should also not forget the rules against small joint manipulation which is the bread and butter of catch wrestling's signature locking techniques. Most of those rules, although limiting and perhaps weighing certain match ups to the advantage of one fighter over the other, are justified by the safety concerns which have evolved over the two decades of MMA's existence.

I would also say that I frankly do not see the inability to use dirty fighting as a limitation; if a fighters response is to kick someone in the groin to win they really are not any more skilled than a street fighter or violent criminal. I am not a fan of MMA, and it has it's brutal streak, but at least it is a competition of skill. Allowing some of the tactics barred would just bring it down.

[Bulltahr]

IIRC wasn't the only real rule no eye gouging, You could go for the balls but win or lose you were fined $10k to do it. This way it was discouraged. I may be wrong, but that seems to be what I remember from the time.

[bushido_man96]

That image is meant to divide people. I question the intentions of whoever created it. They could have been trying to troll people (provoke a negative, emotional responsible). They could have wanted to boost their Facebook engagement numbers by generating a lot of likes/comments/shares. They could have been a traditional martial artist wanting to rally people against MMA. They could have been a mixed martial artist who wants to rally people against traditional arts ("look at how they portray us!").

No matter what they were trying to do, their intent wasn't noble.

When it comes to the martial arts, I have no bias. I don't practice them, and I've made no secret of that. I just like connecting people. When I launched these forums 14+ years ago, I had no preconceived notions of martial artists.

During that time, I have probably interacted with thousands of martial artists. I have banned hundreds of them from this community. When you aren't knee deep in a specific art, looking at your friends vs. the school down the street, comparing yourselves to those you encounter, the martial arts world probably looks a little different. From that view, there really is no correlation between the art and the quality of the person. There is no "most of the people in this art are good, but only a few from this one are." It just doesn't exist. I believe that any "evidence" to the contrary is anecdotal at best.

Our community is a wonderful mix of traditional martial artists, mixed martial artists and people who would consider themselves to be both. No matter what group you are a part of, whether you are a UFC fighter or a strict traditionalist, the person who created this image is not your friend.

You are all martial artists. Don't let people divide you for their own gain.

Great post, Patrick. Sometimes, being MAists ourselves, we are too close to the subject to step back and look at it like this. Thanks for your analysis here.

[bushido_man96]

It's not my intent to separate Patrick just so you know, I just hope that people get what I'm saying. I just think that MARTIAL ARTS in general is meant to be more then just fighting and I hope that we keep that the primary focus.

I think this tends to be a common reaction to those who train in MMA. There are plenty of bad eggs who have trained in traditional arts, as well. They just don't get to go into a cage and fight, and then talk to the press about it afterwards.

I don't think that MMA is just about the fighting, either. Its a big point of it, because its a competition in which one fighter faces another in a proving ground of the same rules. Not unlike Wrestling, Boxing, Sumo, etc. If you talk to the fighters, and talk really in-depth with them, I think far and away we'd learn that they are just fighters looking to fight. They have so much more to them than that. Its important to not be fooled by the few minutes of air time they get pre and post fight.

[Patrick]

Great post, Patrick. Sometimes, being MAists ourselves, we are too close to the subject to step back and look at it like this. Thanks for your analysis here.

Thanks man.