Is it just a coincidence that 170 has been dominated primarily by wrestlers for many years?

lighter fighters have the ability to scramble out

heavier fighters have the ability to keep it standing

seems to me that somewhere in the middle (LW, and WW) is the perfect weight to get guys down and keep them down.

Good observation TS.
 
The UFC is a American company. Wrestling is a American sport (USA and Russia have the most gold medals in the history of the sport.) The rules are biased towards wrestlers, Pride was more biased towards strikers, the ring vs the cage,the rapid stand ups and lay and pray cost you 10 percent of the purse (yellow card) but a sub attempt from the bottom was worth more than being on top. The UFC is a American company that favors American wrestlers. If it were a Dutch company, trust me, their would be way more points for kickboxing and TD’s would be worthless.
 
ThunderStruck said:
If knees on the ground were allowed wreslters would be much more dangerous.

And BJJ guys would be knocked more often after they get sprawled.
Click to expand...

The rule that really hurts wrestlers is the lack of head butts; allowing head butts on the ground would be a huge gain for wrestlers. However, I completely understand why its not allowed - it looks brutal (MMA is always on the edge of being banned in many places), and it's almost guaranteed to make cuts.

The rule that hurts strikers the most is having a boundary. Without a cage (or ring) it'd be much easier for strikers to keep at a distance (imagine if they fought on a football field). And again its obvious why a boundary is necessary for a spectator sport - watching guys strategically retreating and occasionally moving forward for a hit and run is never going to sell, even if its a very good tactic.

Knees to the head on a grounded opponent were to remove things like knees to the head from north-south position, which look brutal (and can be brutal). Again, its pretty clear why they're not going to be allowed.
 
20falarVerdades said:
Rules are biased towards american wrestlers
Click to expand...
No, physics is biased toward wrestlers.

Also, there are a lot of rules that help strikers:
1. Rounds start standing, even if the previous round ended on the ground.
2. Stalemates on the ground or put back on the feet, but stalemates on the feet or not brought to the ground.
3. The fence provides great leverage for fighters to stand back up.
4. No head butts. Head butts are a guard killer.

The real issues are that top control used to be too big of a criteria for winning rounds, though I think this has been more balanced out in recent years. Also, knees to the head of grounded opponents would help wrestles when they achieve certain dominant positions and punish wrestlers for lazy takedowns. If they were allowed the ground game would be more dynamic.
 
Zanmato said:
The aerage male weight around the world is 170-190lb range

After weight cutting etc this is probably the division the largest number of people will fall into

Most fighters that reach championship level have a good wrestling background, particularly in the US where it is part of the general culture

It seems reasonable that the largest pool of guys that have grown up in that background would get to the top of the division
Click to expand...
yes average male is 170-190 with 20 plus% bodyfat. so no. the average weigh class would be lightweight. 170 guys are monsters. people dont realize that. 190 lb lean male at 10% bodyfat is a big guy. anyone that denies that fact has never lifted weights.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
No, physics is biased toward wrestlers.

Also, there are a lot of rules that help strikers:
1. Rounds start standing, even if the previous round ended on the ground.
2. Stalemates on the ground or put back on the feet, but stalemates on the feet or not brought to the ground.
3. The fence provides great leverage for fighters to stand back up.
4. No head butts. Head butts are a guard killer.

The real issues are that top control used to be too big of a criteria for winning rounds, though I think this has been more balanced out in recent years. Also, knees to the head of grounded opponents would help wrestles when they achieve certain dominant positions and punish wrestlers for lazy takedowns. If they were allowed the ground game would be more dynamic.
Click to expand...
how many pride winners were wrestlers?
and no it's not biased towards strikers. more so biased towards wrestlers.
The knees/kicks to a grounded opponent does favor wrestlers, because they basically have free reign to shoot without fear of consequences.
Not hitting the back of the head, attacks to the spine also favor wrestlers while the fight is standing. fight always starts standing. Wrestlers can also utilize the cage as leverage to take people down. at the same time, if hits to the back of the head were allowed, strikers could pummel the brains out of their heads while they are pushed against the cage.
no upkicks.
 
Ruthless_swag said:
how many pride winners were wrestlers?
and no it's not biased towards strikers. more so biased towards wrestlers.
The knees/kicks to a grounded opponent does favor wrestlers, because they basically have free reign to shoot without fear of consequences.
Not hitting the back of the head, attacks to the spine also favor wrestlers while the fight is standing. fight always starts standing. Wrestlers can also utilize the cage as leverage to take people down. at the same time, if hits to the back of the head were allowed, strikers could pummel the brains out of their heads while they are pushed against the cage.
no upkicks.
Click to expand...
Yep, some rules favor wrestlers. A lot of the rules favor people who don't want to wrestle. Imagine that, there's a give and take.
 
DeeDubb said:
It's mostly been American wrestlers with a power overhand to set up their takedowns (or GSP who set it up with his great jab).

