Rules favor what?

[RoninPimp]

Biting would probably happen predominantly from the worse positions - ie by those being outgrappled.

-This is not the case. Trying to bite from a bad position just gets you punched more. It is a waste of time.

 

[Rook]

-This makes no sense. There is no padding on the palm or on the striking area of the hammer fist. MMA gloves have no effect on these strikes.

Huh?

-Some strikers would not wear them and would break their hands like they did in the early UFC's. They would go back to wearing them quick to protect their hands.

Give them the opportunity. I stand by my comment that many to most would choose not to wear the gloves and that it would work to their advantage. Many Vale Tudos have occured without broken hands and many MMA events elsewhere have not required gloves - ussually the ones demaning that gloves are worn are ignorant politicians and grapplers.

-A softer surface doesn't help with the take down. I was a HS wrestler and still wrestle all the time. It helps protect the guy getting taken down. I would argue that a soft surface doesn't take much at all off of strikes. As evidence, people still get knocked out all the time in MMA.

It does reduce striking power to have a softer surface. Try it with a heavy bag and pad on the floor some time.

-How the hell is biting going to get you out of a leg lock?

Alone? It won't. However, when some leg locks are attempted, the leg is within biting range while they are attempting to apply the lock. Biting then would in some cases give enough slack, excess tension, jerking, pain or whatever to give the defender an better chance of getting his leg free. It won't work often - but sometimes is enough.

 

[RoninPimp]

Huh?

-MMA gloves do not have padding on the palm. Nor do they have it on the bottom of the hand where contact is made with a hammer fist. Therefore MMA gloves have zero effect on palm strikes or hammer fists.

Give them the opportunity. I stand by my comment that many to most would choose not to wear the gloves and that it would work to their advantage. Many Vale Tudos have occured without broken hands and many MMA events elsewhere have not required gloves - ussually the ones demaning that gloves are worn are ignorant politicians and grapplers.

-Maybe. Its all speculation on this point at any rate...

It does reduce striking power to have a softer surface. Try it with a heavy bag and pad on the floor some time.

-I'm not arguing it doesn't reduce power. I'm arguing that it is by a negligable amount. All the heavy bags at the school I train at are hanging over tatame mats. I hit them all the time.

Alone? It won't. However, when some leg locks are attempted, the leg is within biting range while they are attempting to apply the lock. Biting then would in some cases give enough slack, excess tension, jerking, pain or whatever to give the defender an better chance of getting his leg free. It won't work often - but sometimes is enough.

-Hypothetically possible? Yes. Likely escape? No. A good way to get kicked in the mouth, then heel hooked anyway.

 

[Kensai]

I think its pretty fair both ways on the standup vs ground issue. If the rules favor anything it is professional career sport fighters, which I think is what we are paying to watch so I dont see the big deal.

7sm

Quite agree, although I think the UFC is great, it doesn't reflect the totality of MA. Long may it continue though.

 

[Shogun]

They wouldn't be irrelavent. A contest between the heelkicks to the throat and the biting of the person underneth might turn out different than the tug-of-war would in some cases. That would change the outcome. I would be willing to bet on that working out in the bottom person's favor overall (ie more people who escaped that wouldn't have than people submitted who would have escaped).

Huh. I just don't see how nibbling someones calf will work to your advantage if they are hammerfisting your throat?

The armbar was not developed as a quick way to submit somoone in a Vale tudo match. It is one of many groundfighting techniques developed and perfected as a position in itself. a higher level of control. considering there is about 20 techniques I can think of from the near-armbar position, and about 3 from being "under-armbar", I'd say biting, gouging etc is simply a bad idea. using one of the tried-and true escapes from the tried-and-true armbar is the safest bet.

 

[Rook]

Biting isn't an escape in itself. Its just a tool to distract or weaken enough to pull a regular escape.