"The Rules Favor Wrestlers/Grapplers" Why?

[campbecc]

the fact that you basically can't mount any effective offense against someone who goes for a takedown definitely and unfairly favors wrestlers. You can't thrown 12/6 elbows, and you can't knee or kick someone who has one knee or hand down; those are the best strikes to use against someone going for a takedown.

 

[ocfightfan]

Oddly enough Nick Diaz explained this pretty well. He said that no elbows forces the guy on top to create separation to strike which also opens up submissions. I would also point out that a ring allows more freedom of movement for fighters on the ground so that submissions can be advanced/completed. In the UFC the overall format allows lay and pray as well as wall and stall far more than the Pride format.

 

[Codpiece]

That's judging criteria, not rules.

Actually it's neither. It's a misapplication of the judging criteria in most cases. There is a clear bias in judging which favours TD's as the most valuable action which can be taken. This is wrong.

 

[Thrawn33]

Oddly enough Nick Diaz explained this pretty well. He said that no elbows forces the guy on top to create separation to strike which also opens up submissions. I would also point out that a ring allows more freedom of movement for fighters on the ground so that submissions can be advanced/completed. In the UFC the overall format allows lay and pray as well as wall and stall far more than the Pride format.

I would counter Diaz exploiting the rules when he went turtle against GSP. Had knees to a grounded opponent's skull been legal......

My main gripe is people with shitty TD defence and a shitty bottom game holding on for dear life begging the ref to stand them up.

I'm all for more stalling penalties: top bottom or neutral.

 

[adnatal]

The UFC exists and operates mainly in a fascistic oligarchy; Sanctioning and public acceptance, and by proxy FOX, has plenty to do with this thread.

lol

 

[youngsteinel]

I'm all for more stalling penalties: top bottom or neutral.

Man that would be great

 

[HIMBOB]

the fact that you basically can't mount any effective offense against someone who goes for a takedown definitely and unfairly favors wrestlers. You can't thrown 12/6 elbows, and you can't knee or kick someone who has one knee or hand down; those are the best strikes to use against someone going for a takedown.

12-6 elbows to the spine are the best weapon against TDs.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No, the no 12-6 elbows and no strikes to the spine/back of the head, favors the health of the fighters, not strikers.

You can say that about many of the rules such as stomps, upkicks, etc. But that does not mean they do not favour a certain style more then the other.

Watch JDS/Cain2 and see how Cain abused the down knee, hand rule to avoid punches by JDS. He was basically crawling around hugging JDS ankle constantly and fully exposing the back of his head and back knowing JDS could not strike them well.

That is something a top fighter would never have dared do in the old NHB rules or a street fight because you are exposing some of your most vulnerable areas. And because the Unified Rules recognized these are vulnerable areas and sought to protect them certain fighters can now basically use that as a shield (crawling with a hand or knee down even though exposing oneself to a soccer kick) which was never what the rule intended. The goal was to protect from serious injury, not to give someone an offensive tactic to use that neutered the opponents natural counter and strength.