Question: UFC Rules Favoring Grapplers

[RAFI BOMB]

Can someone explain to me why the UFC adopted so many rules that actually favor grapplers?

When the UFC was growing in prominence the other major mma organization was Pride FC. Pride FC was also considered mma but it allowed different rules. Fighters were allowed to:

• Stomp or Kick or knee the head of a grounded opponent
• Up kicks or any other variation of kicking or kneeing the opponent in the head when both fighters were on the ground

The UFC also doesn't allow the 12-6 elbow and penalize a fighter for grappling the cage.

There are certainly very effective and useful techniques in wrestling and the various submission grappling styles but many grappling techniques would be much less effective or much more difficult to implement if the rules weren't as preferential.

So what led to the decision to not incorporate these other rules? If the mma is supposed to be the most superior form of sport combat then wouldn't it make sense to include these techniques?

Was it a legal or a regulatory issue to not include many of the Pride FC rules? Was it based on rules mandated by athletic commissions? Is there a reason why the UFC can't adopt those rules now or is it simply there choice not to?

 

[Cowboy Cerroliveira]

Doesn't matter who the rules favor. The bookers (Dana, Sean Shelby, Mick Maynard) like loudmouthed strikers.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

funnily enough, TheRassler and i were just discussing some of this here.

in 50 words or less, he thinks it's because Jeff Blatnick wrote the first Unified Rules, and i think it's more complex than that.

it's good to remember that one of the goals here was to legitimize the sport. adoption of the rules ended the PPV blackout. so they weren't only trying to balance safety issues, but also perception issues.

IMO the problem isn't the imperfect rule set; it's the inability to make subtle changes to the imperfect rule set more often than every 6 or 10 years.

 

[beastman]

kneeing the opponent in the head when both fighters were on the ground

-that one actually favored grapplers. Randleman especially.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Knees on the ground favours grapplers buddy.

 

[WildBoyDan]

I don't think the rules favour wrestlers as the majority of the champs are primarily strikers.

 

[TheChance]

The rules favor grapplers? If headbutts hadn't been outlawed Coleman would still be champ.

 

[12ga.]

LOL if you allowed knees to head 12/6s and headbutts UFC would be 100% wrestlers instead of 75%. Even BJJ would die other than defensive.

Rules do just the opposite. Wrestler can barley even fight on the ground while having complete control of another man. Lay and pray in intentional to give strikers and BJJ guys a chance.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

I don't think the rules favour wrestlers as the majority of the champs are primarily strikers.

This was a huge talking point when lnp and wall n stall were happening a lot. Now people have adapted and I don't think its such a big deal

 

[Pwent]

The rules favor strikers, grounded knees=jones and GSP finish every opponent

Plus standups=bottom person can do nothing but defend and never have to learn to escape or do submissions. Most of the time, bottom guys just try to break posture and hold on for dear life

 

[DWAYNEAMERICA]

Every round, standup, temp stoppage, etc, begins with the fighters reset standing. Based on those facts I can't see how one can claim that the rules favor ground fighters.

 

[whougonnacall]

Knees on the ground favours grapplers buddy.

Nope favours both
Think of missed takedowns
Or simply just the shitstorm bisping vs riveria got

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

I'd say the cage favors wrestlers over the rules any day. You can't grapple as well in a ring as oppossed to a cage. In a cage you have a fence. In a ring you have ropes.

 

[sdss]

I'd say the cage favors wrestlers over the rules any day. You can't grapple as well in a ring as oppossed to a cage. In a cage you have a fence. In a ring you have ropes.

The cage favors safety of the fighters.

 

[UL]

Just the octagon with the fence favours the wrestlers

Nevermind the rules

 

[12ga.]

I don't think the rules favour wrestlers as the majority of the champs are primarily strikers.

Nah Conor Bisping and Max rest all wrestlers by start

 

[UhHuhSure]

NO. Global MMA rules favored grapplers. Unified rules favor strikers. Why rounds end and we have so many of them. Why there are no stomps, kicks, knees, 12-6 elbows etc.. Elbows from standing arent banned but the ones used in grappling exchanges are.

 

[TheAmericanGazelle]

Some rules favor wrestlers, some favor strikers, etc...

It's a mixed bag that tries to optimize competing objectives (like excitement and realism).

The simple fact that standups exist should be indicate the rules aren't design to favor grapplers over all else.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

The cage favors safety of the fighters.

That's debatable. The reason why knees to the head of a downed opponent were made illegal in the first place was a heavyweight Gan McGee a 7 footer was fighting a small LHW and had him pinned against the cage wall, he reigned knees to his head and the commission made them illegal because of how brutal it looked. When you're pressed up against the fence. There is no where your head can go when you receive such a strike. With ropes your head isnt going to be against a literal cage wall. But I like the cage better for fluidity. No restarts. But no the cage is not safer.

 

[leatherneck]

IMO the problem isn't the imperfect rule set; it's the inability to change rule set more than every 6 or 10 years.

it is easier to amend the Constitution,,
and that aint no bullshit.