People always say UFC MMA rules help wrestlers, but why?

[wigglestick]

Hey I just saw someone post this and I remember other people saying the same, I always thought the opposite.

Its the better wrestlers that are always on top but if you're on top and its illegal to knee someone in the head then that helps the BJJ guy. If fighters are allowed to have a hand on the ground to stop from being kicked or kneed in the head then that doesn't help the wrestler either.

I thinking I am missing something just please explain it to me

 

[BigMuffler]

They don't help wrestlers, they help strikers because there are standups and clinch breaks. And if the round ends on the ground the next round starts standing. Strikers need tons of rules to even the playing field against Gay Hugging (grappling).

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

It's a lot easier to spam takedowns when you're not worried about being knee'd in the head of they sprawl...

 

[Gambling Man]

Its the better wrestlers that are always on top but if you're on top and its illegal to knee someone in the head then that helps the BJJ guy. If fighters are allowed to have a hand on the ground to stop from being kicked or kneed in the head then that doesn't help the wrestler either.

It can work against them, but it can definitely help them too.

They really need to make upkicks to an opponent legal at all points, that would have a massive impact on the way people go about top control.

 

[joeyjoejoe]

Because there aren’t a lot of stand up calls by the ref in the UFC/MMA. So if a guy gets a takedown the ref would be less likely to stand them up and simply let the “ action “ resume on the ground no matter how stale it is.

 

[cgh]

Before the new rules, a TD at the end of a round meant that you won it in most cases. So that's one. The second, the same rule that you mention, knees to a grounded opponent are illegal, help wrestlers a lot. Most MMA wrestlers just shoot a lazy double/single leg. This allows two things: first is to be able to stall fights with lazy TD attempts; second, you don't have to worry about knees to the head after a failed TD attempt.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Hey I just saw someone post this and I remember other people saying the same, I always thought the opposite.

Its the better wrestlers that are always on top but if you're on top and its illegal to knee someone in the head then that helps the BJJ guy. If fighters are allowed to have a hand on the ground to stop from being kicked or kneed in the head then that doesn't help the wrestler either.

I thinking I am missing something just please explain it to me

I saw the same post and had the same reaction you did.

The round system and the stand up system both favor strikers, and obviously so. It would be much more reasonable to start rounds on the ground if that is how they ended.

 

[AnotherOldGuy]

It's a lot easier to spam takedowns when you're not worried about being knee'd in the head of they sprawl...

You need wrestling to sprawl successfully against a good wrestler, so that's simply wrestling vs wrestling activity. However, allowing knees to the head from the ground (from North-South or even side control) would be a huge advantage for wrestlers, since they tend to end up on top.

But the biggest negative for wrestlers is not allowing head butts. That would be a game changer in favor of wrestlers; not allowing them hurts wrestlers badly.

 

[eiyuu]

I've seen arguments on both sides

Favors wrestlers because they can take you down and bunch you up against the fence. Then hold you there throwing a punch here and there to make it look like you're being busy.

Favors strikers because there are standups and when the round ends on the ground it starts the next round standing.

Knees on the ground can favor both styles if you think about it--wrestlers can destroy fighters on the ground with knees to the head, strikers can sprawl and knee a bad takedown attempt.

I think it all comes down to what kind of fighter is your favorite fighter.

There were TONS of "rules favor strikers" threads after Sonnen vs Silva 1 because a lot of people wanted Silva to lose.

Just as there were TONS of "rules favor wrestlers" everytime a wrestler won a lay and pray fight (going so far as some were calling the UFC, UWC--Ultimate Wrestling Championship.)

So if your fave fighter lost to a wrestler, you're going to say it favors wrestlers

If your fave lost to a striker, you're going to say it favors strikers.

 

[FlyingDeathKick]

Well considering there is a cage that the wrestler can trap you against and take you down and you grabbing that fence is against the rules...

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

Upkicks from bottom aren't really allowed, that allows people to sit in guard and chill.

It also favors wrestlers because the guy in top position always seems to get the fight scored his/her way. Look at the Waterson/Casey fight, Casey was threatening off her back for 3 whole rounds, but Michelle was in top position landing a little bit of ground and pound, so she won.

 

[Sjb1888]

I wouldn't say the rules favour wrestlers, but I would say that judging criteria is slanted towards them.

To me a basic takedown shouldn't be scored any higher than a jab.

What happens afterwards of course should be scored, but too often in competitive fights the judge will go with the guy who got a takedown even when no damage is done and the guy pops right back up.

I mean if I have the choice of getting took down or eating a jab, I'm choosing the takedown everytime.

 

[Buster C]

Only anti-wrestling whiners say that rules favor wrestling or grappling. The rules are pretty even, but if there is an advantage for a style, it’s for strikers.

Every round starts standing, and if it goes to the ground, the ref can stand them up if he thinks there is not enough action.

Imagine the massive butthurt if the ref thought the standup fight was uneventful and put the fighters on the ground, or if the fighter could choose up or down position after the first round. How would Nate vs Conor 2 have turned out?

 

[sprucelees]

UFC MMA rules?!?!

 

[BRASIL WAND]

Can’t spam takedowns (ie shoot n shoot) with impunity where the only offense you can mount against a Failed TD attempt in the UFC is a few punches to the side of the head, under Pride Rules.


UFC Low Single attempt:

VS


Pride Low Single attempt :

 

[Ozze]

I think it's an argument that come from Pride days because it seemed at that time that UFC refs were much more ok with lay & pray, while on PRIDE they would stand up guys real quick. And had the famous yellow card.

 

[Enigma87]

Well they start each round off on the feet even if the wrestler was in a dominant position at the end of the previous round. That would seem to favor strikers

Although some of the striking rules do help to favor wrestlers

 

[Odoylerules4lyf]

Can’t spam takedowns (ie shoot n shoot) with impunity where the only offense you can mount against a Failed TD attempt in the UFC is a few punches to the side of the head, under Pride Rules.


UFC Low Single attempt:

VS


Pride Low Single attempt :

In the Pride example cro cop already rocked him with a head kick and follow up soccer kicks before he even got to try a low single lol

 

[g*r*b]

Well considering there is a cage that the wrestler can trap you against and take you down and you grabbing that fence is against the rules...

...a cage that you can use to brace against and wall-walk your way back up.

 

[Bend NvR Break]

There are stand ups because not lack of dominant position but because lack of action. Enough said about what favors who.