Rules favor what?

[Andrew Green]

I keep seeing people claiming that MMA rules favor grapplers, and I just don't buy it. I think current rules and judging favor guys wanting to stand up and strike far more then a guy looking for submission.

What's everyone's take, what do the rules favor, and HOW do they favor it?

 

[Davejlaw]

I don't think that the rules favor standup or grappling really. I think that the current set of rules are pretty fair both ways. When someone gets crunched into the fence for too long and not much is happening then they break it up and stand the fighters back up. This is a bit different than in Pride Fighting where if two fighters are on the ground and at the edge of the ring in the ropes then the ref pulls them into the middle of the ring keeping them in the same ground position. Also, with the short UFC rounds one could argue that it hurts the ground fighters' game because he needs time to tire up his opponent and set him up for a submission (see Royce Gracie) I still think that the current rules allow for a good MMA fight and I have been happy with the different knockouts and submissions I've seen.

 

[7starmantis]

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

 

[patroldawg27]

I would say that these days their it is pretty equal. The first few events I believe favored grappling due to the fact that the mat was rather soft and hard for kickers (as was told to me by someone close to the earlier events). These days an argument can be made that it favors striking due to the clothing or lack thereof worn by the fighters i.e no more collar chokes etc.

 

[Shogun]

The rules favor striking and wrestling. when the guy is stuck on bottom (say BJ Penn vs Pierre) and going for submission after submission, the guy on top still takes the "octogon control" W.
also, when two fighters are slowly circling each other, landing half-thrown strikes, and stalling, its not like the put them on the ground like they would if two grapplers were "stalling"

 

[Marvin]

I think the rules, UFC anyway, favor the striker or GNPer. I don't think a lot of the fan base or a lot of the score keepers are very knowledgeable about technical grappling to see the set ups and attack attempts, it is because of this people say that grapping is "boring" and also one of the reasons why the fights are broken up on the ground after a certain amount of "inactivity".

A good current example is Rory v Soloman, if you watch that fight some people will say Soloman won the first round, but watch it again and watch Rory guard work, I don't think he got many good hits in. But I think most judges would give it to Soloman.

 

[Shogun]

A good current example is Rory v Soloman, if you watch that fight some people will say Soloman won the first round, but watch it again and watch Rory guard work, I don't think he got many good hits in. But I think most judges would give it to Soloman.

exactly. someone like me, who trains gracie jiu-jitsu, watched that fight and knew rory had already won. everyone was saying "solomon won the first round until the head kick" but he had won the top position and thats it.

 

[Rook]

I think the rules favor grapplers slightly.

1. The strikers must wear gloves. While it is also correctly claimed that this protects their hands, it reduces the chance for KO strikes - as a general rule, the heavier the gloves, the less chance a striker has of getting a quick KO or such. Also, the gloves make any non-punching strike ineffective, which tends to favor the grapplers who would be getting hit with those. I suspect that if you made the gloves optional virtually no-one in the UFC of PRIDE would wear them.

2. Both UFC and PRIDE, but especially the UFC have limited striking zones that affects strikers much more than grapplers. Stuff like throat striking or such could have changed alot of matches. I can see for safety reasons why this stuff is left out, but it does unbalance the playing field.

3. Soft mats reduce striking power because there is less to push off of. I suppose this one is inevitable, because people would be dying from SAMBO and Greco-Roman throws if this were done on concrete. This hurts throwing artists more than strikers, but all it all, this favors people going to the ground as opposed to striking or throwing to beat their opponent. Alot of Judo, JJJ, Greco-Roman, Shai Jao (hopefully spelled right) and SAMBO people could have struck and then thrown without going to the ground had this been a harder surface.

4. Referees mandating match ends at submissions. While reasonable in that it keeps the fighters healthy and keeps people holding for a submission instead of just breaking things, stuff like a PRIDE (I think it was PRIDE) fight I saw recently where the referee stopped the fight when a guy's ankle broke when he was more than willing to continue, and similar occurances after armbars in the UFC tend to favor grapplers. On a more even (and dangerous) playing field, some strikers might be able to continue and even win with a broken ankle or even a broken elbow. While there is the equivalent referee stoppage due to cuts for strikers, this tends to be more evenly applied and not to favor grapplers more.

