superfighter Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 if there were absolutley no rules in UFC, no time limits, no gloves no disqualifications for any move. Who would have a better chance of winning, the striker or the grappler? Since now the striker can use every strike in his arsenel even on a downed apponent, would they have a better chance? Becasue it always seems that the UFC has always favoured grappling and the rules have always been suited to them, i'd love to see the 2 on the street where the striker can do what he wants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motion Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 How do UFC rules favor grapplers over strikers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombstone Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 My opinion, It doesn't favor the grappler. It has and always will depend on the fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxeador Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Most of the matches I have seen are mostly grappling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motion Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Most of the matches I have seen are mostly grappling. I seems to be natural for real fights to go into grappling range,because you will always have one person who will be the aggressor,and this person will keep the fight in grappling range because of them charging at the other fighter. In other words,in real fights,fighters aren't going to maintain the distance that people are accustomed to in the striking arts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombstone Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Most of the matches I have seen are mostly grappling. Well the UFC isn't a boxing tournament. When you close the distance, its alot of knees, elbows, and take downs. And just because it goes to the ground doesn't mean the striking stops. As always, just rambling and giving my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryLove Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Grapplers strike.. the reality is that, on the ground, a strikign grappler has a better chance to successd than a sriker trying to grapple. The early UFCs were pretty limited on rules, I don't think you would see a lot of changes if the existing rules were lifted... if anything, it opens up hooking, ear-tears, biting, and a plethora of forbidden grapples as much as it opens eye strikes and boxing ears. Now... let them put on shoes, hold rocks and fight on concrete, and I might reconsider which skills will work best. https://www.clearsilat.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyS Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 The UFC is more suited to striking than grappling. They've changed the rules from the original format to favour striking as the viewers are more interested in knock-outs than watching two people grappling on the ground. The main rules that show this are the 5 minute rounds and restarting fighters on their feet if there is no action. On the question asked - I think you need both. Grappling has the natural advantage in that it's easier to close the distance than keep the distance. BJJ - Black Belt under John Will (Machado)Shootfighting - 3rd Degree Black BeltTKD - Black Belt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJS Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 The current UFC does not favor grapplers at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJJ-Dober Posted June 13, 2003 Share Posted June 13, 2003 Guys, The early's UFC's only rules were no eye gouging and no biting, Royce Gracie won the first 3 UFC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts