The onus is on the striker to work on his takedown defense

[2004 account]

While i agree i añso acknowledge that the rules should be slightly tweaked for more fairness somehow because it favors wrestlers, as does the cage

 

[Cobra 03]

How pathetic that they only work on hitting the pads and mitts but don't put any focus on sprawling? The name of the game is to prevent others from implementing their game and then igniting your own offense.

Must be very easy to stand there and just hit pads all day while their coach yells 'good job' 'excellent' 'nice combo' ... where is the effort in that?

It's pathetic when they ignore such a large part of their craft and then try to put the blame on others instead of accepting the flaws in their own skills and game plan...

Every striker should look to Jon Jones for coaching, on how to prevent a takedown. The guy is the best!

 

[checktheknuckles]

UFC isn't about preventing others from implementing their gameplan. WTF retard take is that?

UFC is about winning by knocking the fuck out of your opponent. Not crotch sniffing. Problem isn't people wrestling, its when they just crotch sniff and not do any damage. OP and anyone one else should be ashamed of their selves for defending that bullshit. UFC is about damage, and crotch sniffing does no damage.

 

[Rapa]

And how did Aldo get good at it?....work.

Aldo had good grappling base from the start

 

[StonedLemur]

Aldo had good grappling base from the start

And how did he get that?...work

 

[Sasha]

The striker lies on his onus if he doesn't work TDD, that's right.

 

[Lord Pyjamas]

And how did Aldo get good at it?....work.

But also good genetics for it while failing at soccer.
It just became a thing for him.

 

[StonedLemur]

But also good genetics for it while failing at soccer.
It just became a thing for him.

Maybe sir

 

[Bullitt68]

How pathetic that they only work on hitting the pads and mitts but don't put any focus on sprawling? The name of the game is to prevent others from implementing their game and then igniting your own offense.

Must be very easy to stand there and just hit pads all day while their coach yells 'good job' 'excellent' 'nice combo' ... where is the effort in that?

It's pathetic when they ignore such a large part of their craft and then try to put the blame on others instead of accepting the flaws in their own skills and game plan...

Agreed. In the early days, grappling was king, be it BJJ or wrestling, so strikers worked their fucking asses off. Maurice Smith worked on his defensive guard to protect against GNP, Bas Rutten developed a wicked submission game, and people like Pedro Rizzo, Igor Vovchanchyn, and Cro Cop developed fantastic TDD to allow them to use their striking effectively. In today's era of all around fighters, it shouldn't be news to anybody who wants to stay on the feet that that'll mean training to keep fights on - or get fights back to - the feet.

 

[BowserJr]

How pathetic that they only work on hitting the pads and mitts but don't put any focus on sprawling? The name of the game is to prevent others from implementing their game and then igniting your own offense.

Must be very easy to stand there and just hit pads all day while their coach yells 'good job' 'excellent' 'nice combo' ... where is the effort in that?

It's pathetic when they ignore such a large part of their craft and then try to put the blame on others instead of accepting the flaws in their own skills and game plan...

Sorry but holding on for dear life is a defensive move.

If it's a bjj guy would you consider him winning by pulling guard or tricking the opponent into taking him down?

 

[StrikerKing]

The thing is, yes takedown defense should be a huge part of training as well as position training. The problem partially lies that when you train off your back, alot of the strategies are based on the concept that your opponent is actually trying to hurt you. When grapplers get a takedown they can simply stay close, never posture up, and never land any shots and can essentially play it safe and ride out the round. I have trained long enough to know that even if I am sparring someone much better than me in all aspects, I can clinch and tie them up. While I can't score much offense, neither can they. Same thing on the ground. Even if an opponent has a much better JJ game, if I get on top I can bury by head close and just do minimal movement and I would have "won" the round if it were a fight.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I like the keyboard experts who think the solution to all takedowns is "sprawling".

Better than the fans who think the solution is changing the rules or scoring criteria

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Prize fighting is different, a seperate category from major league sports.

I hate the incredible bastardization of this term to mean money. The "prize" in prize fighting, in it's very origin, was NOT money. It was a test that you came out with respect, honor, and possibly a title among the other masters and students. It also so happened that the public would come and throw change (fucking change) which could be collected at the end. That is NOT the "prize" in "prize fighting."

To this day, one could easily call the "prize" people are fighting for the actual championship, the title their wins work towards, so I'm not sure why or when people decided to change the definition of prize fighting to suit the financial side of sports entertainment

 

[Bullitt68]

I hate the incredible bastardization of this term to mean money. The "prize" in prize fighting, in it's very origin, was NOT money. It was a test that you came out with respect, honor, and possibly a title among the other masters and students. It also so happened that the public would come and throw change (fucking change) which could be collected at the end. That is NOT the "prize" in "prize fighting."

To this day, one could easily call the "prize" people are fighting for the actual championship, the title their wins work towards, so I'm not sure why or when people decided to change the definition of prize fighting to suit the financial side of sports entertainment

Hate to be a bubble-burster, as this is a noble sentiment, but I'm pretty sure "prizefighting" has always meant "fighting for prize money." The term has been traced back to the 1700s and its initial popular usage was connected to Dukes and shit betting large sums of money and lower class dudes fighting for money. It took a while even for the term to reach the noble heights of respected athletes earning good money for the respectable cultivation of skill and excellence of performance, but even then it was still the winning of money that gave "prizefighting" its meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I know about the term's history.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Hate to be a bubble-burster, as this is a noble sentiment, but I'm pretty sure "prizefighting" has always meant "fighting for prize money." The term has been traced back to the 1700s and its initial popular usage was connected to Dukes and shit betting large sums of money and lower class dudes fighting for money. It took a while even for the term to reach the noble heights of respected athletes earning good money for the respectable cultivation of skill and excellence of performance, but even then it was still the winning of money that gave "prizefighting" its meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I know about the term's history.

1600's actually but nah, it comes originally from "Prize play" which precedes it in the 1500's

Edit*
The Company used a system of prize playing to regulate training and access to becoming a teacher. Prize playing was used in the same way we use modern martial arts gradings. But rather than coloured belts, it was a method of testing a student’s skill. However, this took time. Transition between one level to the next could take a minimum of seven years each and progression in the system – Free Scholar, Scholar, Provost, then finally Maister.

double edit**
To "Play their Prize" as it was called, a student might face in a single afternoon an average total of sixty bouts or more. These were all against more senior opponents, with little rest in-between. The job of the opponents, or "answerers" as they were known, was not to break or beat the "Player" but to seriously test them. The "Prize" meant promotion and the respect and acceptance of one's peers. A Scholar would set their own training pace until a time they then felt ready to request their first public Prizing.

 

[Bend NvR Break]

Yep. Don't complain that another man can grab you, toss you on the ground and plant you there. Be mad at yourself for letting another man grab you, toss you on the ground and planting you there.

 

[Bullitt68]

1600's actually but nah, it comes originally from "Prize play" which precedes it in the 1500's

Edit*
The Company used a system of prize playing to regulate training and access to becoming a teacher. Prize playing was used in the same way we use modern martial arts gradings. But rather than coloured belts, it was a method of testing a student’s skill. However, this took time. Transition between one level to the next could take a minimum of seven years each and progression in the system – Free Scholar, Scholar, Provost, then finally Maister.

double edit**
To "Play their Prize" as it was called, a student might face in a single afternoon an average total of sixty bouts or more. These were all against more senior opponents, with little rest in-between. The job of the opponents, or "answerers" as they were known, was not to break or beat the "Player" but to seriously test them. The "Prize" meant promotion and the respect and acceptance of one's peers. A Scholar would set their own training pace until a time they then felt ready to request their first public Prizing.

Never heard of "prize playing." But it still seems the case that prizefighting is (a) different and (b) in reference to the money being fought for. You could argue that prizefighting debased the earlier, more noble prize playing, but I don't think you can argue that prizefighting was never about prize money.

Prize Playing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still interesting to know the history, though

 

[markg171]

Yep. Don't complain that another man can grab you, toss you on the ground and plant you there. Be mad at yourself for letting another man grab you, toss you on the ground and planting you there.

People need to have two minds about the issue:

- your above correct position that one fighter clearly did the superior move and so of course needs to be rewarded for it over the fighter who failed to stop it
- it can still suck if they’re just trying to win positionally and not by then further damage or submission, which the rules do favour but can be overcome if nothing more significant comes by the grounded opponent

Ugly wins are still wins, even if you might be unhappy about them. Too many people want to just grumble about the issue without acknowledging that yeah, of course it worked if the other guy didn’t stop it or do anything way more significant and so they’re rightfully winning.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Never heard of "prize playing." But it still seems the case that prizefighting is (a) different and (b) in reference to the money being fought for. You could argue that prizefighting debased the earlier, more noble prize playing, but I don't think you can argue that prizefighting was never about prize money.

Prize Playing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Still interesting to know the history, though

It was just the unarmed form of prize play. There has been expansion, or more rather, isolation of the term, but it's all steeped in the same history

​

Etymology​

See prizefight. Originally Prize Playing, with play referring to sparring, a practice fight. By surface analysis, prize +‎ fighting.


The term prizefight just became synonymous enough with boxing to become nearly interchangeable terms (which muddies the waters a bit) but even within the beginnings of bare knuckle boxing being called "prizefighting," there was still a champion. And it still had those origins very tied to the martial arts (both armed and unarmed, including wrestling) of prize play

The first champion
James Figg became the first English bare-knuckle champion in 1719, holding the title until his retirement in 1730. Figg is considered to be the organizer of modern boxing, and he set up a "pugilistic foundation" to teach boxers how to use swords, quarterstaffs, and clench hands.