A different take on SD Vs MMA

Michael O Leary

Hi all,

This is something that I came across recently and I thought it raised a few interesting questions. It is taken from www.gracieacademy.com with the Gracies being more orientated towards SD rather than MMA.

Is it a case of sour grapes due to them not winning as much as they did or do they have a point. Does the imposition of rules to entertain the crowd detract from 'reality'?

While Rorion Gracie saw his father’s jiu-jitsu grow in popularity, first in America and then worldwide, the ground began to rumble beneath the UFC’s foundation.

Beginning with UFC 5, SEG (the PPV company that co-owned the UFC) insisted on time limits for the fights. Although the longest fight up to that point had been the just-over 15-minute battle for the championship of UFC 4, the new 30-minite limit led directly to the longest, and most boring in UFC history, when the stronger and heavier Ken Shamrock was content to hold Royce down for 30-minutes for bragging rights of having gone the distance with the champion.

Rorion saw the writing on the wall and made a quick exit from the UFC.

“My father had started the first Federation of Jiu-Jitsu back in Brazil to promote sportive competition,” says Rorion, “but then stepped down from his post as its first president when he saw sport jiu-jitsu moving away from his original intent, which is reality based self-defense. Likewise, I did the same with the UFC.

“You can discover a lot about a man’s character when you leave him in the middle of the jungle without an expectation of rescue. Some people are going to get busy using all of their resources to survive. Others may panic and have a heart attack! But if you leave that same man in the jungle and tell him, ‘I’ll be back to pick you up tomorrow,’ his mind set is different, the uncertainty element is gone, he’s going to try to conserve his energy, and just survive until he’s rescued the next day. That’s what the clock does in MMA, it tells a fighter who’s losing to try to stall until the bell rings, rather than use his resources to find a way to defeat his opponent.”

Rorion’s exit from the UFC was followed by even more changes: judges’ scorecards, 5-minute rounds, increased limitation of techniques allowed, and the elimination of the tournament format that ultimately proved which style was most effective against a wide variety of opponents.

While the original no-rules UFC’s simulated real fighting as closely as possible—which was the ideal proving ground for Gracie Jiu-Jitsu—with each new rule added, the ability to show the real life effectiveness of a martial art was watered down.

“If there had been judges’ scorecards and a 15-minute time limit in UFC 4, Dan Severn would have been declared the champion for being on top of Royce for 15 minutes. But as we saw, just a few seconds later Royce got him in to submit with the triangle choke. The more rules involved the more artificial the result,” says Rorion.

What do people think of the analogy of a man being stranded in the jungle?

Regards,

Michael.

cowzerp

with regards to self defense, fights on the street rarely last more than a min or 2, the gracies where great because they trained to fight other systems while other systems did not train to fight them!!

this changed when stand up fighters learned to defend takedowns and wrestlers knew what submissions to be aware of and thats why the gracies started to lose in the ufc, bjj is still excellent but in todays system its a supplement to everything else, boxing, muay thai, judo etc..

A top mixed martial artist must have all of the above qualities to some degree, otherwise they will be found out..

i think your right about the sour grapes theory..personally i think there bad losers anyway..still great martial artists though..

Michael O Leary

cowzerp wrote: »

this changed when stand up fighters learned to defend takedowns and wrestlers knew what submissions to be aware of and thats why the gracies started to lose in the ufc,

Did this change due to other fighters analysing BJJ or did it change due to imposition of rules as claimed by the Gracies? If there were no gloves to protect punchers hands and no time limits to allow strikers to start again, would BJJ do better?

Michael

cowzerp

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Did this change due to other fighters analysing BJJ or did it change due to imposition of rules as claimed by the Gracies? If there were no gloves to protect punchers hands and no time limits to allow strikers to start again, would BJJ do better?

Michael

The time limits definetly make a difference to the gracies but if you cant submit someone in 5 mins then tough!

as i said street fights dont last long, they would submit a street fighter in seconds!

gloves did make a difference but this is partly because the standard of pounching was sloppy and is still not great either! MMA is a sport at the end of the day but can easily be used against street fighters..

hope im making sense as im rushing due to been on sneaky breaks from work!!

