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

[wilKO]

Time limits. Wrestler gets a takedown and holds the guy down for 15 minutes he wins. He knows this.

 

[MMAProfessional]

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).

That's what I was thinking. If wrestlers could they would control fighters on the ground giving them almost no chance of getting up. Most of the times fighters get back to their feet is because they have to keep active or get stood up.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

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...

When a wrestler takes an opponent down, they are usually trying to get them away from the fence. The fence helps wrestlers in some situations, but is more of an advantage to anyone trying to stand up.

 

[EndlessCritic]

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

But if you can put your opponent in a front headlock, you're the superior wrestler.

 

[BRASIL WAND]

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

I agree with your post, however a big portion of wrestling in the UFC occurs from grapplers in panic mode just spamming TDs avoiding engaging at all costs.

For example: Striker rocks Grappler, Grappler spams TD, Striker is forced to sprawl and either try to finish the fight via grappling OR disengage allowing the Grappler to recover.


Not the case with Pride Rules amigo.


Herring vs Wrestling Machine Kerr

Mach vs BJJ Ace Aoki

Wandy vs Prime Rampage (when he actually had superb MMA wrestling)

 

[eiyuu]

But if you can put your opponent in a front headlock, you're the superior wrestler.

Or just be Big Nog and put them in an Anaconda Choke

 

[TallGHunter]

Can you imagine how the casuals would react if they made A. Silva take bottom on referees position for inactivity against Diaz. When they bring back knees and headbutts. then wrestlers will have an even chance. Doesn't matter, wrestlers still dominate.

 

[MCS]

The cage is fairly small (especially for the bigger guys) and has no corners. Takes away footwork and trapping, 2 crucial elements of striking. No soccer kicks and stomps means BJJ guys and wrestlers can shoot at will on strikers, or butt scoot.

 

[Calipwnia]

This argument was made back in the lay and pray days of GSP

 

[Odoylerules4lyf]

I agree with your post, however a big portion of wrestling in the UFC occurs from grapplers in panic mode just spamming TDs avoiding engaging at all costs.

For example: Striker rocks Grappler, Grappler spams TD, Striker is forced to sprawl and either try to finish the fight via grappling OR disengage allowing the Grappler to recover.


Not the case with Pride Rules amigo.


Herring vs Wrestling Machine Kerr

Mach vs BJJ Ace Aoki

Wandy vs Prime Rampage (when he actually had superb MMA wrestling)

I actually completely agree with you just that example was not the best for showing how someone gets punished for a low single lol.

The pride "kill knees" were always amazing, and kept the fight a fight. Didn't allow people to hold the legs and stall. Personally I love great grappling even more than striking but I'm not going to try and kid myself, most of the time wrestlers are going for takedowns to hold position and essentially stall the fight, not going for the finish or doing much damage but in Pride you had to make every grappling exchange count because if you found yourself turtled in front of somebody you were fucked, meanwhile in UFC you have motherfuckers taking knees and touching the mat so they can't get hit.

 

[awymore]

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 :

Agreed. Banning kicks to a downed opponent and strikes to the back of the head make the risks of a failed takedown negligible in most cases. The counter argument that wrestlers are at a disadvantage because they cannot use knees from top control is for the most part irrelevant because if they establish top control, they are going to win the round most of the time anyway.

 

[smiles mma]

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

If they could control them after a sprawl long enough to land a significant knee, they should be about to control them long enough to advance position and land elbows, punches and hammer fists.

 

[Pilo]

I have not read the whole thread, so maybe this was mentioned already, but it's not necessarily the rules themselves...it's mostly the cage. It's big (for most events anyway), which does not allow strikers to cut angles as much as if they would in the Pride ring (I'm using this because it's an old debate, where the comparison was between the Pride and the UFC rules/arena), it allows wrestlers to wall and stall more than they would be able to in a ring, when a fighter pulls off a takedown near the cage, he does not get stood up and reset in the middle of the ring. While the latter point may not necessarily mean that it favors wrestlers, I believe it may be harder to pull off a submission from your back when your space is limited, or when your head is against the fence, but your back is against the mat...

