Pride versus UFC

Marathon Man

i know its probably one of the most debated topics in martial arts circles as to which is 'better' pride or ufc. personally i think pride is far superior as its rules have remained fairly consistent over the years whereas the UFC has severely diluted its rules in order to appeal to joe public and for commercial gain. i know most people will probably favour UFC as this is the tripe that they have been spoon fed by digital tv. if pride was shown more then i'm sure people would see for themselves that it is a better format.

Roper

UFC have changed their rules because the state athletic commisions have to sanction them. I would have agreed with you maybe a year ago but lately theres a lot of new talent in the UFC and a lot of the top guys that made Pride what it was are getting older, think Wand, Coleman, etc.

dlofnep

Both have their pros and cons.

Pride's allowance of soccer kicks and stomps is going to end up with someone getting seriously injured or killed.

Pride's shows give you more bang for your buck, as you get to see more fights.

UFC has a good product, but they need to show more fights. And also, I think the octagon is much more suited to MMA than a ring.

Trust me, the majority of the people on here who discuss MMA, much like myself - were probably bootlegging Pride and UFC tapes about 10 years before this thought came into your head We're not being spoonfed anything.

hardCopy

Well since the Zuffa now owns Pride the rules difference won't matter any more. Dana White has said that the rules will be unified once they start running events.

As for stomps etc. I think Cage Rage's open guard rule is the best compromise, i.e. If one fighter is lying on the ground away from the edge of the cage and not trying to get up then the ref calls open guard and the other fighter can kick and stomp so long as it stays away from the edge of the cage. I don't like the idea of guys using the ropes/cage for balance when they go for a stomp/kick.

I don't really have a favourite, fighting is fighting, I like both.

Pride Fighter

Fighting is fighting, and fighting rules. Pride is better though. Soccer kicks and knees on the Ground are a part of MMA and since UFC dont have them it is not a true MMA event. Dana White is an idiot. He is being manipulated by state gaming commissioners who despise MMA and want to destroy it as a spectacle. These same commissioners love boxing. A sport that does nothing but give its competitors brain damage. Asia is the home of martial arts and they do it far better than Dana 'idiot' White.

columok

Dana White is far from an idiot. He's done a lot for MMA.

Dragan

Marathon Man wrote:

i know most people will probably favour UFC as this is the tripe that they have been spoon fed by digital tv. if pride was shown more then i'm sure people would see for themselves that it is a better format.

It's kind of foolish to ask a question based on opinion, and in the course of that question imply that anyone who disagree's with you is allowing themselves to be "spoon fed tripe".

Pride Fighter

I think he has ruined the UFC. Pride is a far superior product.

Mark Hamill

Pride Fighter wrote:

Soccer kicks and knees on the Ground are a part of MMA and since UFC dont have them it is not a true MMA event.

Pride don't allow elbows on the ground, doesn't that mean that Pride is not a true MMA event?

Pride Fighter

Mark Hamill wrote:

Pride don't allow elbows on the ground, doesn't that mean that Pride is not a true MMA event?

Thats true. The elbow is such a hard and pointy bone though. Fighters have to be kept safe. We dont want them ending up with brain damage.

Mark Hamill

Pride Fighter wrote:

Thats true. The elbow is such a hard and pointy bone though. Fighters have to be kept safe. We dont want them ending up with brain damage.

(besides the fact that in the ufc you can't elbow with the "spike" of your elbow, just the "face" of it) the ball of your foot is a pretty hard bone and is just as likely to do brain damage when you stomp on someones face with it

Pride Fighter

Well I agree. The referre will stop the fight if stamps and soccer kicks continue. It is a rareity in MMA as they are all very high level competitors but if they are stupid enough to get themselves in that position they should be punished. Pride allows this UFC does not.

Mark Hamill

Pride Fighter wrote:

but if they are stupid enough to get themselves in that position they should be punished. Pride allows this UFC does not.

ufc "allows" fighters to use elbows in the guard, if someone is stupid enough to get in that position where that can happen (eg crocop against gonzaga) then shouldn't they get punished?

The Bored One

The quality of Pride had little to do with the rule about kicking a grounded opponent. I think its more to do with where they were drawing fighters from.
UFC was somewhat insular, tended to use mostly American based fighters.
Pride was drawing fighters from a larger number of countries, possible because of the precedent for fighters heading to Japan. Bigger talent pool.
Just a theory.
However, its evened out a good bit more, and UFC is picking up talent from a wider sphere now.

Nothingcompares

sherdoggers!

crazy monkey

In my personal opinion the ufc keeps a largely US based fighter pool.
This may be because they are trying to keep their core market which for a long time was ''joe six pack''...they [zuffa, ufc, fertitta brothers and dana white] are trying to broaden teir appeal...
They have brought in some class ''foreigners'' GSP, NOG, CRO COP, SILVA, even Bisping [he's got a bit to go to be great but he certainly has the potential..back to topic at hand]

You saw they way the crowd cheered USA when GSP fought Matt Hughes and that's the jingoist aspect that the UFC don't encourage but they certainly don't discourage it...