Michael O Leary

cowzerp wrote: »

The time limits definetly make a difference to the gracies but if you cant submit someone in 5 mins then tough!

as i said street fights dont last long, they would submit a street fighter in seconds!

gloves did make a difference but this is partly because the standard of pounching was sloppy and is still not great either! MMA is a sport at the end of the day but can easily be used against street fighters..

hope im making sense as im rushing due to been on sneaky breaks from work!!

Hi Cowserp,

Aside from street fights for the moment, you seem to agree that gloves and time limits have made a difference against the Gracies. By extension you 'could' say that Rorian has a point with the only argument being 'how much' of a difference has the rules made. Does anyone else have an opinion? Have the rules in UFC made the fighting less "realistic"?

By the way Cowserp, what do you work at? Its about 8.30pm.

Regards,

Michael

cowzerp

im a personal trainer!! mma is less realistic than it was but its the closest thing to reality in my opinion because there is skills from all areas used, boxing, elbows, knees and kicks plus takedowns, escapes and grappling, no other art can do this stuff to the same degree or against resisting opponents like in mma, most of this can be slightly varied to be used in rbsd situation easily,

before i done mma a karate fella with wrestling training pulled me down leaving my boxing almost obsolete so i put my finger in his eye the ground and pounded before i'd ever heard what that was!!

Michael O Leary

cowzerp wrote: »

mma is less realistic than it was but its the closest thing to reality in my opinion

So why is MMA less realistic than it was? Is it because there are more rules and therefore, should we define a "realistic" situation by the lack of rules?

Does anyone disagree with this idea?

Michael

Drunkmonkey79

Surely MMA cant be considered realistic fighting?? It is by all means a deciplined sport mixing different fight styles but to call it realistic is a bit far fetched, whens the last time you seen a fight on the street that looked anyway near as calculated and controlled as a pro MMA fight?

cowzerp

Its not realistic because because on the street its usually 2 eejits that dont know what there doing! if 2 trained individuals fought on the street it would be as close to that as legally can be!


if 1 trained fighter fights a non trained fighter he ends it quick in many easy ways! because he's used to been attacked by real good attackers!

dunkamania

All credit fot the gracies for all they have done for the sport, but yhey really talk a whole load of self-serving bull****.

Roper

If the Gracies hate it so much how come Royce still competes, and Royler and Renzo?

I think the old skool comment is about on the money.To be frank I couldn't care less if a fight looks "real" a la what you'd see on the street or not. What matters to me is the components used are relaistic and adaptive.

I do this thing when someone asks me "would that work on the street though". I just ask questions, like "well, maybe, or maybe not, what's the attacker wearing?" and they answer and then I ask some more "and does he have a watch on? Do you? How many drinks have you had? How many friends have you with you? Is the place well lit?" and on and on and usually if the person has any cop on they get what I'm trying to say after 4 questions or so but I had one guy keep answering for about 5 minutes one day until he'd lost sight of his question!

My point being that you can add in rounds, referees, padding, broken bottles, walls, mates etc. or you can take them all away, and what you'll be doing is still the same.

cletus

you have to bear in mind that there has been a split in th gracie camp. there is now bjj and gjj (gracie jiu jitsu). unless you train under helio, rorion or someone directly from that lineage, you do not do gracie jiu jitsu, you do bjj. rorion once sued carley gracie for using the term gjj

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9815672

this is why rickson gracie calls what he teaches "rickson gracie jiu jitsu". rorion has trademarked gjj.

rorion's view, and by extension gjj and the gracie mag, is that bjj is simply a watered down sport version of gjj, not the "street effective" style he teaches, and these ideas also spread towards the ufc, too much like a sport for him.
http://www.graciemag.com/?c=152&a=3020

just thought i'd put this out there

silat liam

Here is an interesting story that was posted on another forum, of an attack on two women in Dublin a few weeks back. Its a common theme of how attacks happen. Yes we can say well.. the women had been drinking, and maybe should have let the masks go, maybe had got a taxi or maybe should have ran as fsat as they could away. These were mistakes, buts its a good description of how an attack can escalate, and if it took 4 guys to hold a young teenager girl down, what would it took to hold down a 260Ib or more guy. It shows that what these young teenagers lack in skills or martial arts, they made up with sheer venom and hate and determination...this is something which is overlook....

