'Japanese'-style MMA in Ireland

Jayo_M

I just watched the Dream 14 post-fight presser with Nick Diaz. Diaz was asked would he be interested in splitting his career between the US and Japan. Diaz said if Dream continues to use the cage, then probably not citing two reasons. The first being that he feels that cage in particular is dangerous for fighters - apparently there's a piece of metal running along the bottom of the fence. But the main reason is that he fights in Japan because he feels that the ring, the 10+5 minute rounds and the scoring criteria is 'how MMA should be'.

Personally, I agree with him. I think it makes for more exciting fights, and it's an overall better system, although it is flawed (like the mess of fighters getting tangled in the ropes and having to be reset). It just got me thinking, is there any scope/interest for this 'type' of MMA in Ireland, or has it been done in the past?

cowzerp

rings are way more dangerous than cages

Jayo_M

He was just referring to the construction of the Dream cage in particular, not cages in general.

calex71

The Dream cage is made of fishnet type mesh as opposed to steal , which can give you a nasty 'burn' I'd say

I like the ring too and it's one of the reasons I like Dream, there are several reason's why I favor it as a fan, main one being it's a change and allows for a slightly slightly different style of fight. It doesn't allow the fighters to lay against it in a clinch and work for take down's etc. something I feel happens too much in a cage, not against this as such it's more down to referee's being slow to separate fighters if it's going nowhere.

What can be annoying in a ring is the resets when the fighters are grounded and working close to the ropes, and is really dependent on the experience of the referee but still annoying when the fight is stopped and reset and then an arguement about position happens or someone loses a great chance for a sub etc.


I favor the Japanese rule set more so than I would the cage vs ring.

Such as the scoring of take downs and them not counting for as much if the fighter does nothing from the takedown, no elbows to the head on the ground, knees being allowed on the ground like from side control, I don't like knees to be used when for example one guy is down and on knees and opponent is standing, I feel knees from side control prevents stalling and the whole lay and pray side of the game. (Disclaimer: opinion based purely as a fan watching the sport)

Here's one for those in the game here, something which i saw someone get warned for on UFC last night. Guy is on his back and he up kicks from the ground to the head of his opponent who is standing - legal right?

However if a fighter upkicks while on his back on the ground, and kicks the other fighter in the face while he is say backing out of his guard or attempting to stand but technically still down this counts as kicking to the head of a downed opponent and as such is not then legal

I think the rule set used by ufc and others world wide is likely seen as the safest ruleset for those concerned? Or the 'standard' ?

Stuffy

calex71 wrote: »

Here's one for those in the game here, something which i saw someone get warned for on UFC last night. Guy is on his back and he up kicks from the ground to the head of his opponent who is standing - legal right?

However if a fighter upkicks while on his back on the ground, and kicks the other fighter in the face while he is say backing out of his guard or attempting to stand but technically still down this counts as kicking to the head of a downed opponent and as such is not then legal

I think the rule set used by ufc and others world wide is likely seen as the safest ruleset for those concerned? Or the 'standard' ?

3 points of contact on the mat is what defines a downed opponant*, I think it was Hathaway who was falling into Diego's guard at the time and was/ or almost on his knees. It wasn't deliberate though as Hathaway was only going to ground, different if he had been on the ground for a few mins and then Sanchez connected with one. But yes they are still illegal as long as a fighter has 3 points of contact on the mat.

*The rules state that 3 points of contact is a downed opponant but you may see fighters standing clinched against the cage and they put a hand on the ground. This is coming into question though as technically the fighter is grounded, but he is also standing. Paul Buentello did it recently and Kongo connected with a knee, Herb Dean then told Paul he was playing the rules (ie. putting his hand down to technically ground him) so no point was deducted.

UFC's rules are pretty solid imo, knees or soccer kicks to the head of a downed opponant isn't nice to see

cardio,shoot me

Stuffy wrote: »

Paul Buentello did it recently and Kongo connected with a knee, Herb Dean then told Paul he was playing the rules (ie. putting his hand down to technically ground him) so no point was deducted.

im pretty sure the reason herb told paul he was playing the game was because, he would keep his hand off the ground, right until kongo threw the knee, then hed put it down, baiting kongo into throwing the illegal move. if he left his hand down, it would have been fine

Stuffy

cardio,shoot me wrote: »

im pretty sure the reason herb told paul he was playing the game was because, he would keep his hand off the ground, right until kongo threw the knee, then hed put it down, baiting kongo into throwing the illegal move. if he left his hand down, it would have been fine

Good point I didn't notice that but similiar circumstances.

I have seen in smaller MMA events in the states where fighters put there hand on the ground to technically ground them, one which actually resulted in a DQ for a fighter due to an illegal knee. Granted he was rocked but he was straining the rule book alright.

I haven't actually witnessed a fighter been caught for this in a fight, but in a certain MMA camp in NYC they actually encourage this tactic to fighters if they are in an uncomprimising situation.