Watching MMA for a more "traditionalist"

[Judodad_karateson]

MMA was created by the Gracie's as a marketing tool. They started the Dojo storms, where they would go to gyms and challenge fighters, then they created the UFC, where fighters come to them. MMA rules and equipment were designed to favor not just grappling, but newaza specifically. Of course, nothing can beat a solid punch to the jaw, so there is enough variety that most people don't notice this. But make no mistake, BJJ is always be a dominate art in UFC, because that is what UFC was created to exhibit.

MMA is a sport on par with kickboxing or catch wrestling.

As for the photo, it's complete nonsense. There is plenty of style, grace, and technique in the MMA, plenty of brutality in TMA. The most successful MMA combatants have donned Gis years before they ever even though about entering the cage, and doing so only advanced their talents further.

Actually I don't know if I agree with the statement, the part about the UFC being set up for jujitsu. The first UFC fights had pretty much know jujitsu in them, in fact they were pretty different than what you see now days. Originally you saw people with traditional background stepping in and if you came something that anybody with some blended systems who was tough could make it as a fighter, which is fine but hoyce Gracie didn't even make an impact until later on when he was running into guys twice his size that looked like they were gladiators and he was disposing of them, with his skinny physique, this is what pave the way for jujitsu to become popular the way it is today.

Who won the first 2 UFC? BJJ. Who won the 3rd? Judo. 4th? Wrestling. 5th? Sambo. It wasn't until UFC 13 that someone with a striking background won a UFC, and that was after they started splitting it into 2 weight classes, and the heavyweight was Wrestler.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

[Luther unleashed]

Certainly, but your speaking about winning and I'm speaking about what was popular and present most. I don't think we are disagreeing about that, just speaking about different things somewhat.

[guird]

Who won the first 2 UFC? BJJ. Who won the 3rd? Judo. 4th? Wrestling. 5th? Sambo. It wasn't until UFC 13 that someone with a striking background won a UFC, and that was after they started splitting it into 2 weight classes, and the heavyweight was Wrestler.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

I don't think that's clear at all. Which rules do you think made the early UFC events biased against strikers?

If you are a striker up against a grappler and have no good takedown defense, you're going to be playing the grappler's game before long, and that's a game you'll lose. It seems to me that that is what happened in the first few UFCs.

Once strikers started picking up enough grappling to stay on their feet, or to get back up failing that, striking did start to become much more successful in MMA. Now, fighters need to have solid skills in all ranges.

[Judodad_karateson]

Who won the first 2 UFC? BJJ. Who won the 3rd? Judo. 4th? Wrestling. 5th? Sambo. It wasn't until UFC 13 that someone with a striking background won a UFC, and that was after they started splitting it into 2 weight classes, and the heavyweight was Wrestler.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

I don't think that's clear at all. Which rules do you think made the early UFC events biased against strikers?

If you are a striker up against a grappler and have no good takedown defense, you're going to be playing the grappler's game before long, and that's a game you'll lose. It seems to me that that is what happened in the first few UFCs.

Once strikers started picking up enough grappling to stay on their feet, or to get back up failing that, striking did start to become much more successful in MMA. Now, fighters need to have solid skills in all ranges.

Every single rule in early UFC banned some kind of strike, normally pretty effective ones. Not one rule on the limits a grappler could go. UFC was no-holds-barred, but had no qualms barring all kinds of strikes. When they did start banning grappling techniques, they started with small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, the kind easiest to transition from striking and most effective in a clinch. By the time everything stating leveling out, BJJ was already a staple of every MMA training regimen, and there is such a demand for BJJ, they're giving teenages with blue belts their own schools!!!

[Bulltahr]

Every single rule in early UFC banned some kind of strike, normally pretty effective ones. Not one rule on the limits a grappler could go. UFC was no-holds-barred, but had no qualms barring all kinds of strikes. When they did start banning grappling techniques, they started with small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, the kind easiest to transition from striking and most effective in a clinch. By the time everything stating leveling out, BJJ was already a staple of every MMA training regimen, and there is such a demand for BJJ, they're giving teenages with blue belts their own schools!!!

Those early UFCs were as close to "the real deal" that we have had I believe, not perfect but still were great weren't they! Every guy that went into that octagon was nervous as all hell, mainly cause nobody really knew what to expect and how it was all going to work out.

And I agree, it was geared to showcase the Gracies as we saw once everyone else realized the game was won on the ground and started X training. Pity K1 didn't take off in the US, there were some great K1 fights..............

[Chucksmanhood]

.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

What is the rule bias?

[Chucksmanhood]

Who won the first 2 UFC? BJJ. Who won the 3rd? Judo. 4th? Wrestling. 5th? Sambo. It wasn't until UFC 13 that someone with a striking background won a UFC, and that was after they started splitting it into 2 weight classes, and the heavyweight was Wrestler.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

I don't think that's clear at all. Which rules do you think made the early UFC events biased against strikers?

If you are a striker up against a grappler and have no good takedown defense, you're going to be playing the grappler's game before long, and that's a game you'll lose. It seems to me that that is what happened in the first few UFCs.

Once strikers started picking up enough grappling to stay on their feet, or to get back up failing that, striking did start to become much more successful in MMA. Now, fighters need to have solid skills in all ranges.

Every single rule in early UFC banned some kind of strike, normally pretty effective ones. Not one rule on the limits a grappler could go. UFC was no-holds-barred, but had no qualms barring all kinds of strikes. When they did start banning grappling techniques, they started with small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, the kind easiest to transition from striking and most effective in a clinch. By the time everything stating leveling out, BJJ was already a staple of every MMA training regimen, and there is such a demand for BJJ, they're giving teenages with blue belts their own schools!!!

