That is what this discussion started as. Kneeing on the ground is a major aspect of ground -n- pound. Thanks for proving my point.:good
If head stopms and knees were still allowed ruthless finishers... and i am talking about Wanderlei Silva would continue to seriously hurt his opponents and put them out of the game for a while..... Then again it is the purest form of fighting, the UFC want to protect their fighters.
Rules in Favor of a Striker: Gloves. Relatively short 5 minute rounds. Standups Rules in Favor of Grappler: No knees on the ground No soccer kicks/stomps No elbows on the ground. The only major organization I can think of that doesn't allow both kicks/knees and elbows on the ground is SF. Others? I think strikers clearly have an advantage with the rules. Without gloves strikers couldn't strike the same they do now. They would be significantly less effective. Good boxers in MMA almost definitely can't box with no gloves on without ****ing up their hands, no doubt. A fighter who wins by striking could lose the fight with his first or second punch by breaking his hand on the top of someone's head.
Most Ground and pounders are wrestlers.... so no knees and elbows on the ground hurt the ground n pound fighters much more than it hurts standing strikers. A true standing striker is never bothered by that, because he can simple stand right back up and force his opponent to be stood up.... or just stall out until the ref forces them up. If anything... it greatly helps strikers who find themselves on their backs against a wrestler. It is a lot easier to not have to deal with elbows or knees from the person on top of you... on top of that... it becomes even easier to tie them up and wait out for a standup. I agree though... the rules favor the strikers by a large margin. I also agree about the gloves. The gloves do nothing but hurt wrestlers and grapplers... but they are a blessing for strikers. That is the entire reason that gloves were introduced into MMA... because everyone was breaking their hands.
would you like to attempt to contest any of the statements I made? or are you satisfied with the discussion as is?
Nah man. You can condition your hands to a point, but landing a punch on a sitting brick with perfect form isn't the same as fighting someone. Your hand has 27 tiny ass bones in it and you can't expect to land all picture perfect punches in a fight. If fighters didn't have gloves their hands would break far far farmore often, period. It is clueless to argue otherwise. Pro boxers know it. Lol, Art Jimmerson knew it at UFC 1. You think if there were a way to train your hands so that you could throw barefisted punches an entire fight without hurting them there would be as many boxers as there are who wear big ass 10oz gloves and still have weak hands?
Think about how Cro-cop used to just stand over people and kick at their head. It was more of a "stand up and pound" than ground and pound.
Boxers do not condition their hands to hit with bare knuckles. Yes, there would be more broken hands in mma. But That is punching in its current, unrealistic state and not nearly as many broken hands as there would be if people actually had to learn to punch properly. Also, the damage would be greatly increased, and the fights would be bloodier and shorter due to the true nature of striking. If you gave me an option to fight a grappler with or without gloves you can bet your ass I'd choose barefist. you mention that the ability to break bricks is a result of technique, and you are correct (though there are other factors involved such as bone density, calouses developed) and it is a technique which can, and has been sucesfully developed and is applicable in combat. Yes, it would take skill to land perfect punches every time, but the effectiveness of the punches you did land would be far greater.
I used to get caught up arguing points over and over again with people who simply fail to see things realistically. I don't do that anymore.:good
I avoid discussions with people who get overly emotional, offensive, frequently use logical fallacies, talk in circles, etc... but when people are having a logical conversation with me I tend to have the decency to respond to their post, or admit the possibility that they may have a point.
You don't have a point Joe if you think it is that gloves are a disadvantage to strikers. You are so obviously 100% wrong that it is silly to argue. If you think grapplers OVERALL have an advantage that is debatable, but gloves very very clearly make punching more effective and it is so obvious that it seems downright ignorant to dispute.
Yeah but fighters were usually finished by that point anyways. I think of Shogun more often when he used to jump up from top position and try to stomp them out. However... I simply don't think that soccer kicks and foot stomps should ever be allowed to a downed opponents head. Way too dangerous, and it will do nothing but set the sport back and possibly get MMA banned due to the brutality. Then you have moments where fighters get knocked out cold then have their heads stomped on before the ref can jump in and stop it. Not that they don't eat a few punches as it is... but at least that gives the ref more reaction time, and isn't quite as dangerous. This is more a matter of knees and elbows on the ground. It's just silly not to have elbows allowed on the ground. I don't understand the problem with knees either. They are just as brutal to a standing opponent. Besides that... GNP guys really need those types of strikes to be available because it is SO MUCH easier to keep control of your opponent while throwing shorter elbows, or knees, than it is to try and posture up to land good punches. As soon as you create space you are giving them wiggle room... opening yourself up for armbars, triangles, ect... let alone simply making it easier for them to escape or even just avoid damage as they stay on bottom.
I'm anti kicks, stomps etc I think they are dangerous. I'm pro use of all elbows. If a guy gets caught and cut then it is as simple as that. Horrendous cuts have come from many other moves than elbows. Any blunt force will cause a cut i.e. Belforts knee to Eastman face made him look like he'd been hit with an axe.
you don't understand how a discussion works do you? I mean, it must be nice to feel justified in your every opinion by saying "You are obviously wrong so it is silly to argue" but that is no the way to have a debate or a discussion. Furthermore the more obvious the argument is, the easier it should be to dispute logically. At this point (the point you are claiming is futile for me to continue) you are the furthest from it.