When it comes to soccer kicks and stomps, these are strikes that are prohibited in the UFC. So if you dropped your opponent and look to capitalize, in all likeliness you will have to dive in your opponent's guard and try to land punches. So in those situations you'd have to rely on ground and pound rather than "pure" strikes.

Also, as the judging system is part of the rules, I think one could make a case that there's been a history of judges rendering questionable decisions in the UFC, where one fighter had won a round because he landed a takedown, or because a fighter stalled his opponent against the cage, looking for a single during an entire round, and won it.

 

[A.S. Deep]

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

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).

The rules help and hurt every style of fighter. If I had to pick who's hurt the most I'd actually say submission guys.

Strikers- Helped by stand ups, clinch breaks, gloves, and every round starting on the feet

Wrestlers- Helped by the cage and can basically just lay on someone and win via dominant position (less so nowadays)

Sub guys- Don't have to deal with knees on the ground and strikes to the back of the head

BUT

Submission guys have little time to work to get a sub. Five minutes is way too little. If we still had UFC 1/Vale Tudo (what I consider pure MMA rules) then there would be a lot more grappling. Wrestlers and strikers would HAVE to finish their opponents or risk being subbed after fatiguing. Bareknuckle would also make it easier to sink in subs and make it harder to punch hard. Guys like Rumble and Ngannou would instantly break their hand and lose. And there would be no round breaks to save people from grapplers.

 

[acannxr]

Cage favors wrestlers.
No upkicks favors wrestlers.
Elbows favors wrestlers.
No knees to a downed opponent favors wrestlers.

 

[Thug Rose]

mma rules help mma fighters. the rules are not made to cater towards any other combat sports athletes. "wrestlers, strikers, grapplers" are we still in UFC 1?

mma is a fallback sport

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

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.

A takedown is more like landing one bomb, it's not like a jab, that is ridiculous.

You know how difficult it is to take someone down? Not at all comparable to a jab.

 

[Sjb1888]

A takedown is more like landing one bomb, it's not like a jab, that is ridiculous.

You know how difficult it is to take someone down? Not at all comparable to a jab.

I rate damage more than difficulty, and unless you are getting rampage slammed a takedown usually consists of zero damage or pain.

A clean jab causes pain and very often real damage, sure the takedown may lead to damage and pain afterwards, but the actual act is rediculously over scored.

 

[tenniswhiz]

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

Have you never seen a wrestler put a hand or knee down after a stuffed TD?
Happened hundreds of times.

You didn’t mention JUDGING.
The judging favors wrestling over everything else.
This is the biggest problem concerning the Unified Rules.

 

[The Natural Born Runner]

I rate damage more than difficulty, and unless you are getting rampage slammed a takedown usually consists of zero damage or pain.

A clean jab causes pain and very often real damage, sure the takedown may lead to damage and pain afterwards, but the actual act is rediculously over scored.

The reality of it is that it's MMA and because of that they need to take somewhat of a universal scoring approach.

A jab is a technique within the art of boxing, a single leg takedown is a technique within the art of wrestling. If you secure the single leg takedown and get the opponent's shoulders pinned to the mat then you completed a takedown, that is a scoring move. The difficulty of the technique has to be rewarded, much like positions are awarded from a BJJ perspective - you are a lot more likely to win a round if you secure someone's back than you are if you secure the guard position.

Look at submissions too, I hate this idea that if you don't complete the sub that it doesn't score. You are putting your opponent in danger of the fight being over, and okay, you didn't get the stoppage, but it's still a scoring move. Taking your "pain" point into account, I could have you in a choke and it may be close to being over, you may then wriggle out and escape - you were in no "pain", but the technique is still dangerous.