Here is the posting

I am from England and a secondary school teacher. I've always wanted to go Dublin as I hear great things and love Guinness and the Irish accent. Although we did have a fun time in Dublin, it got ruined by the "tracksuit" teenagers that loom around the inner city Dublin streets, causing hassle to vulnerable innocent passer-by.

My story has a sad ending for me but I’m hope things will be positive from what happened to my friend and I. It was our second and last night in Dublin as it was a short holiday. We have just left a night club round 1 am to go to another club. As we crossed the traffic lights on O' Connell Street, two teenage girls, barely 15 yrs old, snatched my mate's mask as they passed us. (It was Halloween weekend) We were drunk ourselves; and our natural instinct was to get the mask back, so I helped my friend to take the masks out of the girl’s hand, which we did.

As we walked away, they swore at us. So we swore back and carried on walking. When we approached the black statue of Daniel O’Connell, they followed us, then ran towards us and jumped on my friend. They started to kick my friend so I shouted them to get her off. Then, one of the girls pushed me over into the busy road and grabbed my hair and started kicking me. I tried to fight back but she pulled my hair tighter and carried on kicking me. I had to roll in a ball as she would kick me in the stomach. People just stood there and watched us getting attacked. I felt so embarrassed and helpless. The men who saved us were this very heroic Asian guy and his Italian friend. They pulled the girls off us and helped us to cross the bridge to get away from the girls.

Obviously we were in great shock from the incident. I have never been attacked or been in any fights before as I always stay away from trouble. I believe I am an intelligent and sensible person and I rarely drink. But, naturally, we were enjoying the Guinness too much and enjoying our holiday in Dublin. We didn’t think our long awaited dream holiday would be ruined by such evil and uneducated people.

Then the girls came back up the bridge and began to attack me again. She pushed the guy out of the way and jumped on me, pulling my hair so tight. She was like an animal, getting pure satisfaction out of causing pain. They had this evil smile on their face as they approached us again. They even walked normally across the traffic lights to get to us. It was so surreal. My friend shouted for people to help me. It took four men to pull her off me and it felt like it took awhile to do this as she held on to my hair so hard. Being oriental, I have long black hair but about fourth of it has been ripped off.
The police arrived very soon after the incident in a big white van. As the four men held this girl down, My friend told me one Irish guy told the guys to let her go, not knowing what happened which made my friend angry. I just wanted to be well away from the situation as I was so upset and angry. I kept on shouting out “how evil they were”. The police retained the girls. They didn’t retaliate. They appeared to be so calm and emotionless. I was livid. Deep down I wanted them to suffer the same pain I went through. I just kept shouting at them and cried. One of the female officers said if I carried on shouting, I would be put in the van which made me angrier. The police didn’t seem too sympathetic towards us apart from one officer. We were the ones so distress and in pain. It was so evident in our appearance. My friend lip was cut; her hair was messed up and cuts on her face. But I was the one who got attacked twice. I couldn’t calm down; I was just shocked and angry about what just happened. In one way I was very conscious of the situation as we asked what will happen to the girls. They told us if it’s the first offence, they probably just get a caution. We were even more livid when we heard this. The trauma and pain these girls caused us, we felt it was unfair. Two days on and being back in the safety of my home, my whole body aches and constantly reminds me of the night. The bruising on my knees prevents me from even walking now. I have cuts and grazes on my face which probably will scar. I can’t go back to work due to the injuries. But I know I need to recover mentally as I work with rebellious teenagers at school. When I see teenagers hang out in groups on the streets, it does scare me. I reported this incident to the ‘Irish independent’ as I want public awareness of teenage crime in Dublin.

I found out from the Asian guy who saved our lives that the girls were under influence of alcohol and one went unconscious in the hospital afterwards. The first evening, a gang of these tracksuit teenagers tried to steal my friend’s bag. Also, on the night where we were brutally attacked, this guy in fancy dress had his hat stolen by these tracksuit teenagers. He tried to get it back and they were just playing with him.

