Hey Mike,
Perhaps I'm still missing what you're saying. My point was in a setting that favors the specialist, the specialist will no doubt, always win. IMHO, I dont consider the UFC to favor one or the other. I say this because neither person is really limited to what they can/can't do. And before you mention the rule set....IMO, there're still enough tools available for someone to get a win. I mean, if someone says that you can't eye gouge, well, my counter to that is simple....if thats the make it or break it thing, that is pretty sad...sad because we shouldn't have to rely on 1 thing to win.
Ha, yeah, you might be missing it... or I might be less than clear! Let's see if we can fix that...
I suppose my point is that yeah, of course, if you take a specialist and a non-specialist, and put them in a situation which is restricted to the specialists area of comfort (and strength), sure the specialist will win. I'm just not sure what the point of such an example is. It's like saying that if you take a maths whizz and a spelling genius, and put them in a spelling bee, the spelling genius will win... well, yeah. Maths doesn't help that much there.
Thing is, though, that doesn't really give much of an indication as to whether the specialist or the generalist is better. All it says is that the situation was better suited to the specialist. The real question as to who is better would be who is more able to keep the situation in their favour... A BJJ guy keeping a BJJ competition/match in a BJJ environment isn't really showing that he's better at dictating the situation.
When we get to the UFC, no, I'm not going to mention the rule set, because it's less of an issue there. What favours one approach or another there is the physical environment. In the first few (the first four, at least), the surface was reputedly a lot softer than it presently is, as it was "firmed up" in order to get the fights happening at a faster pace (the crowd, at the time not knowing much about ground work, would boo when the fighters were on the ground, particularly if it looked like nothing really was going on). The firmer ground encouraged greater speed, which brought striking back into it in a much larger way. To address Tony's point of a harder floor potentially making the throws much more devastating, yeah, that's true... but not really that relevant. After all, the grapplers didn't dominate because they had throws that didn't do as much (although I do remember seeing Tito Ortiz knock someone out with a throw... that was impressive), they dominated because the strikers not only didn't know how to handle them, but also because the strikers couldn't really utilise what they brought to the table as well as on a different surface. Hell, a WWE ring is a firmer surface than the UFC one was (why? Because speed is exciting to watch...).
So when a striker can't move as fast as they're used to, which changes the timing they're used to using, and can't get as much power into their strikes as they normally would (as there isn't enough counter-push from the softer mat), but the grapplers have a surface they're used to, can use the timing they're used to, the range they're used to, the attacks they are powerful with, and more, are you still going to say that the early UFC was really an unbiased format? The modern form is more even, but it's still slightly more skewed towards the grapplers, due to common training methods, as well as the ruleset encouraging grappling. Striking is bigger than it was in the early days, but that's because the environment (the floor surface itself, as well as the rules, the addition of timed rounds, and more) changed.
Hmm...so if you were going to enter a competition, you wouldn't research things? Ok, I'll give you the first time, but after that....if people failed to prepare then thats their fault. Thats why I used "Survivor" as an example. Shows been out since 2000. Thats why I laugh when people ***** about the conditions.
Not just the first time, though. When the UFC was first done, it was supposed to be a one-off (mainly, honestly, to act as an "ad" for the Gracies, who had opened a school in LA, Hollywood, from memory), and was named the "Ultimate Fighting Championship" so that Royce could be named the "Ultimate Fighting Champion", and Gracie JJ referred to as the "Ultimate Martial Art". After that, when we got to the second, it was again the first time most there had a chance to experience the floor. The best they could do was ask those who were in the first one.
Oh, and I might mention that in the third one, even Royce wasn't happy about the "conditions"... it was held well above sea level, and the thinner air apparently was the excuse for his forfeiting, as he gassed out...
To the rest of the thread, something's struck me about it.
There is a common thought process here whereby people are "personalising" the idea of whether or not they (as individuals) are "specialists" or "generalists". As a result there are a range of comments along the lines of "there isn't a problem being both!" Myself, I feel this is really not the point.
The idea (when talking martial arts) is not that the individual person is a "specialist" or "generalist", it is the art itself which is trained which is defined as such, and as a result, really can't "be both" (and honestly, I don't think you can truly be both either). Additionally, the idea of one being more desirable than the other, I feel is not really right either.
Arts are specialist or generalist. They cannot be both. They are one or the other, based on the history and preferences of the founder(s), and the development (and developers) of the system itself. Based on those circumstances, the art develops either specialising in one area or another, or having a broader skill set, depending on it's needs. And, more commonly than anything, most arts are specialist in one way or another. Generalist arts are actually quite rare (true generalist arts, anyway). They exist, but they're the minority. Even something like MMA I'd class as a specialist art, when it really comes down to it, as it's designed specifically for a specific environment. It utilises a variety of ranges, but that's not the same as being a generalist system.
Then you get people who "specialise" in one area or another of their chosen system, such as Judoka who have their tokui waza (favoured techniques), or MMA athletes who have a preference for one range over another. That's down to personal approach, really. But here's the thing. It's not a matter of choice. And most certainly not a matter of conscious decision making.