You are quite wrong. Small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, though not impossible are the most difficult techniques to pull off against a live opponent. I dont think many, if any would be pulling them off, even if they were allowed.

But you can believe what you want.

[Judodad_karateson]

.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

What is the rule bias?

As I already mentioned, the rules of early UFC ONLY banned striking maneuvers, while giving grapplers a no-hold-barred mat to test their skills on.

Who won the first 2 UFC? BJJ. Who won the 3rd? Judo. 4th? Wrestling. 5th? Sambo. It wasn't until UFC 13 that someone with a striking background won a UFC, and that was after they started splitting it into 2 weight classes, and the heavyweight was Wrestler.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

I don't think that's clear at all. Which rules do you think made the early UFC events biased against strikers?

If you are a striker up against a grappler and have no good takedown defense, you're going to be playing the grappler's game before long, and that's a game you'll lose. It seems to me that that is what happened in the first few UFCs.

Once strikers started picking up enough grappling to stay on their feet, or to get back up failing that, striking did start to become much more successful in MMA. Now, fighters need to have solid skills in all ranges.

Every single rule in early UFC banned some kind of strike, normally pretty effective ones. Not one rule on the limits a grappler could go. UFC was no-holds-barred, but had no qualms barring all kinds of strikes. When they did start banning grappling techniques, they started with small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, the kind easiest to transition from striking and most effective in a clinch. By the time everything stating leveling out, BJJ was already a staple of every MMA training regimen, and there is such a demand for BJJ, they're giving teenages with blue belts their own schools!!!

You are quite wrong. Small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, though not impossible are the most difficult techniques to pull off against a live opponent. I dont think many, if any would be pulling them off, even if they were allowed.

But you can believe what you want.

First of all, the point of my post was not how effect this moves are, but that they were the first to be banned by UFC. So if you are correct, it doesn't make me "quite wrong" but only strengthen my point that the rules are created to favor ground grappling.

But on top that, I strongly disagree. In the scenarios I listed (in a clinch), with opponents whose hands are not wrapped or gloves, small circle is extremely effective for a trained Martial Artist.

[Chucksmanhood]

.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

What is the rule bias?

As I already mentioned, the rules of early UFC ONLY banned striking maneuvers, while giving grapplers a no-hold-barred mat to test their skills on.

Who won the first 2 UFC? BJJ. Who won the 3rd? Judo. 4th? Wrestling. 5th? Sambo. It wasn't until UFC 13 that someone with a striking background won a UFC, and that was after they started splitting it into 2 weight classes, and the heavyweight was Wrestler.

There is clearly a rule bias against strikers in the UFC events.

I don't think that's clear at all. Which rules do you think made the early UFC events biased against strikers?

If you are a striker up against a grappler and have no good takedown defense, you're going to be playing the grappler's game before long, and that's a game you'll lose. It seems to me that that is what happened in the first few UFCs.

Once strikers started picking up enough grappling to stay on their feet, or to get back up failing that, striking did start to become much more successful in MMA. Now, fighters need to have solid skills in all ranges.

Every single rule in early UFC banned some kind of strike, normally pretty effective ones. Not one rule on the limits a grappler could go. UFC was no-holds-barred, but had no qualms barring all kinds of strikes. When they did start banning grappling techniques, they started with small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, the kind easiest to transition from striking and most effective in a clinch. By the time everything stating leveling out, BJJ was already a staple of every MMA training regimen, and there is such a demand for BJJ, they're giving teenages with blue belts their own schools!!!

You are quite wrong. Small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, though not impossible are the most difficult techniques to pull off against a live opponent. I dont think many, if any would be pulling them off, even if they were allowed.

But you can believe what you want.

First of all, the point of my post was not how effect this moves are, but that they were the first to be banned by UFC. So if you are correct, it doesn't make me "quite wrong" but only strengthen my point that the rules are created to favor ground grappling.

But on top that, I strongly disagree. In the scenarios I listed (in a clinch), with opponents whose hands are not wrapped or gloves, small circle is extremely effective for a trained Martial Artist.

Hey I got no heat with you. I do however strongly disagree with you and will leave it at that

[guird]

Every single rule in early UFC banned some kind of strike, normally pretty effective ones. Not one rule on the limits a grappler could go. UFC was no-holds-barred, but had no qualms barring all kinds of strikes. When they did start banning grappling techniques, they started with small joint manipulation and standing joint locks, the kind easiest to transition from striking and most effective in a clinch. By the time everything stating leveling out, BJJ was already a staple of every MMA training regimen, and there is such a demand for BJJ, they're giving teenages with blue belts their own schools!!!

The only banned strikes in UFC1 were ones to the groin, a ban that was lifted in UFC2. Watching the fights, it seems very unlikely a rule change on groin strikes would have changed the outcome of UFC1 much. I agree that BJJ has some problems, especially at the moment, and it has been the subject of too much hype. It doesn't change the fact that the early UFCs however, had very minimal rules and so very little room for bias. Royce won because he was prepared for fights that involved both striking and grappling, and his opponents weren't. He had an approach that was developed for and tested in a no-holds-barred environment, and which directly attacked the gaps in the knowledge of his opponents. This didn't show that 'BJJ is the ultimate martial art' or anything, (though some people unfortunately did see it that way), it simply showed that one can't afford to neglect grappling if they want to shine in fights where it may be involved.