Its really unfortunate incident that happened to us and I hope no one else will have to go through the trauma we went through. It was an unprovoked attack and it made us scared to back to Dublin. I never walk on my own anywhere, but is it safe to be just in pairs? The issue I really want to raise is what is the government is trying to do about these teenagers who loom around the streets in gangs. Too often we saw them and we were only been there for two days…..

Mark Hamill

Personally I think that the UFC should get rid of timed matches and rounds and simply have it that if you finish the fight in under, say, 5 minutes, you get the full fight purse and for every minute after 5, the winners purse goes down by 10%. And if there is no winner by the time the purse hits zero, then there shouldn't be any decision either, just a draw. UFC is supposed to be about the best fighter, ie the guy who's best knocking people out and making them submit, not the guy who's good at takedowns but then just sits in guard for 25 mins because he's afraid of getting hit standing up, and isn't good enough on the ground to submit people.
This would make fights a hell of alot more exciting and hopefully stop boring fight where you have a wrestler just holding someone down or Tim Sylvia holding someone at a distance with his long arms.

cletus

you have to take into account that its not necessarily all the ufc. many of the rule changes were brought in to satisfy the various athletic commisions under whose jurisdictions these bouts are fought.

pearsquasher

The OP asked

What do people think of the analogy of a man being stranded in the jungle?

which was quoted as

“You can discover a lot about a man’s character when you leave him in the middle of the jungle without an expectation of rescue. Some people are going to get busy using all of their resources to survive. Others may panic and have a heart attack! But if you leave that same man in the jungle and tell him, ‘I’ll be back to pick you up tomorrow,’ his mind set is different, the uncertainty element is gone, he’s going to try to conserve his energy, and just survive until he’s rescued the next day. That’s what the clock does in MMA, it tells a fighter who’s losing to try to stall until the bell rings, rather than use his resources to find a way to defeat his opponent.”

Seems like a reasonable analogy to me and shows how a different mindset come into play depending on rules or threat levels. When there are rules and low threat levels you'll have a different drive/spirit/mindset. It seems to me this guys is saying that this effects the physical stuff you do. Makes sense with respect to physical self-defence versus sport. Anyway I don't care for UFC but I'd understand if someone saw an art diminish and was non-plussed by that because it got sportified.

ryoishin

I thought they had to use rounds and time limits because of the legal problems in the early stages and under the pressure of the athletic commissions in america.

Could be wrong!

Mark Hamill

ryoishin wrote: »

I thought they had to use rounds and time limits because of the legal problems in the early stages and under the pressure of the athletic commissions in america.

Could be wrong!

You're probably right, but whats the reasoning for a time limit rule? is it supposed to make a fight safer?

dasmoose

Wasn't it because some fights over-ran the PPV time limit and customers didnt get to see teh end?

Mark Hamill

dasmoose wrote: »

Wasn't it because some fights over-ran the PPV time limit and customers didnt get to see teh end?

So for money issues (essentially) they make the fights crap by making it possible for boring fighters to win by waiting out the clock?
Either way i think my suggestion would make the fights more interesting anyway.

dasmoose

Yellow cards for stalling. I think this is probably the best idea pride ever had.

Nothingcompares

removing time limits is a great idea for getting rid of some of the rule exploitation but is totally impractical. People will get exhausted and get knocked out and for some ppl that's a good thing and for some it's a bad. And after this 5 minutes of grace and the fighters are under pressure to finish as there will be no decision you can expect to see guys doing insensible things and getting hurt.

Michael O Leary

Hi all,

In another thread on the state of the UFC, someone asked whether the rules are there for the benefit of the fighters or the spectators. Limits were put on groundfighting in Judo years ago to make it less boring and more spectator friendly. (I think it was around the time they were trying to get Judo into the olympics)

Renzo Gracie said that time limits were brought in make the UFC more spectator friendly. Gloves were brought in to protect the fighters hands so there could be more punching. (Spectator friendly)

The original point of the UFC was realistic fighting. Whether realism is important and whatever else you think about the Gracies, would people agree with Rorian that since the UFC has become more spectator friendly it has gotten less realistic? ie gloves, rounds, weight divisions - a long way since 2 guys got into a ring with the minimum of rules?