This sticking with primarily US based fighters means that the fights will eventually get dulled downed as so many of the top fighters will have trained with each other or trained with someone who trained with their next opponent...this means that we are heading for points winners not great matches....

Just an opinion...

Whereas in Japan, obviously the rules are different, but different rules don't make great fights, the truth is the import the best from around the world and pit them against each other...so they have eastern europeans [traditionally a bad guy in any american movie] asians [since pearl harbour they haven't been the american people's best chum] western european....strangely enough everytime there is a robin hood movie the bad guy is british and the hero is a yank...just watch robin hood prince of thieves with costern and rickman]...

Now than kfully the japanese...don't give a toss...
They know how to watch, read, enjoy and respect their fighters.
Great -why?

If you have the chance to fight for the best supports and against the most diverse fighters in the world how hard is to fight better in Pride....since you have to up your game continuously you will constantly see better and better fighters...

Now I admit my point of view is a but weird but I would have agreed that Pride had the better matches because they had the better [more diverse, aggressive, talented, charismatic] fighters who just fought better matches...

Apart from that any fighter who misses a match apologiese to the japanese fans...so they desire to fight can't be questioned....

What do you guys and dolls think?

Ciao

ch252

Ufc rules!

droc

Keith,

The UFC have made some serious efforts to pick up foreign fighters recently and it will continue.

Dana White said in an interview I did with him that basically when Zuffa took over the company they had to stick mostly to US fighters so that they could be available for press opportunities. 'You can't get Cro Cop here over night for a radio show'

DROC

crazy monkey

Darragh I use crazy monkey for a reason mate

Since you are the editor of a great mma mag and have been to more ufc kotc cage warriors etc of course I respect your opinion and if you read my comments you would see that i stated that the ufc are imroving in bringing a more culturally diverse fighting pool....

Now onto the issue at hand droc...I thought you were never going to post here again...personally I'm glad you're back...[made more comebacks than cher this feela]

MESSAGE TO ALL POSTERS...check thread on mma magazines....re:droc

Marathon Man

dlofnep wrote:

Both have their pros and cons.

Pride's allowance of soccer kicks and stomps is going to end up with someone getting seriously injured or killed.

Pride's shows give you more bang for your buck, as you get to see more fights.

UFC has a good product, but they need to show more fights. And also, I think the octagon is much more suited to MMA than a ring.

Trust me, the majority of the people on here who discuss MMA, much like myself - were probably bootlegging Pride and UFC tapes about 10 years before this thought came into your head We're not being spoonfed anything.

i've been watching both pride and ufc from the beginning -including several trips to Japan to watch pride live. my main point is that while ufc has 'dumbed down', pride has gone from strength to strength.

crazy monkey

sorry to disagree with you but zuffa and the ufc are the ones going from strength to strength as you will no agree as ufc has bought Pride..
Prudent finacial planning, sound knowledge of your core market share, expanding your market share, celebrity endorsement, comprehensive media coverage [your own and other brands] and not being involved with dodgy yakuza finacial dealings have helped the ufc start to exert dominance over other mma brands..

A recent exapmle of this was the ufc's trip to the UK on the same night as Cage rage....

Ufc had the lesser show but pulled the larger audience...

droc

Crazy Monkey,

I have some blatant self-promotion to do, so that supercedes my principles.

Marathon Man, some people prefer Pride and I can respect that, but to say that it's going from strength to strength is silly, unless of course you're not aware of the recent developlments in MMA.

DROC

Marathon Man

I'm well aware of recent developments in MMA.

Marathon Man

However, i remain optimistic that little will be done to change the pride format.

Dragan

Marathon Man wrote:

However, i remain optimistic that little will be done to change the pride format.

Well then you definitely haven't been paying attention.

Dana has confirmed that round lengths and rules in Pride will be brought into line with the UFC.

Marathon Man

this discussion (as with most on boards) has been severely deflected from its original course. the major point is that as a spectacle, in my view anyway, pride is better to watch than ufc. And don't get me wrong i enjoy ufc almost as much as pride. But to be at a live pride event has to be one of the greatest experiences that any mma fan can enjoy. The respect and enthusiasm of the Japanese crowd for both winner and loser is admirable. the music, the pyrotechnics and of course the fact that the majority of the fights on a single night are exciting combine to give it a slight edge over the ufc.
i know some will say fighting is fighting, and of that it shouldn't matter if a fight is in an arena with 30, 000 fans or in a basement with a few lads watching from the side, but there is definitely something more 'classy' about pride which the ufc tends to lack. the recent events have saddened me and i can only take solace in the fact that i have all the undiluted prides on dvd and can watch them in lieu of any future tainted, bastardized ufc format. its like rolls royce been bought by lada and then having to conform to the 'high' lada standards.

