Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pride FC vs UFC
Options
-
01-05-2012 10:54am#1Hi guys,
What are your thoughts on modern day UFC in comparison to Pride?
Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.
Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.
0
Comments
-
Hi guys,
What are your thoughts on modern day UFC in comparison to Pride?
Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.
Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.
If we're talking about the technical aspects, then the modern UFC is distinctly superior to Pride. The level of technique involved and required in the sport has evolved way beyond what appeared in in the days of Pride.
As for raw strength over technique...that is distinctly not an accurate appraisal over how the sport works.
There is a distinct difference between relying on strength instead of techique and making use of strength while performing technique.
Anyway, so from a technical standpoint, modern UFC is better.
From a showmanship point of view, Pride really had that nailed.0 -
Hi guys,
Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.
Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.
My opinion on this would be, that is one of the most ridiculous comments/posts I have seen on this forum.0 -
Hi guys,
What are your thoughts on modern day UFC in comparison to Pride?
Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.
Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.
The raw strength thing is completely wrong in my opinion.
But i do agree with some fighters turning the sport into a 'less showy, let's grind out a victory' which isn't entertaining for the fans.0 -
-
My opinion on this would be, that is one of the most ridiculous comments/posts I have seen on this forum.
Why? I trained in jiu Jitsu for many years and watched pride, UFC and K-1, but, from watching over the years, I find that in UFC, wrestlers especially the stronger ones just pin opponents to the cage. I prefer the fight to be reset in the middle of the ring so that technique wins over strength. I don't think pinning someone to a cage shows much if any skill and certainly doesn't merit reward in the form of a victory.
In terms of fighters, I find the UFC fighters to be of lower quality for this reason. There are some quality fighters there alright (GSP, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones etc.) but then you have over hyped average fighters like Michael Bisping etc, who just dont cut the mustard.
Personally, I found Pride to be a superior franchise.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
dilapidating wrote: »I think Kimbo had superior raw strength.
Maybe so, but the same could have been said about Kevin Randleman
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MrStuffins wrote: »Came into this thread with high hopes of a good conversation............ then read the OP!
I am disappoint
I think the thread must be just a complete wind up and we are after chomping at the bit. So I'm done with it! :cool:0 -
You don't think shooting for a double or single leg, taking your opponent down, then keeping him down, especially if he has a good BJJ ground game requires much if any skill? Well then I don't think you fully understand the skill involved in doing so.
It's mixed martial arts don't forget, and different fighters will always have different styles. It's up to whoever is not of a wrestling background to train on counteracting this!
Bisping is a big draw for the UFC and has only been beaten by the very top level guys but we could talk all day about him because he has so many people that dislike him. But lower quality fightes in general??? Renan Barao, Ben Henderson, Rory McDonald.....the list could go on and on. All young exciting top quality fighters making a name for themselves.
I wasn't talking about take downs, I was talking about pinning someone to the cage. Of course take downs require skill.
I didn't find him to be a decent fighter from what I've seen personally.pablohoney87 wrote: »I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism
Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.
1. - Fedor has beaten Arlovski, Sylvia, Noguiera, Coleman Randleman. All former UFC champions. He is past it now. Rampage was quite strong in UFC if I do remember correctly.
2. Not necessarily, many of the fighters had strong stand up and ground games. This happens in all MMA franchises.
3. I'm sorry now but Brock Lesnar is a prime example proving otherwise.The Bored One wrote: »Why should it? If the striker cannot stop himself being taken down, if he cannot of his own ability get back to his feet, why should it be the responsibility of anyone bar himself?
You probably misinterpreted what I was saying, I had said that grapplers and fighters with strong ground game have the upperhand compared to strikers because you cant soccer kick and can pin against the cage. In pride this didnt happen.Logical Fallacy wrote: »I find in the UFC that a lot of ground based fighters will completely ignore what they are good at and stay on the feet getting punched in the face until they lose.
I think the Top 10 of any division in the UFC are, for the most part, well round guys with some skill in all areas.
Well thats a downfall of the UFC, it encourages a more slugfest/grind out a win style fight as opposed to a disciplined fight.Jason McCabe wrote: »The cage does suit the wrestlers due to the control it can give
So learn to wrestle
As for strength. Marius P did not fair that well.
Plus strength generally decreases as numbers of rounds goes up
That's not my point, my point is that watching someone pinned to a cage for 30 minutes is not entertaining. In a ring they would be reset and the fight could go on.