Regards,

Michael

cowzerp

Michael O Leary wrote: »

The original point of the UFC was realistic fighting. Whether realism is important and whatever else you think about the Gracies, would people agree with Rorian that since the UFC has become more spectator friendly it has gotten less realistic? ie gloves, rounds, weight divisions - a long way since 2 guys got into a ring with the minimum of rules?

Hi Micheal,
You seem to be fishing for the answer that you want!
do you want somebody to say its not realistic so that you can say some form of rbsd is realistic?
if so you must have nobody to train with you's because there all blinded or broken up or missing testicles etc due to the reality of your system...

Michael O Leary

While I love teaching and training in my primary art, I also respect and have an apprecriation (and growing love) of GJJ/BJJ.

Rorian Gracie states that the raison d'etre (reason of existance) of GJJ is reality based self-defence and that the early UFC was the best way to prove that.

However he states that with the imposition of rules, competitors now fight differently than that in a "real" fight. Therefore MMA and the UFC today are no longer a means of empirically testing "realistic" fighting as it once did.
This is due to having a differently mentality and the analogy of the person stranded in the jungle is used.

The argument seems reasonably valid. What do others think?

Regards,

Michael

cowzerp

Micheal i too love bjj but as a form of rbsd its totally unrealistic! imagine pulling a lad to the ground while his friends stomped you!

as a compliment to a good striking art its great because it is important to understand the ground too, The gracies are beaten these days because people know what to expect now unlike in the early days.

The gracies still actively fight mma too so they have not stopped even with the rule changes.

The answer is obvious, its less realistic than it was but still more realistic than anything else that is around..Also there was always rules in mma, no eye gouging etc..

FiannaGym.com

I pretty much agree with Rorion. The thing is;

If Royce had fought Huges under UFC rules, he would have gone down the very same way. For the most part the rules dont change the very effective training methods and skill sets fighters develop.

in fact, I think the skill sets of todays fighters, although developed with rounds etc in mind, the skill remains the same, the conditioning is different. Basically if we look at the most gifted fighter ever, the VOV, haha, we can see back head butts being used effectively, head butts from bottom, etc. Bas won the UFC Heavy Weight title striking off his back (yeah, I know) and all this other stuff that pretty much resides in the realms of eye gouges and biting. In other words, totally ineffective against a modern fighter.

So any, Rorian is right about a lot of things. And time limits definately fascilitate LnP, and personally I look forward to fighting with no time limits, but the rounds and incentives of Pride are good enough for today.

Also, A shout out to Saku for third hooking the Royce into a living broken femmur with special Gracie Rules.

Peace

vasch_ro

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi all,

In another thread on the state of the UFC, someone asked whether the rules are there for the benefit of the fighters or the spectators. Limits were put on groundfighting in Judo years ago to make it less boring and more spectator friendly. (I think it was around the time they were trying to get Judo into the olympics)

Renzo Gracie said that time limits were brought in make the UFC more spectator friendly. Gloves were brought in to protect the fighters hands so there could be more punching. (Spectator friendly)

The original point of the UFC was realistic fighting. Whether realism is important and whatever else you think about the Gracies, would people agree with Rorian that since the UFC has become more spectator friendly it has gotten less realistic? ie gloves, rounds, weight divisions - a long way since 2 guys got into a ring with the minimum of rules?

Regards,

Michael

That was the original point, but now the point is MMA the spectator sport, and to be a sanctioned sport the rules had to come aboard thick and fast, I think it is still the most realistic way of testing martial arts skills that there is at the moment. I think it is more or less as realistic as it can be while remaining relatively safe for the fighters to compete and test their skills in a realistic enviroment. i don't think a realistic situation can be defined by the amount of rules, but rather realism is an almost relative value compared to other things, the UFC is more realistic than say point sparring in SD respect, despite the fact in may have more rules.