5. Biting rule. This definately favors the grappler. Ussually, the dominant grappler has more effective submissions than biting people, so he would rarely be biting from dominent positions. No purely standup fight is likely to have biting. The only time this would really ever be used is by a person at a disadvantage either on the ground or in a clinch before a takedown. In other words, a striker who is losing to a grappler. This might not turn the fight around (it probably won't) but it could have given strikers a greater chance to get the fight back to their feet. Legitimate safety concerns keep this from happening.

6. UFC head-kicking, groin kicking, head stomping and knees while one party is standing and the other is on the ground. This doesn't apply to PRIDE or most fight organizations besides the UFC but this blatently favors grapplers, who essentially compel strikers to follow them to the ground to finish the fight - the best response a striker would have often with grapplers in the "cochroach" position kicking from the ground would be to strike him in the groin with a kick and then go around, still standing to step on his face. Not permissable, and for obvious reasons, it still favors the grapplers.


I think the final conclusion is that sports rules will inevitably favor grapplers over strikers. It is unfortunate, but it is necessary to keep the participants from serious injury. Only 1 and partially 6 could be changed, IMO, by a reasonable promoter.

 

[Andrew Green]

I suspect that if you made the gloves optional virtually no-one in the UFC of PRIDE would wear them.

Gloves protect hands and people hit harder. Back in the early UFC before they where required the heavy KO strikers wore gloves by choice to let them hit harder and get more KO's.

2. Both UFC and PRIDE, but especially the UFC have limited striking zones that affects strikers much more than grapplers. Stuff like throat striking or such could have changed alot of matches. I can see for safety reasons why this stuff is left out, but it does unbalance the playing field.

I dunno, seems like those targets would be easier to hit on the ground. Pro- fighters are pretty good at protecting them even when they aren't allowed, simply because strikes don't always land where you wanted them too.

4. Referees mandating match ends at submissions.

Goes both ways, fights get stopped because of bad cuts caused by strikes as well.

5. Biting rule. This definately favors the grappler.

No no no, this favors the guy in the worse position on the ground, biting is like any other number of nasty things, the more you can control your opponent, the better you'd be able to use it.

Mouthguards also prevent it, so I guess mouthguards favor the lesser striker?

6. UFC head-kicking, groin kicking, head stomping and knees while one party is standing and the other is on the ground. This doesn't apply to PRIDE or most fight organizations besides the UFC but this blatently favors grapplers,

Yes, that one I will agree with.

who essentially compel strikers to follow them to the ground to finish the fight -

Back off and the ref will force them to stand up, no need to follow someone to the ground, make them get up

 

[RoninPimp]

I would say strikers are ever so slightly helped with the current UFC rules. But by a very small measure. Not that it matters too much, because the fighters now are so well rounded they aren't so easily classified.

I will disagree on quite a few points with Rook though. Addressing those in his number order:

1) Tiny little MMA gloves don't take much off of a hard strike. Spar against a good striker wearing them, and let him step up the power to feel what I'm talking about. "Non-punching striking" is unaffected. Hammer fists and palm strikes with the gloves are exactly the same. None of the glove covers those areas with padding.

-IMO: 4oz gloves protect the striker more than they hinder him.

2) No argument from me on this point. But what can ya do? Fighter safety is very important. This effects every fighter equally though.

3) There is old video of Brazilian fights on hard surfaces. The striker only guys from that era didn't do any better. Usually the ground and pound guy is landing on the person he's taking down. The surface doesn't matter to him. The striking power is reduced a negligible about.

-IMO: A soft surface helps those getting taken down.

4) While possible, it is very unlikely. It has even happened in competition. I can't remember that huge Brazilians name though. It would change very few outcomes. But again, like you mentioned, fighter's safety is critical. Without descent safeguards, the sport goes away.

5) Very few, if any fight outcomes would change with biting allowed. If a striker is in a bad position from a grappler, he's in no position to bite to escape. He better umpa or shrimp and recover guard if he wants to survive.

6) This could go either way. Maybe a grappler has just thrown a striker. He doeasn't get to kick either. He doesn't get to heel kick fro the guard either. Takes realism away for fighter safety.

 

[RoninPimp]

Or ahhhh....what Andrew said...

