Someone posted this question on Quora.com so I pasted it here because I`d like to here MMA fans vue on this subject, I think no rules MMA fights would be a disaster, am I wrong?
Early UFC was close to being no rules. What happens is fairly simple: they guys that probably would have won anyway simply have a larger arsenal of things they can do to the guys that would have probably lost anyway. Allowing stuff like biting or eye gouging would probably not change the outcomes of matches very much. The really effective things would remain effective. One thing that might be a fairly substantial game changer is small-joint manipulation ... breaking of fingers and toes etc. A good jiujitsu guy would be able to make good use of that I suspect. But yeah, in general you're just going to have losers that are more injured than they otherwise need to be.
They had that in Ancient Greece , one fighter of notoriety specialized in breaking fingers one by one , I think someone ended up biting off his nose .
I think the best way to parse this out is to focus on the distinction between techniques which are currently banned but which aren't exceptionally dirty, compared to a second catagory: the wantonly brutal dirty tactics: Catagory 1 includes: 12-6 elbows, stomps, soccer kicks, headbutts, knees to the head of a downed opponent, fence grabbing, punches/elbows to the back of the head/neck (this is probably the most 'dirty' in this group). Category 2 includes: fish-hooking, eye-gouging, single digit manipulation, low blows, biting etc. Allowing the techniques in Category 1 would have a GIANT impact, particularly those restricting the use of strikes to the head on the ground. The threat of knees on the ground would force grapplers to restructure their approach. Getting stuck under a sprawling opponent who can throw knees with impunity would be a fight-ending scenario. If fence grabbing were also allowed, sprawl and brawlers would have a significant new meta to work with. Meanwhile, imagine if a fighter in top side control could load up with knees to the head of the guy he's controlling. Currently if the guy holding top side control wants to end the fight he can either try one or two submissions (kimura/americana/arm triangle), or he could take mount, or work for the back. In terms of ending the fight with strikes from side control, that's generally a challenge. It's not exactly easy to generate power when you're holding a guy is kesa-gatame. Knees to the head of a downed opponent would offer a chance to finish things in a hurry from that position. Going into a little less depth to discuss the changes to back control, strikes to the back of the head would spare the controlling fighter the effort required with hand fighting or getting the choking arm flush under the chin. Just get the guy belly down when you're on his back and unload with elbows until the poor ******* gets hooked up to a respirator. For category 2, I think you would see a lot of biting from guys defending submissions, maybe kicks to the junk, and some eye-gouging but not nearly as much as a civilian who has never trained would assume. MMA wouldn't suddenly turn into guys punching each other in the stones or giving each other Indian burns to win.
For one, it would have been banned and outlawed which is why the rules were introduced. I think the grapplers suffer most from the rule changes, but then it's balanced out because they benefit most from the way fights are scored. Small joint manipulation is a huge game changer though, any close grapple could be a game changer.
No, the game has just moved on in spades, all sport evolves and gets better, the moves fighters are trained now weren`t being trained back then, they were kind of primitive in comparison to the likes of Conor or Khabib, who would both have detroyed anyone in the early UFC contests, women`s MMA has picked since Rousey`s days, which is how she got exposed as a one trick pony.
That's just simply not true. Choking a man out is still choking a man out. G&P is still G&P. If anything fighters now are less skilled at specifics because they now train in a multiple disciplined way. I think it's fair to say most of the fighters today will have better stamina because early UFC guys didn't seem to train conditioning as much but in terms of actual skillset I disagree they are better now. I just feel they're more rounded
Khabib is far better at G&P than any earl;y UFC fighter, look how Gracie eventually got exposed after being completely dominant because matial artists hadn`t been taught how to deal with a good ground game.
Look at what you're actually saying. How is it actually possible to be superior at gaining mount and p punchingsomeone. Gracie was not really beaten until 13 years after he'd won his first UFC. So I don't think he was ever exposed.
No, but pure BJJ will have evolved by now also in the same way that Olmpic judo contestants are more advanced than when Judo was first allowed at the Olympics.
If there were no rules then it would ruin the sport. Would people really want to see eye gouges and nut shots ending fights ?