To respond to pearse about the rules being there for the fighters or the spectator("Now the real question is; is fighting for the fighters or for the uneducated fans"), its a catch 22 really, the fighters in modern MMA want recognition, money and fame etc, the public wants entertainment , the rules make it more specatator friendly for the uneducated masses( the great unwashed so to speak), the sport gains mainstream acceptance, stars are born and the fight purses get bigger, the fighters benefit. To grow the sport and to get the payouts the Fighters want than the fighting has to be for the uneducated masses. If the fighters wanted to fight just for fighting there is no need to go on TV, just head down to O Connell street any week night.

With regard to the early UFC of course Royce had an advantage in that BJJ was relatively unknown, I think as fighters becames for adept on the ground, the Gracie advantage was considerably narrowed which to my mind had to influence Rorion

Silat Liam, to me the most worrying aspect is how many people just stood by as women were being attacked, I think we are all too accepting of Tracksuit Terrorists and random violence on our streets.

pma-ire

just a passing comment (as i don't usually get involved in threads about this)

but i remember when we were selling the early videos (yes folks! i said videos ) of the UFC's 1 to 4 or so. that they were restricted on where they could hold the fights as they were against the law of many of the states they were passing through.

i think this could also be a reason for the rule set being introduced so as to get past these state laws and get the comp into more regions. which in turn helped promote the whole thing a lot more!

Mark Hamill

If you think about it, pro wrestling is the most realistic type of fighting there is. Weapons, tables and chairs can be used, and at any point another person can interfere with the fight,just like a fight on the street

Michael O Leary

pma-ire wrote: »

but i remember when we were selling the early videos (yes folks! i said videos ) of the UFC's 1 to 4 or so. that they were restricted on where they could hold the fights as they were against the law of many of the states they were passing through.

i think this could also be a reason for the rule set being introduced so as to get past these state laws and get the comp into more regions. which in turn helped promote the whole thing a lot more!

Hi Paul,

The argument being that in order to promote the "thing", you need to change the "thing" so much that the original point is lost.

Regards,

Michael

Dragan

The rules make it a sport. It being a sport makes it acceptable. It being acceptable means we have heard from it, have the opportuinity to train in it and those who wish to can fight in it in there own country.

Do you really think JK would be allowed promote fights with no weight classes, gloves and an extremely stripped down rule set within this country?

The early UFC's were great, but i'm over watching people who clearly don't belong in the cage getting their dreams shattered.

Very occasionally some legislation is not a totally bad thing.

bilbo79

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi Paul,

The argument being that in order to promote the "thing", you need to change the "thing" so much that the original point is lost.

Regards,

Michael

Micheal i've read through your mails and you keep repeating the same points over and over without actually saying what you want! That your pretend to be real martial art is more realistic than mma even though you cant put yours into practise unless you go around starting fights on people, spill the beans and stop repeating the same thing over and over please.

Regards,

Willy

Michael O Leary

Dragan wrote: »

The rules make it a sport. It being a sport makes it acceptable. It being acceptable means we have heard from it, have the opportuinity to train in it and those who wish to can fight in it in there own country.

Do you really think JK would be allowed promote fights with no weight classes, gloves and an extremely stripped down rule set within this country?

The early UFC's were great, but i'm over watching people who clearly don't belong in the cage getting their dreams shattered.

Very occasionally some legislation is not a totally bad thing.

Hi Dragan,

If the rules make it a sport, then great. However it seemed that the original "raison d'etre" of UFC was to identify the best method of fighting.
The Gracies claimed that the UFC empirically identified the best method of fighting in a self-defense situation due to having almost no rules.
With the inclusion of more rules things have gotton more subjective.

I appreciate that people now have a greater knowledge of the risks presented by BJJ and therefore they can counter BJJ "more" successfully. However if the UFC was more like the street and gloves went out the window and people were more reluctant to punch due to rounds were eliminated and punchers only got one shot before being taken down, would MMA people reasses the amount of time they spend training for striking and just go back to grappling?

And if all this happened, would the UFC be more "realistic", which again was its original point?