 

[monkey]

as a Bruce Lee student he stated that most arts are combative but some became sport,Enter rules & regulations.Boxing use hands-judo throws-now Im not knocking them but to fight & espress your self to the fullest the train ever part of your body for the fight has no rules.To be sport or compition to me is being in the old romen days of bets on slaves & the winner lives.Now they just bet money & yes some may get bones broke-BE REAL FOR 1 MOMENT as Remy-Bruce & few other did combat.Do you want a trophy or realy want to protct yourself.Rules say -rules say-who cares for the grappler of other.That is not the toatly of the arts.Sure some may not agree with whati say as they make money from rules.Try open street & the fixation of 1-1 is not a practical selective way -(90% of streets have multi attackers & 1-1 is not possable)

 

[Calm Intention]

If the rules favor anything it is professional career sport fighters

Kind of what I was thinkiing.
I take a different view of this completely.
'rules dis-favor the martial artist' in its truest sense.
You think, you become self conscious, you slow down, mushin mind is gone, you can't be all that you are.

At the same time(as 7starmantis says), 'they chose to engage in sport', and therefore sacrifice 'the warrior within' spirit, and all that goes with that.

*I'd almost bet that the best martial artists lose at least 20% off their total ability's because they must 'think' what they are doing.

 

[FearlessFreep]

The rules favor the audience The rules are adapted to what the makers of the rules think the audience wants to see

And I tend to agree with the 'professional sports fighter' comments made so far.

 

[Andrew Green]

The rules favor the audience The rules are adapted to what the makers of the rules think the audience wants to see

Yup, not just the paying audience, but the political audience and the press audiences too

Need fabs, media support, and being legal

 

[Rook]

I'm going to respond to RoninPimp first and then Andrew Green.

RoninPimp:

1) Tiny little MMA gloves don't take much off of a hard strike. Spar against a good striker wearing them, and let him step up the power to feel what I'm talking about. "Non-punching striking" is unaffected. Hammer fists and palm strikes with the gloves are exactly the same. None of the glove covers those areas with padding.

Palm heel strikes are decreased in power more than punches, IMHO, and any hope of an effective slap is dead with the gloves - the force area is too spread out. Hammer fists are affected about as much as punches.

-IMO: 4oz gloves protect the striker more than they hinder him.

In terms of long term health to the hands, I would agree. In terms of the match, I don't. Make the darn gloves optional again and see who wears them.

2) No argument from me on this point. But what can ya do? Fighter safety is very important. This effects every fighter equally though.

I don't think this affects all fighters equally. Typically strikes the the groin and throat were delivered by the TMA and streetfighting people in the first UFCs, and it was the same deal in the AFCs from the clips I have seen. I don't think grapplers would use these strikes as often, although there certainly is opportunity use them on the ground if they so choose.

3) There is old video of Brazilian fights on hard surfaces. The striker only guys from that era didn't do any better. Usually the ground and pound guy is landing on the person he's taking down. The surface doesn't matter to him. The striking power is reduced a negligible about.

The softer the surface, the easier it is to get someone on the ground - ask any high school wrestler. Takedown defense is affected alot by hard surfaces. So is stand up striking ability. To the gnp purist (Coleman) this is largely a non-issue. To anyone else, this does matter. Pushing off harder surfaces gives more power to strikes. Also, no strike-and-throw strategy will ever work in the UFC/PRIDE world because the ground is too soft for the throw to finish people. This could have been a very viable, if also extremely unsafe strategy.

-IMO: A soft surface helps those getting taken down.

When they are landing, yes.

4) While possible, it is very unlikely. It has even happened in competition. I can't remember that huge Brazilians name though. It would change very few outcomes. But again, like you mentioned, fighter's safety is critical. Without descent safeguards, the sport goes away.

If this were ended, this would cease to be a sport and turn into brawls again. I would bet alot of the fighters wouldn't want to work with this and for good reason. However, it would have changed the outcome of some small number of matches with truely determined strikers.

5) Very few, if any fight outcomes would change with biting allowed. If a striker is in a bad position from a grappler, he's in no position to bite to escape. He better umpa or shrimp and recover guard if he wants to survive.

Generally true. This isn't the be-all and end-all "anti-grappling" some TMA people make it out to be. However, it could have given a bit more of an ability to survive to those who are, especially, mounted and in half-guard. Occasionally, it could have stopped a long-coming RNC from getting in. I'm sure a couple of leg locks could have been foiled, and with every one of the tug-of-war armbars (kinda rare, but you remember when someone is on the side with an arm and the defender has both his arms still holding together and his face right by the arm-barring guy's legs) would have resulted in a few bites. All in all, this wouldn't have turned the MMA world upside down, but it would have helped the strikers a bit.

