Pride FC vs UFC

Spideog Rua

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I disagree and prefer the ring for fights. This is my opinion.
No. I never said I competed for 10 years. I said I watched it for about 10 years and did train in Jiu Jitsu and also Judo for a little bit. I don't think a cage being safer makes for a better fight.

Why do you think a ring is safer?

Kev_2012

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Why do you think a ring is safer?

I never said the ring was safer?

Spideog Rua

pablohoney87 wrote: »

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 op

Gotcha. Modern day UFC is obviously far more competitive and has a deeper talent pool, but i dont think you'll see team-mates fighting each other.

You can't really compare MMA as it is now to what it was then. It's eveolved into a different animal.

MrStuffins

Kev_2012 wrote: »

No. I never said I competed for 10 years.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

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?

pablohoney87

Spideog Rua wrote: »

You can't really compare MMA as it is now to what it was then. It's eveolved into a different animal.

Agreed yet here we are doing it.

MrStuffins

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Gotcha. Modern day UFC is obviously far more competitive and has a deeper talent pool, but i dont think you'll see team-mates fighting each other.

The Bored One

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I disagree and prefer the ring for fights. This is my opinion.



No. I never said I competed for 10 years. I said I watched it for about 10 years and did train in Jiu Jitsu and also Judo for a little bit. I don't think a cage being safer makes for a better fight.

Well the major problem with the ring for me is the way it interrupts grappling. The fighters have to be repeatedly reset and moved away from the ropes when the fight hits the ground. That distinctly counts against it because it interrupts the flow and the fight itself.
You also said that you don't like fighters being pinned against the cage, but the exact same thing happens with fighters being pinned in the corners of the ring.

Kev_2012

MrStuffins wrote: »

apologies. I meant watched for over 10 years, but also competed in

Kev_2012

The Bored One wrote: »

Well the major problem with the ring for me is the way it interrupts grappling. The fighters have to be repeatedly reset and moved away from the ropes when the fight hits the ground. That distinctly counts against it because it interrupts the flow and the fight itself.
You also said that you don't like fighters being pinned against the cage, but the exact same thing happens with fighters being pinned in the corners of the ring.

This is actually the reason I prefer the ring! I liked when they reset the fight because I couldn't stand fighters being pinned. I just don't like it, not interesting to watching imo.

pablohoney87

Kev_2012 wrote: »

The Bored One wrote: »

Well the major problem with the ring for me is the way it interrupts grappling. The fighters have to be repeatedly reset and moved away from the ropes when the fight hits the ground. That distinctly counts against it because it interrupts the flow and the fight itself.
You also said that you don't like fighters being pinned against the cage, but the exact same thing happens with fighters being pinned in the corners of the ring.

This is actually the reason I prefer the ring! I liked when they reset the fight because I couldn't stand fighters being pinned. I just don't like it, not interesting to watching imo.

then go watch muay Thai

Spideog Rua

MrStuffins wrote: »

They aint team-mates

The Bored One

Kev_2012 wrote: »

This is actually the reason I prefer the ring! I liked when they reset the fight because I couldn't stand fighters being pinned. I just don't like it, not interesting to watching imo.

Thats the thing, they'd have to be stopped and moved to another part of the ring, then continue grappling. That's seperate from what you're speaking about though.
You seem to be talking about them being stood up whenever one fighter is pinning the other without any advance being made.
But....that happens in the UFC too. In fact it happens with much greater frequency and faster than it did in alot of Pride events.
It also happens when ever fighters stall by pinning against the cage, if it goes on too long without advancing position, the fighters are reset.

MrStuffins

Spideog Rua wrote: »

MrStuffins wrote: »

They aint team-mates

They were when originally slated to fight each other. That's WHY they're not team mates.

Also, GSP will most likely fight Carlos Condit next (injuries permitting). They are yeam mates.

The Bored One

MrStuffins wrote: »

They were when originally slated to fight each other. That's WHY they're not team mates.

Also, GSP will most likely fight Carlos Condit next (injuries permitting). They are yeam mates.

Well I'm scarred for life now. GSP and Condit...yeaming together.

Jason McCabe

Why would learning how to pin someone against a cage be seen as a lesser skill than learning to pin them on the ground???


Both valid and equally important nowadays.