Hughes, GSP, Hendricks, Woodley, and contenders like Fitch, Koscheck, Colby, Usman, etc, etc, etc... Why is 170 the weight class for wrestlers?
Click to expand...

Pride owned LW, MW, LHW, and HW.
All the UFC had was WW + Tito.
They hyped up their WW division and it became the most overrated thing in MMA.

It’s a big deal that GSP beat Hughes, Thiago Alves became P4P Top 10 after beating Hughes, Penn’s victory over Hughes is legendary.
But nobody (UFC/American nuthuggers) seem to care that Pele Landi destroyed both Miletich and Hughes, then went to Pride, where he was easily handled by Matsui.
Yet UFC/American nuthuggers claim that Penn or Hughes would have defeated prime Sakuraba!
 
I think it has to do with the size really, lighter weight guys tend to be able to scramble up easier, bigger guys tend to not have the gas to go for hard take downs for 15 minutes. 170 is kind of the sweet spot of weight+speed+cardio. Plus with such a big gap from 170 to 185, people who are good at cutting weight thrive, and wrestlers are good at cutting weight.
 
campbecc said:
that's not his background but he fights like a wrestler and has some of the best MMA wrestling of all time.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree he could out wrestle wrestlers. But to say he had a background in wrestling as the others on the list is incorrect . That’s why he’s so great.
 
LogicalFighting said:
here's the thing.... a wrestler would be nowhere as dominant if they could be punished with knees to the head when their opponent sprawls on their takedowns.

the rules provide wrestlers advantages in which a failed td execution doesn't come with as much danger as it should
Click to expand...
Lol, see? Idiots, everywhere. .
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
No, physics is biased toward wrestlers.

Also, there are a lot of rules that help strikers:
1. Rounds start standing, even if the previous round ended on the ground.
2. Stalemates on the ground or put back on the feet, but stalemates on the feet or not brought to the ground.
3. The fence provides great leverage for fighters to stand back up.
4. No head butts. Head butts are a guard killer.

The real issues are that top control used to be too big of a criteria for winning rounds, though I think this has been more balanced out in recent years. Also, knees to the head of grounded opponents would help wrestles when they achieve certain dominant positions and punish wrestlers for lazy takedowns. If they were allowed the ground game would be more dynamic.
Click to expand...
Why even bother, dude. If people don't already know what you just posted then they aren't worth informing
 
fastone said:
Lol, see? Idiots, everywhere. .
Click to expand...

rather than call others idiots, you can instead tell them why you think they're wrong. i think that would contribute more to the discussion.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
Yep, some rules favor wrestlers. A lot of the rules favor people who don't want to wrestle. Imagine that, there's a give and take.
Click to expand...
most rules are tailored for American fighters. imagine that. what's popular in america? wrestling. imagine that.

how many pride winners were wrestlers?
 
Ruthless_swag said:
most rules are tailored for American fighters. imagine that. what's popular in america? wrestling. imagine that.

how many pride winners were wrestlers?
Click to expand...
No, most rules are not tailored for American wrestlers. It's a hoary misconception. There are several rules that are helpful for wrestlers, eg no upkicks. There are also several that are favorable to non-grapplers, eg no head butts.

There are also rules that are favorable to both wrestlers and non-wrestlers depending on the context: no knees to the head of a downed opponents favors a wrestler going for a double leg, but hurts a wrestler in side control or north-south. The fence is often seen as a boon to wrestlers but for years now wrestlers are trying to keep their downed opponents away from the cage in most instances, because it is so useful in standing back up.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
No, most rules are not tailored for American wrestlers. It's a hoary misconception. There are several rules that are helpful for wrestlers, eg no upkicks. There are also several that are favorable to non-grapplers, eg no head butts.

There are also rules that are favorable to both wrestlers and non-wrestlers depending on the context: no knees to the head of a downed opponents favors a wrestler going for a double leg, but hurts a wrestler in side control or north-south. The fence is often seen as a boon to wrestlers but for years now wrestlers are trying to keep their downed opponents away from the cage in most instances, because it is so useful in standing back up.
Click to expand...
before the wrestler hits the ground, i often see an opportunity for the striker to pummel the head of the wrestler particularly in weight classes below hw. More noticeable when rhe striker is able to hold off the wrestler for a couple of extra seconds which would then allow him to explode with hammer fists on the back of wrestler's skull.
emil meek vs palhares is a good example. if the striker can hold off the wrestler for long enough, the striker can easily end the fight with strikes to the back of the head. ofcourse in a street fight, it's different. hitting the back of head with your bare hands is asking for a broken hand.
 
lol at GSP a wrestler. he came to MMA as a karateka, and then he became a well rounded MMA fighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,396
Messages
55,417,634
Members
174,763
Latest member
ThroughTheDakr

Share this page

Back
Top