6) This could go either way. Maybe a grappler has just thrown a striker. He doeasn't get to kick either. He doesn't get to heel kick fro the guard either. Takes realism away for fighter safety.

Definately an important aspect of fighter safety in the UFC, but this still affects strikers more.

 

[Shogun]

umpa

Not to be a jerk but its "upa". it means "arch" or "Bridge" in Brazilian Portuguese.

Generally true. This isn't the be-all and end-all "anti-grappling" some TMA people make it out to be. However, it could have given a bit more of an ability to survive to those who are, especially, mounted and in half-guard. Occasionally, it could have stopped a long-coming RNC from getting in. I'm sure a couple of leg locks could have been foiled, and with every one of the tug-of-war armbars (kinda rare, but you remember when someone is on the side with an arm and the defender has both his arms still holding together and his face right by the arm-barring guy's legs) would have resulted in a few bites. All in all, this wouldn't have turned the MMA world upside down, but it would have helped the strikers a bit

If the rules permitted biting, then they would also permit gouging and striking the groin and throat. so the situations you mentioned would still be irrellavent. if someone bit the hand when they were getting choked, the attacker could rip the eyes or nose. if the guy underneath was getting armbarred and tried to bite the leg, the guy doing the armbar could heelkick him in the throat. so biting would only work if other "dirty tactics" were not allowed.

 

[Rook]

If the rules permitted biting, then they would also permit gouging and striking the groin and throat. so the situations you mentioned would still be irrellavent. if someone bit the hand when they were getting choked, the attacker could rip the eyes or nose. if the guy underneath was getting armbarred and tried to bite the leg, the guy doing the armbar could heelkick him in the throat. so biting would only work if other "dirty tactics" were not allowed.

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).

 

[Rook]

Gloves protect hands and people hit harder. Back in the early UFC before they where required the heavy KO strikers wore gloves by choice to let them hit harder and get more KO's.

Let people pick again. I really wish they would just let them pick - I'd be willing to bet than many strikers would go sans-gloves to their advantage.

I dunno, seems like those targets would be easier to hit on the ground. Pro- fighters are pretty good at protecting them even when they aren't allowed, simply because strikes don't always land where you wanted them too.

Goes both ways, fights get stopped because of bad cuts caused by strikes as well.

No no no, this favors the guy in the worse position on the ground, biting is like any other number of nasty things, the more you can control your opponent, the better you'd be able to use it.

If you are in the better position you are more likely going for a submission or striking than biting people as those would tend to be more effective. Biting would probably happen predominantly from the worse positions - ie by those being outgrappled.

Mouthguards also prevent it, so I guess mouthguards favor the lesser striker?

Mouthguards don't prevent the lower teeth from biting - that is still enough to work an ear off (there was a Central American boxing match where this happened, and no, I am not comfused and talking about Tyson-Holyfield). Additionally, some strikers might go sans-mouthguard to better bit (as Tyson tried to during his first fight with Holyfield when he came out without the mouthguard and had to go back for it) or spit it out when they are in trouble (as Tyson also did).

Yes, that one I will agree with.

Cool.

Back off and the ref will force them to stand up, no need to follow someone to the ground, make them get up

True, but there are times when this might have been finished by strikes that are illegal.

 

[RoninPimp]

Palm heel strikes are decreased in power more than punches, IMHO, and any hope of an effective slap is dead with the gloves - the force area is too spread out. Hammer fists are affected about as much as punches.

-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.

In terms of long term health to the hands, I would agree. In terms of the match, I don't. Make the darn gloves optional again and see who wears them.

-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.

The softer the surface, the easier it is to get someone on the ground - ask any high school wrestler. Takedown defense is affected alot by hard surfaces. So is stand up striking ability. To the gnp purist (Coleman) this is largely a non-issue. To anyone else, this does matter. Pushing off harder surfaces gives more power to strikes. Also, no strike-and-throw strategy will ever work in the UFC/PRIDE world because the ground is too soft for the throw to finish people. This could have been a very viable, if also extremely unsafe strategy.

-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.

I'm sure a couple of leg locks could have been foiled

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