Mellor

Kev_2012 wrote: »

3. I'm sorry now but Brock Lesnar is a prime example proving otherwise.

Brock as an elite level wrestler who was also very big/strong. Saying that he was strength without technique is pretty stupid.

Pudzian is a bodybuilder, I dont even know why he was put into it. He could never be fit enough for MMA.

No he wasn't a bodybuilder.
Another example falls apart.

Pudz is the very definitino of strong without technique.

scudzilla

People are, IMO, WAYYYYY too nostalgic over Pride, sure it was good and had SOME great match ups but UFC pisses all over it.

Pride was more corrupt than Charlie Haughey and Bertie combined!!

Pride Fighter

I have seen over 50 Pride's and about 90% of the last 60 UFC's. Pride was more interesting because of the clash of styles, someone like Sakuraba was a top grappler, both at wrestling and submissions, but was not a well rounded fighter, he had awful stand up. So when Wanderlei fought him first Wand won, but when they fought again, Saku was winning before he was injured and had to quit. There is no longer style versus style in MMA, you have to be good at everything, or you lose.

In saying that, UFC is better, cause the fighters are now better, in MMA you either evolve or become extinct, everyone does everything now. But some of the UFC matches can be a bit like the 2003 Champions league final between AC Milan and Juve. Because both fighters are so good, they can nullify each other and the fight can be boring. Not all the time though, and UFC kicks ass, as does any MMA generally.

DeadlyByDesign

Hate to be "that guy", but the only reason I did not like pride was the soccer kicking to the head. IN no way shape or form is that safe for fighters and it just looked "dirty" to me.

Plastikman_eire

DeadlyByDesign wrote: »

Hate to be "that guy", but the only reason I did not like pride was the soccer kicking to the head. IN no way shape or form is that safe for fighters and it just looked "dirty" to me.

IMO that's the one aspect missing from the NSAC rule set. Let the wrestlers have the advantage of the cage, but I'd like to see the playing field levelled a bit for strikers by allowing 4 point strikes.

From a fighter safety standpoint; Id bet the force generated from a soccer kick, is far less than that which is generated from a round house to the head standing.

DeadlyByDesign

I dont know. with the round house to the head standing, you have more of a chance at blocking (i think), a soccer kick or full on stomp is harder to stop, plus in regards to the stomp, it is worsened at the canvas does not leave room for the head to dissipate any energy/force

Plastikman_eire

DeadlyByDesign wrote: »

I dont know. with the round house to the head standing, you have more of a chance at blocking (i think), a soccer kick or full on stomp is harder to stop, plus in regards to the stomp, it is worsened at the canvas does not leave room for the head to dissipate any energy/force

I should mention that I agree with your original point(That kicking a downed opponent in the head looks extremely unsavoury, and stomping particularly so. That said, they are bloody exciting to watch), but I dont see how those those techniques generate any more force then some allowed attacks.

Soccer kick v Round House to head - Roundhouse travels further so should generate greater force.

Stomp v diving through someones guard with a punch - Again im guessing but I imagine the punch has greater body weight behind it, and a similar sized contact area(fist v ball of foot/heel)

Knee to downed opp v knee from thai clinch - Here I think the downward pressure on the head makes the standing knee more damaging also.

(Knees to the head from north/south I still think should be a no no, as it presents a real risk of compressing vertebrae and damaging the neck)

cowzerp

When pride was going I loved it, I thought it was better and the fighters where better, in hindsight I think the fights where often bad mismatches in pride and it was not uncommon to see some pro wrestler getting battered by a real fighter.

Maybe they where quite even at prides peak-now the UFC is leagues ahead of where pride was, natural evolution so that is to be expected.

I'd still love to have the option of both though.

DeadlyByDesign

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

I should mention that I agree with your original point(That kicking a downed opponent in the head looks extremely unsavoury, and stomping particularly so. That said, they are bloody exciting to watch), but I dont see how those those techniques generate any more force then some allowed attacks.

Soccer kick v Round House to head - Roundhouse travels further so should generate greater force.

Stomp v diving through someones guard with a punch - Again im guessing but I imagine the punch has greater body weight behind it, and a similar sized contact area(fist v ball of foot/heel)

Knee to downed opp v knee from thai clinch - Here I think the downward pressure on the head makes the standing knee more damaging also.

