Is UFC not brutal enough...do wrestlers have an unfair advantage?

The only real advantage any art had is BJJ because in the beginning people didn't have a scooby what was going on. It went past a normal headlock or hammerlock.

 

It's not during the shot, it's after an unsuccessful shot. There are frequently instances where the guy taking the shot has one or both knees down and other guy is in a position to knee them in the head or more infrequently kick them. It wouldn't be used as a defense to a shot but would be a big penalty on shots that didn't succeed.

 

:good:deal

 

Why on earth would a wrestler stay on the floor while his opponent is standing?

 

You guys got me totally wrong in my thread, asking the question is UFC to brutal.

I wasn't posing the question is some namby-pamby Goodhart ninny.

I was posing the question so the next headliner does end in 20 seconds because one of the fighters rolls his ankle and is jump on.

When I pay to watch a fight, I want to enjoy watching the fighter skill, not yet another flash in the pan victory and it's all over. Or 15 minutes of ground rolling.

I'm not happy with the way UFC is, if other people are, I am happy that they are happy. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who really cares about the sport.

 

That would happen A LOT less frequently than a wrestler being on top and kneeing the **** out of his opponent underneath him. Knees to a downed opponent would help the wrestler (GNP) A LOT more than it would help a striker.

 

Nope, it comes from a stuffed shot. Guys who go for a single and double leg and get stuffed end up in a north-south position where they can be kneed to the head.

There are, options for a wrestler who gets something like side mount, to transition north-south with the opponent on his back, but this would remove significant body control, leaving fairly good opportunity to escape, also rather awkward positioning, trying to knee the head.

 

That does happen (I think crocop KO'd Yoshida like that?), but more often you see someone with good control on the ground who could do some damage with knees. Watch early mark Kerr fights...bloodbaths.

And btw, I don't think allowing knees matters much to someone who wants to sprawl and strike, but it does help the jiu jitsu guys a lot. The unified rules help jj fighters a lot at the expense of wrestlers.

 

I assure you that you are 100% wrong in your second paragraph. It is actually EXTREMELY easy to knee to the head and keep control. It is actually easier to knee while keeping your opponent controlled than it is to elbow while keeping control.

On the first paragraph... I don't know why everyone keeps re-explaining the same thing over and over. I already know what you are saying. What you don't understand is that a wrestler simply wouldn't linger in that position if his opponent had the option of kneeing him in the head. Not only that... but you could time the knee and snatch it up for an easy takedown as well. A regular striker isn't going to have enough control from a front headlock position from a stuffed shot in order to hold a good wrestler down if he doesn't want to be there. There are a ton of wrestling escapes from that position.

Once again... kneed to a downed opponent help a wrestler much more than a standing striker. MUCH more. MMA caters to strikers at the expense of the grapplers. That's reality. From the rules to the gloves.. to standing fighters up when they don't feel there is enough action on the ground, ect... Who is going to stand you up if you are on your back in a real fight? Why don't they put fights to the ground when it is a boring non-action fight on their feet? Get the point?

 

Actually, it did happen some, but I don't think it was refined. Gomi did it to Gracie as well.. I'm only saying that, the single and double legs are pretty much the overt takedown attempts, and the guys tend to not pay a penalty when they are stuffed.. We know fighters are awarded for takedowns themselves, but what about stuffing a takedown?

And also, BJJ players/fighters tend to have the sort of weak single leg attempt, get stuffed plenty of times as well. Obviously not their only attempt, and I'm not sayign every bjj guy has weak takedown attempts, it's just a general observation.

Rethinking what Widdow is saying, are you saying that from the side mount? I want to see this in action and how people cope with it. The angle from side mount is odd, seems like it ban be defended against if you turn into them.