Nothingcompares

You seem to know a lot about the running of boards for someone that's only been registered 5 days.

droc

Marathon Man,

I think we may have misinterpreted what you meant by Pride going from strength to strength, can you elaborate?

Thanks

DROC

Mark Hamill

Marathon Man wrote:

i i have all the undiluted prides on dvd and can watch them in lieu of any future tainted, bastardized ufc format.

What part of the ufc format don't you like?

cowzerp

to me the main difference is the commentating which in ufc and cage rage etc, is a bit on the mouthy side, pride is more classy appearing in this way-also the fans of most mma events are mad into booing everything-this is rare in pride and thats a good thing, mma boo boys are the worst advertisement for the sport..

Mark Hamill

cowzerp wrote:

also the fans of most mma events are mad into booing everything-this is rare in pride and thats a good thing, mma boo boys are the worst advertisement for the sport..

They're morons just looking for violence and blood and don't actually appreciate any of the skill (particularly the ground game) needed to compete(i remember hearing an American fan saying ground game should be banned in UFC because its "boring")

Marathon Man

cowzerp wrote:

to me the main difference is the commentating which in ufc and cage rage etc, is a bit on the mouthy side, pride is more classy appearing in this way-also the fans of most mma events are mad into booing everything-this is rare in pride and thats a good thing, mma boo boys are the worst advertisement for the sport..

well said

Marathon Man

Nothingcompares wrote:

You seem to know a lot about the running of boards for someone that's only been registered 5 days.

maybe i had another account. maybe i have been reading the discussions and only recently decided to join. either way your comment means nothing.

Marathon Man

droc wrote:

Marathon Man,

I think we may have misinterpreted what you meant by Pride going from strength to strength, can you elaborate?

Thanks

DROC

i said pride 'has' gone from strength to strength. i didn't say 'will continue to'. i was referring to the major dilution of the rules in ufc. Again i must stress that i like both ufc, pride, or any other form of fighting.

p.s. is it my imagination or is there a strong, militant pro-ufc contingent here. why is this. and instead of avoiding the point by telling me that ufc bought pride and therefore is better (or has won) coupled with foolish comments by the likes of Nothingcompares, i would simply like to know: if ufc 'is' a better format how is this so.
thank you

Fozzy

Although I found Pride's rules to often make for more exciting matches, soccer kicks and stomps are going slightly too far I think. On the other hand, UFC should allow kicks to a grounded opponent, but since it's not up to them to decide I don't see that changing anytime soon

I find Pride put on better overall events. The big intros, with the music and announcing practically turn it into a pro-wrestling spectacle, which I don't mind as long as the fights aren't fixed!

I don't think Pride has made any real gains in the last year. Forgetting about UFC buying them out, they've been constantly losing money sicne they lost their tv deal

droc

OK, so you were talking about over the last 10 years rather than over the last 2, fair enough.

As for the diluting of the rules, that's what has allowed the sport to go mainstream and therefore bring in big money and better athletes. So while for a purist it could be seen as negative, I also believe there's a huge positive to it.

Dana White and the Fertitta brothers have said that they want to bring back knees on the ground, hopefully with Marc Ratner and others on board they'll be able to do this and everyone can be a little happier.

As for pro-UFC, I can't talk for others but I like both UFC and Pride. I have been to the UFC but have not (yet) been to a live Pride show. Neither show is perfect, both have good and bad points and I don't see the point in saying one is good and the other is **** as is so common on other boards.

DROC

Marathon Man

droc wrote:

OK, so you were talking about over the last 10 years rather than over the last 2, fair enough.

As for the diluting of the rules, that's what has allowed the sport to go mainstream and therefore bring in big money and better athletes. So while for a purist it could be seen as negative, I also believe there's a huge positive to it.

Dana White and the Fertitta brothers have said that they want to bring back knees on the ground, hopefully with Marc Ratner and others on board they'll be able to do this and everyone can be a little happier.

As for pro-UFC, I can't talk for others but I like both UFC and Pride. I have been to the UFC but have not (yet) been to a live Pride show. Neither show is perfect, both have good and bad points and I don't see the point in saying one is good and the other is **** as is so common on other boards.

DROC

fair enough. Knees on the ground will be awesome if brought back in ufc. And although i like fighting to be as real as it can get i can certainly see the logic in disallowing elbows to the head for the safety of the fighters. i'm sure we've all seen the incident in ufc 8 where paul herrera gets repeadedly elbowed in the head by gary goodridge, despite the first elbow being sufficient to knock him out. nasty stuff. if anyone hasn't seen this check it out on youtube or somewhere.

droc

Marathon Man,

I don't think that incident is a good one for the argument against elbows, more for the argument against mismatches and crap reffing. Which should be (more or less) eliminated by the Athletic commissions sanctioning the sport.

If that happens worldwide we're less likely to see Giant Silva vs Fedor, which I'm sure we'd all love to see, but there are advantages too.

DROC

Pride Fighter

Both rule as mma rules. However Pride edges it.