(Knees to the head from north/south I still think should be a no no, as it presents a real risk of compressing vertebrae and damaging the neck)

I see what you mean. I would be of the opinion that there is less resistance on a downward stop (coupled with all the muscles in the leg) vs the upward traverse of a roundhouse kick. Any one have a BA in physics to weigh in here?:)

Mellor

Plastikman_eire wrote: »

I should mention that I agree with your original point(That kicking a downed opponent in the head looks extremely unsavoury, and stomping particularly so. That said, they are bloody exciting to watch), but I dont see how those those techniques generate any more force then some allowed attacks.

Seriously?

Soccer kick v Round House to head - Roundhouse travels further so should generate greater force.

Force isn't related accelleration not distance. It's not going to keep accelleration for the full distance. Plus, ROM restriction means that connective is more resistant when kickign higher.

Example:
Kick a football off the ground. Kick a football held at head hight. Which goes further. (granted the effect is les in a trained alhlete, but max force is not generated at head height for anyone imo)

Stomp v diving through someones guard with a punch - Again im guessing but I imagine the punch has greater body weight behind it, and a similar sized contact area(fist v ball of foot/heel)

A stomp has your full body weight behind/above it. A punch rarely does due to body position. Plus the leg is a more robust/rigid and better able to transfer the forces.

Knee to downed opp v knee from thai clinch - Here I think the downward pressure on the head makes the standing knee more damaging also.

If the head was in a positon where it unable to move with the blow (agaisnt mat, of in corner of the cage, or due to being in north south position) the energy transfer is much greater.

Plastikman_eire

Mellor wrote: »

Seriously?


Force isn't related accelleration not distance. It's not going to keep accelleration for the full distance. Plus, ROM restriction means that connective is more resistant when kickign higher.

Example:
Kick a football off the ground. Kick a football held at head hight. Which goes further. (granted the effect is les in a trained alhlete, but max force is not generated at head height for anyone imo)


A stomp has your full body weight behind/above it. A punch rarely does due to body position. Plus the leg is a more robust/rigid and better able to transfer the forces.


If the head was in a positon where it unable to move with the blow (agaisnt mat, of in corner of the cage, or due to being in north south position) the energy transfer is much greater.

Cheers for the info, you've clearly got a better understand of physics than I have, and I wouldn’t argue that under ideal circumstances what you are saying is bang on ie the 'kicking a ball' example(kicks thrown in a relaxed and timely fashion without someone trying to use their guard), but I wonder if in practice the theories hold up?

The only time I could see a fight matching the 'kicking a ball' analogy is if the opponent is already unconscious, and just allowing it to happen, which thankfully the ref would never allow.

In reality, the opportunity to kick a downed opponent comes about from either a knockdown, or a failed takedown where the kicker has to either strike past his opponents guard, or from very close quarters(Which, and I’m guessing here, reduces the power in the kick?). I could be talking rubbish tbh, but watching Pride/Icon/Shooto etc I’ve never seen someone sparked out from a single soccer kick like the way head kicks seem to drop people.

With stomps, again from watching them being used in competition, it seems to be very very difficult to deliver a strike with the maxim potential force, in fact they seem more like jabs with the foot.

As for knees on the ground, as I’ve said, from north/south should remain a no no, but I can't see a position that would permit knees to be thrown where the floor would prevent the force from dissipating(those would have to come from 12 to 6 o'clock?). Knees thrown from side control surely can’t generate the same force as standing and pulling the head into the strike?

All guesswork and assumption, I’d appreciate if you could shed any light on it.

cowzerp

Mellor wrote: »

A stomp has your full body weight behind/above it. A punch rarely does due to body position. Plus the leg is a more robust/rigid and better able to transfer the forces.

Wrong, In a stomp most your weight is on 1 leg-it is the leg weight and strength that does the power, Stomps are banned because they tend to happen when opponent is defenseless rather than the power involved, A proper executed roundhouse would definetly have more power speed and weight behind it.

Also if you punch correct you will transfer your full body weight into it

Plastikman_eire

cowzerp wrote: »

Also if you punch correct you will transfer your full body weight into it

I was thinking more of something along the lines of how shogun finished overeem. Surely that had more mustard on it then a stomp would have?