Regards,

Michael

bilbo79

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi Dragan,

If the rules make it a sport, then great. However it seemed that the original "raison d'etre" of UFC was to identify the best method of fighting.
The Gracies claimed that the UFC empirically identified the best method of fighting in a self-defense situation due to having almost no rules.
With the inclusion of more rules things have gotton more subjective.

I appreciate that people now have a greater knowledge of the risks presented by BJJ and therefore they can counter BJJ "more" successfully. However if the UFC was more like the street and gloves went out the window and people were more reluctant to punch due to rounds were eliminated and punchers only got one shot before being taken down, would MMA people reasses the amount of time they spend training for striking and just go back to grappling?

And if all this happened, would the UFC be more "realistic", which again was its original point?

Regards,

Michael

And again
over and over till i get the answer i want.

Michael O Leary

Hi Bilbo79,

Whats your opinion on it?

Regards,

Michael

The Bored One

I think placing restrictions is as important way of testing styles as removing them. Rules can be used to determine areas of strength and weakness, by restricting certain techniques or methods, you can determine how capable a fighter is in a certain area.
If a fighter is unable to fight successfully when a method is restricted, it indicates that fighter is over-reliant on those methods. If a person is a good striker for example, they should be able to strike successfully even if "dirty" targets are eliminated. Their basic ability to strike has not been removed, it just requires an adjustment of target areas. While their are still viable and effective target areas, they should be capable of striking successfully.
If they cannot, it indicates their ability to strike is not adequate.

In this way, rules and restrictions can be used to highlight areas of a persons ability that need work, and they can focus and develop the skills of striking, grappling, clinching etc accordingly.

So, to me MMA doesn't so much represent the way of proving "realistic" styles, so much as testing the abilites of a style.
If it was the realistic it would be who could run away the fastest.
Accordingly, I figure MMA style training is a useful tool for building combat ability, which you then add with scenario based training.
Eg you tweak the rules and restrictions.

bilbo79

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi Bilbo79,

Whats your opinion on it?

Regards,

Michael

If it cant be trained proper then its not much use, Eye gouging for example, i could eye gouge as easily as you because i've practised it as much as you-zero.

mma is the closest thing to an accurate fight because it entails as much aggression as can be done in a safe enviroment, street fighting is the only other way and thats rare and usually against really unskilled opponents which is not that hard for a trained fighter..

Regards willy

Michael O Leary

Hi bored one,

That is a good post.

Just for everyone else, I am not asking which is the more realistic, SD or MMA. I am asking which is the more realistic, the first UFCs or the modern ones.

Regards,

Michael

bilbo79

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi bored one,

That is a good post.

Just for everyone else, I am not asking which is the more realistic, SD or MMA. I am asking which is the more realistic, the first UFCs or the modern ones.

Regards,

Michael

Simple answer, old ones, but the new ones are more effective as the sport has evolved and the training has too..

Regards

Willy

Michael O Leary

bilbo79 wrote: »

Simple answer, old ones, but the new ones are more effective as the sport has evolved and the training has too..

Regards

Willy

Sorry Willy but I am not nit picking. You are saying the old ones are more realistic but the new ones are more effective. What do you mean by realistic vs effective?

Regards,

Michael

john kavanagh

micheal do a 'youtube' search for 'rio heroes'. old school vale tudo, same rules as UFC1. zero difference between the delivery systems (the combat martial arts such as boxing/thai, wrestling and bjj) used in this and those used in more 'sporting' mma, just more blood as there's no gloves. i've fought both set of rules - didnt make any difference to my training.

also the participents have less skill in those delivery systems as organisations like 'rio heroes' pay a lot less than UFC so therefore attract less skilled fighters.

not my cup o tea as i prefer watching high level mma such as you see in IFL, WEC etc but you might like it as its closer to a 'StreetFight' self defence situation

The Bored One

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi bored one,

That is a good post.

Just for everyone else, I am not asking which is the more realistic, SD or MMA. I am asking which is the more realistic, the first UFCs or the modern ones.

Regards,

Michael

The rules for the old ones were more "realistic". However the rules of the new is partly what resulted in much better fighters, who would for the most part beat the old fighters even under the old rules.

cletus

I think that, given the ruleset, the earlier ufcs were more realistic.

But, having said that, I think its fair to say that todays fighters would adapt a lot quicker to the delimitation of the ruleset, than the earlier fighters would to the limitations placed upon them, were they to fight under todays rules

*edit* the bored one got there first:)

bilbo79

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Sorry Willy but I am not nit picking. You are saying the old ones are more realistic but the new ones are more effective. What do you mean by realistic vs effective?

Regards,

Michael

There was more options in the early ufc, headbutts etc, but the skill level is far superior and the fighters more effective and well versed than in the early days, modern mma fighters would whop any martial artist now and would also dominate if they fought back in the early days with there knowledge and better training systems..mma fighters in a street situation can gouge, headbutt, whatever else can be done..

Michael O Leary

john kavanagh wrote: »

micheal do a 'youtube' search for 'rio heroes'. old school vale tudo, same rules as UFC1. zero difference between the delivery systems (the combat martial arts such as boxing/thai, wrestling and bjj) used in this and those used in more 'sporting' mma, just more blood as there's no gloves. i've fought both set of rules - didnt make any difference to my training.

Hi John,

I imagine that if you fought in modern UFC with gloves, rounds, etc then you have more chance to use punches/kicks and as your training needs to reflect the situation in the ring, then a greater amount of your training will be spent with a punchbag (for example).

However if there are very little rules, then due to the nature of grappling vs striking, there will be a lot less striking and therefore a greater amount of your training will be spent on groundwork.

So I "imagine" that the rules will make a difference to your training.

Regards,

Michael

john kavanagh

well having done both i dont have to imagine

but check out the rio heroes fights, will answer your question for yourself - always a rewarding experience.

Michael O Leary

john kavanagh wrote: »

well having done both i dont have to imagine

but check out the rio heroes fights, will answer your question for yourself - always a rewarding experience.

Hi John,

I will have a look at the fights but for the moment can you tell me if I am wrong in that fights with no gloves and time limits have a lot less striking in them and therefore your training should incorporate a smaller ratio of striking vs grappling?

Regards,

Michael

bilbo79

Michael O Leary wrote: »

Hi John,

I will have a look at the fights but for the moment can you tell me if I am wrong in that fights with no gloves and time limits have a lot less striking in them and therefore your training should incorporate a smaller ratio of striking vs grappling?

Regards,

Michael

The strikers in the old ufc where untrained at take down defense so the fight always ended up as grappling matches, thats less part of it now due to people training grappling striking and takedown defense..
cant really be compared..

Michael O Leary

bilbo79 wrote: »

The strikers in the old ufc where untrained at take down defense so the fight always ended up as grappling matches, thats less part of it now due to people training grappling striking and takedown defense..
cant really be compared..

Hi Willy,

I take your point, interesting.

Instead of comparing old UFC guys against new ones, how about we ask another question?

If modern MMA/UFC fighters fought under the old rules, would the result be significently different in that there would be significently more grappling and less striking?

Regards,

Michael

columok

Michael,

No doubt a fight without gloves will favour less noggin punching. That's a given.

therefore your training should incorporate a smaller ratio of striking vs grappling?

The proportion of standup clinch and ground in an MMA match is impossible to predict therefore either a balanced training is important. There will always be variables whether that is hurting your hand before a fight, having no gloves, going up against a BJJ wunderkind or a professional boxer. A REAL MMA exponent can vary their tactics depending on the situation that presents itself.

If you aren't training in a balanced way or have too little depth in your gameplan then there is a very real chance that you may be caught out. Best example I can think of is Royce Vs. Sakuraba 1. Royce had a limited gameplan and because of his inability to takedown Saku he had little or no chance of winning for the duration of that fight.

When you factor in a different ruleset (either fewer or more rules), as in MMA League or it's diametric opposite Rio Heroes, the key skills remain constant. The generalist has the highest probablity of success. MMA competition skills are at the core of Vale Tudo competition. Some adaptation is required obviously. But the specific skills required for Vale Tudo fighting are minor compared to the skills required for MMA.

Colum