Pudzian is a bodybuilder, I dont even know why he was put into it. He could never be fit enough for MMA.MrStuffins wrote: »Came into this thread with high hopes of a good conversation............ then read the OP!
I am disappoint
Why because I have an opinion on a sport that I used to love to watch and compete in for over 10 years until UFC ruined it?I think the thread must be just a complete wind up and we are after chomping at the bit. So I'm done with it! :cool:
How is it a wind up? I genuinely prefer pride rules to UFC rules and wanted to see what others interested in MMA had to say, but hey, you wanna just leave smart comments then please do as you were and leaving this thread.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Not even gonna entertain arlovski randlemen and Coleman. Sylvia he did destroy but hardly in his prime.
Nog is a legitimate scalp yes.
Rampage was more interested in partying and getting his dik wet in Japan. His attitude to training changed coming back to America.
Brock is a prime example of someone getting a title shot hedidn't deserve. But sure that never happened in pride 0 -
MrStuffins wrote: »Elements of Pride Rules and Japanese rules would benefit modern day MMA, especially the judging.
But lad, you're living in the past. You're making Pride out to have been this be all and end all of MMA, where every fight was between 2 top guys with amazing technique. Talk about rose tinted glasses.
You do realise that a lot of the early Pride fights were works right?
You do realise that Pride facilitated a ridiculous amount of freakshows on their cards yeah? Butterbean v Zulu? Fedor v Zulu? Takese v Yarborough? Countless more!
Pride were known for sticking good guys in against massively over-matched guys in order to create slick highlight videos for their big names.
I'm not denying Pride had great champions and great matches and was, in turn, great. But you're being very selective here in what you're saying. You're misrepresenting what Pride was, it's as if you've never actually seen a Pride event and you've just read about it in a book somewhere.
Well no its mainly the rules of Pride that I much prefer.
I know there was matches like that, mainly because of the open weight class, they were pretty sh1te.
No you are wrong there, I used follow Pride religiously!pablohoney87 wrote: »Not even gonna entertain arlovski randlemen and Coleman. Sylvia he did destroy but hardly in his prime.
Nog is a legitimate scalp yes.
Rampage was more interested in partying and getting his dik wet in Japan. His attitude to training changed coming back to America.
Brock is a prime example of someone getting a title shot hedidn't deserve. But sure that never happened in pride
Well I'm just making the point that they were UFC champions. Sylvia was always a terrible fighter!
This crap goes on in a lot of fight sports but as I said, its the pride rules and use of the ring instead of cage that would benefit UFC immensely, but the cage is the commercial product synonymous with MMA now 0 -
-
-
-
-
Pride was awesome...in it's day. Modern days UFC has amazingly skilled fighters like Aldo, Ben Henderson and GSP who would succeed under any mma ruleset.pablohoney87 wrote: »I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism
Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.
"Its hard for an opinion to be wrong, but yours is" That's a dickheaded thing to say.
1. The aforementioned Pride stars were in their prime at the time of pride. By the time they moved to the UFC, the game has changed and passed them by for the most part. it doesnt mean they were bad fighters or in any way over-rated, it just means they got old or stale. Rampage did okay, Henderson and Shogun did great, Anderson Silva is dominant, etc
2. I dont entirely agree. When compared to modern MMA, everything looked one dimensional back then whether it's UFc or Pride. Don't fool yourself that there weren't any well rounded fighters in Pride.
3. I'm not sure what that means.0 -
-
Spideog Rua wrote: »Pride was awesome...in it's day. Modern days UFC has amazingly skilled fighters like Aldo, Ben Henderson and GSP who would succeed under any mma ruleset.pablohoney87 wrote: »I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism
Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.
"Its hard for an opinion to be wrong, but yours is" That's a dickheaded thing to say.
1. The aforementioned Pride stars were in their prime at the time of pride. By the time they moved to the UFC, the game has changed and passed them by for the most part. it doesnt mean they were bad fighters or in any way over-rated, it just means they got old or stale. Rampage did okay, Henderson and Shogun did great, Anderson Silva is dominant, etc
2. I dont entirely agree. When compared to modern MMA, everything looked one dimensional back then whether it's UFc or Pride. Don't fool yourself that there weren't any well rounded fighters in Pride.
3. I'm not sure what that means.
I sounded that way because i am one
I think you missed my point.
Anderson was hardly a pride big name. Just an up and comer
Hendo was ducked by wandy for a long time cuz of his status. Shogun never got his shot bein silvas partner.
My point is the competition might have been there but was rarely put to the superstars.
the strength thing was referring to the op0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement