Agreed. Soccer kicks add a whole nother dimension to the sport which forces grapplers to stay active and not slow down the pace of the fight trying to stall or pull guard. Furthermore, there is 0 evidence that being kicked while laying down is any more dangerous than being kicked while on the feet. Like Ramsey said, it's not about safety, but the optics of safety.
The ONLY people that stuff takedowns are WRESTLERS and Jose Aldo. Also wrestlers can reach that position via snapdowns. Watch Pride FC and see wrestlers dominating with knees to the head
Yes it makes takedowns more risky but it also makes it more rewarding once you have taken them down. Your opponent will be in side control bottom and will probably turtle up trying to stand.
Senator McCain’s (his wife) was highly connected to Bud Light, who was the main sponsor fir pro boxing at the time. He didn’t want UFC sales to interfere with boxing/bud light sales! That’s the only reason he was interfering!
I do agree that the round structure and glove requirement favors strikers. But most other rules favor grapplers. The main tension in a cross-style fight is the question -- "can the striker do enough damage to the wrestler/grappler as he closes?" Every rule that protects a wrestler/grappler as they close to contact is a major advantage to the grappler. This is especially true for rules that protect wrestlers/grapplers from suffering consequences after a failed takedown. A wrestler/grappler can seek and maintain contact without fear of strikes to the back of the head (not just 12-6 elbows, but any strike to the back of the head). A wrestler/grappler can seek and maintain contact without fear of kicks whenever they have a hand or knee on the mat. This drastically lowers the risk of attempting a takedown -- it ENCOURAGES the kind of "crappling" that you're upset about because the chances of getting busted up during a half-ass takedown attempt is far less. Go rewatch the first few UFCs (Gourdea's two wins in UFC 1, Rozier's win in the first round of UFC 1, Wiet's win in the first round of UFC 2, etc.) and look how many fights were decided by kicks and knees to a grounded opponent. The rules exist to protect a fighter at his most vulnerable point, but that allows wrestlers/grapplers to be more aggressive, take more risks, get away with more "less than perfect" entries. If grappler/wrestlers were eating a knee to the head every time they had a takedown stuffed by a sprawl, I guarantee you that fighters would shoot less frequently. Takedowns would be more like a spinning strikes -- they'd have to feel range, feint, and strike to create an opening before taking the risk.
Wrestlers would be the people ending up at the top of a successful sprawl more often. In my humble opinion if we went back to original no gloves vale tudo no rounds style anything allowed, you would see grapplers dominate.
@@zacharycompton5624 Strikes to the back of the head have a much higher effect because they directly affect the cerebellum responsible for vital functions and not just the frontal cortex. I agree with OP that this "grounded opponent" rule strongly favors grapplers/wrestlers. Also, the cage favors wrestlers/grapplers. Imagine the fight taking place on a football field where the striker always has enough space behind to stay out of clinch/TD range.
@@zacharycompton5624 You're missing the point. Whether strikers or wrestlers successfully sprawl more often, its ALWAYS in response to a wrestler/grappler. Therefore, a rule that makes counter-striking after a sprawl less potent inherently favors wrestler/grapplers. Think of it like this a striking analogy. Spinning kicks are great. They generate a lot of power and that leads to knockouts. But they also leave you very exposed if you miss. So strikers spend a lot of time setting them up and only use them smartly. But, IMAGINE if the rules said "you may not attack a standing opponent from his rear quarter." After a spin kick, you'd have to wait until they reset and were facing you again. With that rule, strikers would throw spin kicks all the time with far less care for quality, because the rules restrict the counter. Its the same thing protecting the back of the head and a grounded opponent for wrestlers/grapplers.
This is so eye opening for me. It was so easy to watch UFC without questioning these things having grown up watching boxing and accepting many of these rules were just the norm for fighting.
IMO, UFC rules favorite grapplers more. They put too much restrictions on striking, particularly limiting what can be done on grounded opponent. The only rule really favorite striker is the round time.
@@kwanarchive No. That is different. Of course if a striker wants to win against a grappler, the fight has to start on the feet. But round system is different. Sometimes a wrestler gets a takedown and he works really hard for it. And the striker has no clue how to get up, so he just tries not to get finished and waits for the round to end. And they start on the feet again. Now the grappler has to work even more because the striker got saved by the bell. Even if there are rounds, I would like it more if fighters started the next round with the position they were in, in the previous round. If that's the case, then the striker wouldn't get saved by the bell, because they will start the next round on the ground. And the striker would have to use his own skills to get up.
@@silentassassin423 That's not fair either, because the grappler had a rest. Maybe before the round finished, they were gassing out and would have let go. But because of the rest, they get their stamina back and hold on when they would have failed.
Great stuff coach, love how u tell Jack Dempsey stories . I reader that book thanks to you and my boxing level rise 100%. The mechanics are perfect and if u follow jacks instruction u will definitely get better
Grappling was exposed in pride fc which is why they implemented all the modern day sissy rules which handicap strikers so quit lying and go watch some pridefc fights because its obvious grappling was exposed and its useless when a striker has all his tools to work with
@@bobbyjoeyoung2becausesteph194 stfu lol you’re just mad that grappling is better than striking at every aspect. Pride fc is flawed simply because there were way more strikers than grapplers in the league.
Great breakdown. There is at least one very simple fix to one of the (big) imbalances you are listing: the ref could start the new round from the position the fighters ended the prior round in. Not a lot of discussion, it’s done in BJJ tourneys the entire time, usually to bring the two competitors back to the center of the mat.
The original idea behind rounds in boxing was to prevent striking a downed opponent and/or groundfighting. Before the Marquis of Queensbury rules were introduced a round ended whenever someone was knocked down. If even a knee touched the floor, then the round was over and there was a break of up to 30 seconds. The Queensbury rules introduced the idea of a standardized round length, before then rounds could vary from a few seconds to 20+ minutes.
Yep. That’s why many of those old fights went on for over a hundred “rounds”. I have often wondered if those old boxers just took a knee whenever they needed a break.
@@RamseyDewey yup they did indeed drop to a knee sometimes just to have a rest. Old newspaper articles from the time mention it occasionally. It was fairly frowned upon though, and sometimes the two boxers even agreed before the fight that it was against the rules, and if the ref caught either man intentionally dropping to a knee he could stop the fight and disqualify the guy.
Great video Ramsey! For the most part in life, I have come to the conclusion that all perceptions of safety are an illusion that may dissolve at any moment.
Informative and interesting as always! It's annoying when you hear people talk about mma being "so brutal" but then boxing is all Well and good. Happens less these days though.
Whenever I explain MMA rules to anyone I basically say "Boxing with a little bit of grappling ducttaped on top." The way they score grappling is atrocious and arbitrary.
Basically. The 10 point must system doesn’t work for MMA. And so say that as someone who has judged hundreds of professional fights on the 10 point must system.
Yeah, most people really just want to see an active version of kickboxing, while most UFC grappling simply isn't good enough to be described as "a chess match". You just don't see too many fights of the quality of the 2006 bout between Parisyan and Sanchez. I think that, more than anything else, people like to see finishes rather than decisions and striking results in more finishes than grappling.
Using the Thai clinch setting up knees and elbows has won me lots of thai fights but when I try it in MMA it doesn't last long in the clinch and often goes to the ground.
Your point about the gloves is spot on, gloves are basically a weapon. I mean like a level 1 weapon, but a weapon none the less, it would give you a distinct advantage over a bare handed combatant.
I've been watching a few of the old ufc fights lately. Specifically the Gracie/Shamrock fights. Definitely the no time limit fights ended up not as dramatic for the average spectator. The rules version made the sport more palatable for the networks and sponsors. I also agree many of the rules are for the sake of safety theater. Thank you for your great commentaries and videos.
I remember getting into a discussion about this with the Oleinik vs Lewis fight. Just before the first round ended Lewis was in a very tight kimora and most likely would've tapped had there been no bell/started in the same position next round. But 2nd round came and Lewis won by tko.
UFC rules favor strikers because Mark Coleman and Mark Kerr used to combine grappling with headbutts and there was really no way to counter it so they just banned it and started adding more rules
Ramsey- I have a question for one of your Q&As: How much attention do you give to determining your opponent's timing and what techniques (like certain feints) do you find affective to help you gauge their reactions? I'd love to hear and see you walk us through your techniques and especially your mindset as you do this.
But most the rules also help the grappler. Had fights where I can't take the guy round 1, talk to my corner next rounds I can take the guy down and keep them down after resting and analyzing a different approach. Gloves allow me to punch harder during ground and pound.
In my opinion, it's good that the rules favor strikers for two big reasons: 1. Striking is usually more entertaining and fun fights are good for the sport 2. In a real fight you can NEVER go to the ground because you WILL get your head stomped on. Now don't get me wrong grappling has its place; for example, when you are trying to pacify someone without hurting them, and standing grappling is useful all around, but please, if you live in a dangerous neighborhood, don't learn bjj.
1. Mma is a real fighting. It is sucks to watch a streetfight it is sucks to be part in one. Mma shouldn't imitate street fights. 2. Ground and pound ends most of the street fights. What your plan after you got knock down or if somebody jumped on you. Do you eat all the stomping and wait untill they went away?
@@katokianimation >>Mma should imitate street fights. --- Um... Have you actually seen a street fight? I'm not asking if you've been in one, because it's obvious that you haven't, but have you at least witnessed a fight on the street or in a pub, or anywhere in public outside the controlled environment of a gym or a sports hall? I have. People who fight on the street are, more often than not, absolute idiots, often drunk and/or drugged out of their mind, windmilling their hands uncontrollably, and often the fight ends not because one of the two morons is a better fighter, but because, being the untrained weak slobs that they are, they both get gassed quickly. Or someone's friends come to help and/or save their buddy. Or the security guards or the police break the fight up. Why the hell should elite fighters imitate that?
@@Tigermaster1986 it meant to be as an ironic statement. I Agree . A sport should be technical, fun to watch. And fun to do if you are into it. I have been in some brawl. And holding a person down until he is gassed out and yelling with his friends to bring him away from me is no fun. Fighting with noobs is never fun even if everything goes smoothly...
@@katokianimation Yes mma is real, fair fighting, but street fights are almost never fair. Its almost always something like 2 against 5. And the problem is, when you say it's fighting, a lot of people think, "Ok every evening I walk through a dangerous area from work, lets see how can I defend myself? Hey mma has the most real fighting, but it looks a bit too dangerous. What about bjj, Joe Rogan said it's good for fighting, plus all the mma guys train it, lets learn that" That guy tries it when he gets in a bar fight, takes the someone down and gets socker kicked in the head by another guy. MMA will always be seen as real fighting, and people will think what works there is the best thing for them. That's all I wanted to say with the second point. Btw, I like bjj, its great 1v1; it just doesn't belong in a street fight.
Not in every situation. How about when someone is bent over, pinning his opponent to the cage trying to get a takedown and the back of the grappler's head, neck, kidneys and spine are open, BUT its against the rules for the striker to elbow/punch them. There's a lot of occasions where the grappler is bent over, grabbing the legs and they're back and neck is completely open and incredibly vulnerable in a real fight, but you aren't allowed to strike there in MMA. (And when I say the grappler is bent over, it also could be a "striker" who shoots the takedown and is in a vulnerable position to be struck, but protected by the rules)
If you have your back against the cage because a halfway competent guy is in on a double leg or a single leg, the reason you would still be able to remain standing is under hooks and over hooks. As soon as you release that in an attempt to strike, you’ll go down. I wish they would legalize 12 to 6 elbows just so the world could see that it is not the game changing move people think it is because of the taboo.
@@RamseyDewey I've seen Israel Adesanya in that position where his legs are sideways against the cage, he had an underhook and his opponent is bent over and Izzy still had a free hand where he could elbow the back of the head, neck and spine. It's not even about 12:00 to 6:00 it's about how vulnerable the back of your head, neck, spine and kidneys are and how many positions those are actually open. Not saying it would have stopped Khabib, but watch the first takedown against Conor. Conor knees Khabib and then sprawls and Conor has one hand free and tries to hit Khabib and has a lot of open targets, but none of them are legal. Khabib is in a turtle position holding a leg and his vulnerable back and neck areas are wide open. There's a reason kidney blows, hitting the spine and back of the neck are illegal it's very dangerous to get hit there and that 100% favors certain grappling positions
@@RamseyDewey I don't entirely disagree with the premise of the video tho, there's plenty of rules and stuff in MMA that favor strikers. Gloves and wrist tape favor strikers, not to mention the gloves make it just a little harder to choke your opponent. Plus if there were no gloves at all, people would have to be a lot more careful throwing punches
@@RamseyDewey myth must have come from that rule that didn't allow heel kicks to the kidneys from Guard. Still follows my point, its very effective to elbow or punch the back of the head, neck, spine and kidneys and the head/back of neck/spine, are illegal and that does benefit people in certain grappling positions
2:30 that’s silly. Gloves can assist a grappler in holding his opponent arm in place. I personal felt this when I got caught in a sub and I was almost out but I had to struggle to free my hands because of my gloves Even if gloves “Favor strikers” they don’t inhibit grapplers.
Coach if you were to make a ruleset that had less flaws than the current universally accepted one that favors both boxers and grapplers and didn't have any of the well intentioned dumb rules how'd you go on about it? I'm really curious and hope it gets picked on by people and hopefully more people come to realize it, anyhow thanks for the great content and keep on with it
(Before Watching the Video) UFC rules are biased against grapplers, especially wrestlers. The majority of banned strikes could only be fully utilized if the opponent is on the bottom or ground. A good grappler/wrestler is more likely to be the one standing up or in top control, thus being in a better position to utilize these strikes. You can't kick someone when they're down unless you can take them down to begin with. Same is true for knees to the head. Downward elbows are only really useful in top control. Strikes to the back of the head are often only available if you have your opponent's back. That's not even including the rules about gloves or rounds that negatively effect grapplers. Gloves and wraps prevents wrist submissions, makes holding onto the wrist harder and allow strikers to punch harder without the fear of breaking their hand. There have also been many fighters who were saved by the bell when they were in a bad spot on the ground. By comparison, a flying knee to the face which is a danger for wrestlers is allowed by the ruleset. Grapplers, especially wrestlers, win despite the rules of UFC, not because of them.
Absolutely. Just the concept of a "standup" in general is so biased toward striking it's insane. Many fights would be over just because one guy got top position. Once.
I don't think so, grapplers can get away with more mistakes than strikers due to rules. I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if they removed the "down opponent" rule. Edit: this is only slightly related but what do you think it's the safest combat sport? I'd say olympic fencing.
I really dont think you realize how often and fast fights would end die to broken hands if there were no gloves in mma or boxing. Think about having every striker lose 30% of their power if they removed gloves. Another thing you gloss over is the existence of rounds, they give strikers time to rest and strategize. It forces grapplers to be more cautious and pace themselves more. There is a reason most street fights devolve into grapling. Striking requires a rules set to exist outside of thr initial aggression of a fight
@@httohot the first thing you said is stupid. I agree with the rounds argument, coach Ramsey didn't say anything wrong, he just downplayed what I said in my comments.
@@httohot the broken ha.fs thing, yes is a valid point but only because they currently do not train to punch properly. And certainly don't train to fight without gloves. But their training would be affected and they would adapt over time . Once they figured it out they'd be hitting harder than they were with the gloves on. And alot more open cuts to the face and less knockouts , your really not likely to actually knock someone unconscious without gloves, it's the gloves that help that to happen in the first place.
On the eight count front, sports like BKFC and Muay Thai often wave the fight on knockdowns which the referee considers to be sufficiently severe. As we move to a world where many referees ref multiple sports, and most don't start in boxing, this practice is starting to trickle into boxing. Did you know that in Douglas vs. Tyson people say that Tyson received a quick count when in reality the referee waved the count before it reached ten? You can watch it slow motion on UA-cam. Horrific knockdown, btw
The rule that actually protect wrestlers/grapples is strikes to the back pf of the head not allowed. They are viable since the cage helps to defende the takedown, be it punches, elbows or even karate chops. And yes, strikes to the head would make defending a TD against the cage much easier. Hard to push thru a td while your cerebelum is being hammered.
I understand the complaint about knees to the head of a grounded opponent but what about spiking and small joint attacks (especially if they got rid of gloves/wraps) Wouldn’t strikers have a hard time if their fingers and wrists were getting broken all the time?
As with all things like that tho, it would greatly alter the training UFC fighters undertake and the techniques they use. I'm just personally not a fan of competition but that would definitely make it alot more realistic, although the reality of a fight is what they are attempting to get away from by having the rules they do.
Mma rules will always be discussed among mma fans but I do think that they are not that bad. What Ramsey is looking for are rules for a "perfect fight", as close as a "real fight" can be. But when we watch mma, we are not really watching a fight, we are watching a sport. It is not only about fighting, it is also about entertainment, fair competition, tv logistic, ritualisation, creating a fan community, and so on. For exemple, who does not appreciate an athlete's comeback after a strong speech from his coach after a disputed round, even if this make no sens when it comes to pure fighting? Also rules are the same for everyone , so wreslers can vert well change their game and include more striking if it is more efficient due to those rules... which is not really what is happening in mma. Agree on the 12/6 elbow though
I thought this was obvious from most scoring details(a judge would most likely award a win to a striker that opened a cut on his opponent vs a grappler with good top control but no submission) but the only rule I know that can benefit grapplers is the inability to knee/kick an opponent once a leg is down. Also idk how many fake grappling people have seen to think they would be able to 12-6 elbow someone on a takedown attempt unless maybe to the top of the skull/back of the head, which is already illegal. While I do think it makes sense due to the fact that many "fans" do not appreciate grappling on a technical level outside of an imanari roll/choke/kimura, it also does require the strikers to learn some grappling because if any boxer with zero MMA or grappling training had to fight under ufc rules against someone from a jiu jitsu background they would just get rag dolled
@@IncredibleMD if you agree that UFC is geared towards strikers, you should get that something as meaningless and subjective as "top control" is going to be a lot easier for grapplers to be scored toward. A great example is early in Khabib Nurmagomedov's fight with Al Iaquinta, but I'm curious what you think would be a better method to score towards grappling advantage that would be able to apply to judges trying to score a fight
@@ElijahLoganmaztrpeac3official The problem with grappling is that it's a lot more binary than striking. It either worked or it didn't. Punch someone in the face, and he'll feel that for the rest of the fight. A submission attempt doesn't do anything, in the long run. If it had been effective, it would've been finished. Six submission attempts and zero submissions just means you got your offence totally shut down a half dozen times. Counting submission attempts is like counting dodged punches.
@@IncredibleMD that's why I was asking what you think would be an effective way to score points because realistically a decision victory is going to the more effective striker
@@ElijahLoganmaztrpeac3official Effective grappling doesn't need scoring, because if the grappling was actually effective, the fight would've ended in a stoppage. You can punch someone, and not knock them out, and still do damage. But a hold doesn't really do damage until the point the ref will stop the fight over it. Choking someone half-unconscious is the same as not choking them at all. That's how BJJ gets away with training full force on each other and choking each other hlf-unconscious a dozen times in a session without ill effect.
It's like cricket, the rule changes usually benefit the batter, simply cos some one smashing 6's over the fence is entertaining to the masses. It takes a fanatic to appreciate the intricacies of spin bowling that no-one can score off. Likewise a smash & basher with armoured hands is more exciting to watch than a couple of dudes writhing on the mat
The only thing I can really see in this that favours the strikers is the structure of the rounds. Even that I have to take with a grain of salt because by that logic every grappler should have won every fight in Pride but that simply was not the case. Strikers had the ability to strike with a lot more freedom on the ground. Knees and 12 to 6 elbows to a grounded opponent were allowed. So were soccer kicks to the head if they were just attempting lazy takedowns to try and get a rest. I think realistically with the rules that are in place. If you're a grappler predominantly you're going to feel like the rules are in favour of the strikers with the energy that you have to use going for takedowns. As a striker you're gonna feel like the grapplers have a rule advantage with the fact that you're not even allowed to strike with your full arsenal. I mean Demetrius Johnson got knocked out with a knee while he was trying to grapple in one championship because they allow knees to head on a downed opponent. But as you said, without a bell to save you from some of these takedowns that you're not fighting to get back off the ground from. What are those fighters gonna do then ? PS. I'd love to hear people's thoughts and opinions on this if anyone's got anything to add or challenge in this.
It's favors wrestling and the standing game. Only slow and technical submission grappling suffers from this round structure. You have to quickly throw some reckless elbows and haymakers to score points with the risk of them slipping away. But for wrestling the 5 minutes round is perfect. You have time to take them down and you have a little break. And probably this is on purpose. People want to see a kick-box match with takedowns and g&d. They don't want to watch them hugging on the floor for 10 minutes fighting from two guy sitting on each others leg, to two guy sitting on each others leg slightly differently wich really matters according to a bjj nerd. Instead of fuck i don't care if the position isn't secure enugh i have to run for the submission because the clock is ticking
i think rounds massively favour strikers, but not only that, the gloves. why tf are strikers allowed to wear gloves? if you break your hand from punching then dont punch.
@@grappling.enthusiast Gloves don't just save athlete's hands though as bare knuckle boxing has shown. Multiple fighters have left with broken orbital sockets after never suffering that injury through their entire MMA career. It's not a coincidence that the one time they receive a punch without any padding, their face breaks. That being said, if you want to talk about the hand wraps under the gloves, they do literally hold your hands together even if you break them, which is an advantage. However, why wouldn't strikers be allowed to have that advantage when the entire canvas of an MMA ring is designed to give grapplers an edge? There are still high level fighters that pull guard from a standing position in MMA and you can't do that on a surface that isn't heavily padded. The canvas also helps wrestlers In the sense their knees don't get as messed up shooting for deep takedowns. I know not every takedown requires a knee to touch the canvas. However, having the option to mix up your takedowns is what makes wrestlers so effective in the first place. Imagine MMA with no ankle picks or deep takedowns.
@@jamtime4978 No, gloves dont save their hands but they weaponise it - if gloves were taken out of mma, strikers would decline and grapplers would be almost unaffected COMPLETELY. Take waway a grappler's gloves - theyve been training combat sports bare handed like their whole lives. The canvas not only protects wrestler's who go for takedown but protects strikers from getting suplexed on hard ground. that point isnt even good because half the wrestlers in MMA come from greco roman wrestling, and greco wrestlers hardly use their knees at all. Also, luckily for strikers spikes are illegal. they got standup rules where the referee stands up the fighters when they are "stalling". but if they stall on the feet, they never take the fight to the ground no. Both points you mentioned only proves my points. Gloves obviously benefit strikers thats not even remotely debatable, and the canvas protects strikers a lot more, as instead of being suplexed on hard floor, there is cushioning to it. The "oh but their knees" acts as if greco wrestling isnt one of the most represented discipline in MMA.
@@grappling.enthusiastI did forget to mention strikers getting slammed on canvas, which actually does save them a hell of a lot however, it doesn't change the advantages that it gives to other disciplines offensively. Also why I understand spikes are illegal in MMA however anything with an arc is not which means you can still be slammed on your head. Look at what happened to Belial and Rose in their fights. Suplexes are still legal It's just you don't see big slams like that because most strikers in any MMA situation are going to have a basic understanding of grappling. It's much more likely for an mma striker to stuff a few takedowns before a predominant wrestler gets to a position where they can legitimately slam someone. On the point with the gloves, the reason I brought up wraps before is because I think you're overestimating how much protection the MMA gloves give the fighters. Hands break a lot in MMA because there's only about six 6oz of padding in an MMA glove. The reason why a lot of fighters can continue to throw strikes with broken hands is because the wrapping and tape underneath the glove is literally holding the small bones in the hands together as tightly as they can. Wraps also give wrist support which can help with other injuries and breaks. Taking both the wraps and the gloves into account, I still can't agree that striking would be minimal in MMA. You'd still see plenty of kicks, knees and elbows on top of the fact that people would find ways to strike regardless of the risk of breaking the hand. It's not going to happen to everyone every fight that's for sure. It's certainly not like everybody who's ever thrown a punch at somebody broke their hand now is it? Not to mention there are other ways to strike that have been proven to be legitimate. Not so much in modern day MMA but at least Pancrase had a bit of palm striking from Bas Rutten which actually led to him finishing several people on the ground. In regards to stalling, you can definitely stall on the feet. Happens all the time in the clinch and there are separations. Not only that, but if you refuse to engage your opponent on the feet that is also stalling and you will also be penalised. Also, we still haven't addressed the elephant in the room in the sense that knees and kicks to a downed opponent's head aren't legal in most forms of MMA and the organisations that do allow it have had multiple finishes to grapplers via those strikes.
I think the rules favour mixed martial artists instead of fighters with just one fighting style. If you’re a world class striker with zero grappling experience and you fight someone that just knows how to take you down you’re going to loose
The Pride FC tended to favor strikers as well. edit : i remember someone told me how the final bout of the UFC 2 was lame because ''Royce Gracie took his sweet time to submit". and the fight you mention, Orlando and his wife literally told on a French tv it was barbaric, and David Douillet (2 time judo olympic champ) highly critized the other guy by saying ''he s not a good judoka, i didnt know he was a good brawler".
Ramsey, does every country have their own martial art? Why I mean is, it seems there are tonnes of versions of grappling, e.g. Pancration, Greco Roman, believe there is a Chinese and Mongolian but they all have specific names. Is this the same for all martial art types? Furthermore seems to be Chinese boxing, etc. Heard a guy on YT claim 70% of Korean martial arts are kicking?
Give It Up Oh yeah Well there will be no words of fighting, around here 'Cause I have no manners 'Cause it ain't clear Well it could be on a Monday Or it could even be a Sunday So if you can't stand the distance You better disappear Do I make myself clear? I'm ready to rock I'm gonna rip it Ready to rock Yeah, I'm gonna stick it Give it up, give it out Whip it up, all about Stick it up, shout it loud Come on Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up, yea Oh yeah Well it's a big storm a' howling, around here And there be no one to sinning, and no beer I'm gonna aim to fire a rocket There ain't no damn way to stop it I got a sure fire bullet to get you out of here I said - do I make myself clear I'm ready to rock Yeah I'm gonna whip it Ready to rock Yeah, I'm gonna stick it Give it up, give it out I said whip it up, all about You gotta stick it up, shout it loud Come on Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up I'm going crazy on your wedding-night Take your pick of anything you like Give it up Give it up Sitting pretty, all ready to bite She give it up, I get cream delight Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up, give it out And whip it up, all about You gotta stick it up, shout it loud Give it up, all around Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up Stick it up, stick it out Stick 'em down Give it up, all around Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up Give it up Sticking it out Give it up Give it up Give it up, oh Yeah baby Do I make myself clear?
Coach Ramsey, Chael Sonnen has made multiple videos talking about how ineffective kicks are in a fight. I’m curious if you can comment on that. He basically says kicks carry more risks than rewards and it’s better to just punch in a fight.
Hey Ramsey, what do you think about different enclosures for fights and which would you consider the most "authentic?" Like the ring MMA of Pride, the typical Cage and the Karate Combat pit.
MMA in the karate combat pit would make takedowns ridiculously easy. At least with a cage wall, both fighters have to work evenly when up against the fence. MMA in a boxing ring sucks. It’s just bad… nope. Anything bigger and more open than a cage, and you’ll just burn more time on the clock before the fighters run into the barrier again and test its limits.
Hey Ramsey I have been practicing K1/Dutch style for 1,5 years and i also did some Karate when i was younger. Yesterday i had a conversation with that friend who is a judo guy but also has some Karate experience (he did private Wado Ryu lessons and i know for a fact that he has never had a striking sparing session in his life). He sent me a 30 second video of Kyokushin highlights and started saying the usual staff that a TMA guy would say like: "This is real fighting for the streets! You Combat sports wimps can't even fight without your wimpy gloves and headgears! Any karate guy would finish you in seconds... blah blah blah" Isn't it funny that the guys who know nothing always have the most loud mouth? And also don't you think that 5 rounds of sparing with experienced fighters would change their opinion a lot?
Which is funny because Kyokushin and Judo are combat sports. So is Taekwondo, and even Kung Fu (Sanda). All a combat sport is in essence is you make a sport of any martial art by adding a ruleset to it. I could make a ruleset for Fujian White Crane or Wing Chun if I wanted. Back then, Judo and Karate didn't have rules or a sport, it was reality based self defense except it's actually based in reality.
Strikers would do even better if they were allowed strikes to downed opponents including soccer kicks like pride. It would be interesting to make just one really long round to help balance it out and let grapplers work.
15 to 20 minutes of Jujitsu is just boring to most people . Only a few enjoy what's going on the mat of the ring . So of course striking and throwing would be favorable to the crowd .
I think the main problem with the lack of rule changing is the desire among some people to make MMA a sport, they want mean looking things like kicks to the head of a downed opponent and bare knuckle fighting to stay gone for the sole purpose of marketing the sport to the wrong people, I am a firm believer that MMA isn’t a sport, it’s ritual combat, the idea that the kind of sportsmanship you see in sprinting should be mirrored by people who are about to go out and attack each other is insane, I guess my experience isn’t unanimous but I cannot imagine playing friendly with someone one minute and then trying to beat, choke and break them until the referee stops it, if some guy threw me onto my head and I landed badly I cannot imagine what it would feel like to know that I might not be there if I had taken it more seriously
@@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812 I have to disagree, competition isn’t and has never meant the same thing as sport, I used to compete in a lot of karate tournaments and having watched other sports, it’s very clear that sportsmanship is expected, in MMA it is psychotic to expect sportsmanship, not to mention the fact that it doesn’t work like a sport, it’s just prize fighting, it’s not on a tournament basis and no matter how good you are if no ones gonna watch your fights you will never fight for championships and if you have a mediocre following like Yoel Romero they’ll drop you for being too good and being a roadblock for more popular younger guys, to call it a sport is stupid, no one can say who the best MMA fighter in the world is, there’s a best sprinter, a best swimmer, a best footballer, a best judoka, a best wrestler etc etc, there’s enormous guesswork in naming a best boxer or mixed martial artist and even then it’s almost always a popularity contest
@@lilalmonds4595 because there is not a "best fighter" in the world, being a better fighter does not guarantee you will win the fight. In MMA or in real life. It is a combat sport the same as any other combat sport which actually originated as practice, not a competition , not a real fight just practice. If it was a "real fight" they wouldn't even be out there lol
@@lilalmonds4595 and as I mentioned in my view of it, actual competition is stupid and senseless . But that is the goal they are going for there. Martial arts never belonged in sports, but it's there now so it is what it is 🤷
@@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812 what are you saying? You’re saying combat sports aren’t real fights as if the ultimate goal of MMA isn’t to replicate a real fight, no holds barred etc, and people did go out and fight in ufc 1, not to mention the fact that the majority of the time the better fighter wins but I hate to break it to you, the fact that you compete against and not next too your opponent is another reason to not consider it a sport
Strikers over grapplers and wrestlers over Strikers. Staying on top without doing anything gives you domination points. Taking down smoothly without any impact has the same points as a significant strike...🤔
Fantastic video Ramsey! Though I agree with many of your points, I would imagine rules, namely gloves rounds, and time limits are in place to encourage a more exciting fight for a casual audience. At the end of the day, the UFC and other fight promotions have to run a business and if more scrappy striking matches which have an urgency given time limits sell better, than that’s gonna be the product. Again, great video!
I stand to be corrected, but I’m pretty sure an 8 count is when a fighter gets held up by the ropes when they would otherwise have been knocked down. A normal knockdown receives a 10 count.
No. The standing 8 count is an anticipated rule that was abandoned by most boxing organizations in 1993 (some kickboxing shows still use it though) where the referee had the liberty to stop the action when it otherwise would have ended in a TKO, abs give the losing fighter 8 seconds to recover. It had nothing to do with being held up by the ropes. It was a very stupid rule, and it ruined a lot of fights.
@@RamseyDewey I don’t know the history of the rule but I mentioned it because I remember Povetkin getting a standing 8 count against David Price - I could be remembering this wrong. I’ve had a brief read just now and from what I can see, there are still a few places/organisations that use it. *ive just rewatched it and the count happens right at the end of the round so it may just have been a 10 count and the commentator didn’t know the rules.
I haven't been able to find any real stats of any kind, but I think it's very possible that striking leads to more finishes than grappling. Are more fights finished by striking than grappling? Any stats on that?
@@RamseyDewey - Thanks! It's interesting when one considers how well grapplers did, overall, in the UFC before the round system was introduced. It's also easy to see that if, within a set time limit, a bout is as likely to end by decision as by submission, grappling isn't seen as being as "decisive" as striking today. Given no time limit, the early UFCs were a good argument, not for the "superiority" of BJJ, but for the idea that grappling was an effective way of neutralizing a single opponent. Even though that's still true, imposing any kind of time limit on bouts in the interest of showing more fights was a natural evolution, not of fighting, but of the business of selling fights within a predictable timetable/format. In the fight world of today, it's an interesting question as to whether, without rounds and in a non-tournament format, UFC events WOULD show more, or even better, fights than they currently do. Even though he won almost as many fights by KO/TKO and decision as by submission (8/10/11), no one really had an answer to Khabib Nurmagomedov's grappling, even WITHIN the rules of the UFC as they currently stand and in an era when takedown defense is seen as fundamental as any other fighting skill.
take off the gloves and get rid of the rounds. legalise grounded knees and stomps. then the ufc gets bankrupt because sadly not everyone is like me and wants to see fight simulations.
I think grappling doesn't dominate as much as it used to, due to literally every fighter having some form of Juijitsu Wrestling or Judo ect training. At the very least they know how to defend takedowns. I see your point about gloves too, and rounds too.
Quite interesting. Never thought about it that way. I'd love to be able to utilise all my striking from TKD but prob important to be competent in grappling. Which U used to do through BJJ.
Hi coach. Great video. I agree 100% with your take on boxing. I would like to know how would you make the sport of boxing safer. What ruleset would you introduce if you had the chance? I love the sport, but certainly we could make it safer. Although i think it could cost money and that's why nobody tried (or maybe tried but did not accomplish any major change), i would like to know your take on that. Keep making videos! and sorry for my english.
To be fair, while I agree with some of the other guys here that these rules help the spectacle (to some extent), I wish we'd have some more of the old stuff as well, for the reality of it. I wish we'd get guys in Kimonos fighting guys in Muay Thai shorts for half an hour, like a tekken game.
The rules favor grapplers not strikers. No 12 -6. Which is perfect for When a guy tackles you against the cage with his head exposed. No striking behind the head.. but you drop someone on their heads or back of head. No eye poke no down knee that’s all strikes
You can see a valley of plenty videos that demonstrate that you can not defend a take down with elbow strikes. Striking behind the head would favor the one who can take your back... Eye gouching also out of the table... and testicle squeezing if we go crazzy kung fu bs about it.
I had to login just so I could argue. Impressive bait in this capacity, I never do this. I agree on a couple of things. As an aside, the reason the boxing commission made the rules is that they were the ones taking the risks. They would theoretically be on the hook for medical bills of fighters, providing refs, judges, and medical doctors and staff on hand should be their responsibility as well. I am a striker, not a grappler, and with the caliber of strikers in the OneFC I'm amazed they allow spike elbows to be honest. It's very dangerous on the neck from standing (where you mentioned you saw the knockout). The reason it's not allowed in Muay Thai competitions in America is that the spike elbow has you basically jump and land with all your weight on an opponent's head with your elbow, it can REALLY hurt someone's neck doing that technique. Same with shots to the back of the head, they're illegal in every single fight sport for a reason. The human body is simply not meant to take shots to the back of the head. 12 to 6 elbows on the ground really aren't that bad all things considered as you say. But the leaping spike elbow is what should remain banned. The round reset you give it 100% to the striker and I think around 80% favor to striker would be more fair. Wrestling is exhausting and a minute of one on one time with a solid coach who's been watching your opponent for the last 5 minutes can get some invaluable advice that can change the tide of the fight on top of the ability to rehydrate. The coach can take that minute to give a new trajectory for takedown based on a weakness the coach perceived and the fighter couldn't. The break doesn't always only favor a grappler, I've seen blitzes that stun a grappler and a few more seconds could have earned a knockout but the reset allowed the grappler to recover and wind up getting the submission next round. The three touch rule of grapplers, one hand or knee on the ground being enough to not allow strikes is a significant favor to the grappler because it discourages a knee to the face to defend against the double leg which is the absolute best defense a striker has against it. I saw what you mean about grappling for the takedown which makes the knee in that scenario less relevant, agreed. Nevertheless it's still taking good tools away from the striker and that should be acknowledged. The gloves benefit everyone in my opinion. Ever see the fight with the great grappler Urijah Faber where he broke both hands in the first round of a five round war with Mike Brown? Talk about grit! But if his hands were intact, I think Faber would have taken the fight altogether. Without gloves, this scenario is likely to happen even more often when a good grappler can't grapple with broken hands.
the reason for the rules is audiences were getting bored with watching 2 people on the ground hugging sometimes seeming to be doing nothing so the rules changed to allow the ref to stand the fight back up if nothing was actually being done on the ground except holding. that rule was simply to do with ticket sales
can't hold the fence, no knees to the head of a grounded opponent, no 12-6 elbows, no spiking, no head butts..grapplers are definitely given far more safety nets due to the rules than the striker is.
How? No Holding the fence is so you don’t get your fingers ripped off. Spiking is a grappling technique: ua-cam.com/users/shortsD21kqfG93n4?feature=share Head butts can only be used inside a clinch or from a dominant position on the ground (ie: grappling) The only rule you brought up that substantiates your argument even a little bit is the 12 to 6 elbow, and I already tore that one to shreds in this video.
@@RamseyDewey No holding the fence favors the grappler for pretty fair and obvious reasons, but still favors the grappler nonetheless. no spiking allows a grappler the safety to attempt submissions, if a striker was allowed to spike before the submission was even locked in and being held we'd see far more Rampage Jackson/Jessica Andrade knockouts. If headbutts were allowed a striker could use them while a grappler was pulling guard or trying to tie them up on the feet, so again that gives the grappler the advantage by making them illegal..how many jits guys would be willing to lay on bottom for a breather if they still had to take a forehead to the face after wrapping up arms and legs? How many wrestlers would be content to hold a guy against the fence if he was still taking foreheads to the orbital or nose? the knee to the head of a grounded opponent should be pretty obvious and you didn't address it in your comment, so I'll assume we're on the same page with that one.
The lack of knees on the ground actually punishes people who stuff take-downs and allows grapplers to get away with crappy take-down attempt fails.
Agreed. Soccer kicks add a whole nother dimension to the sport which forces grapplers to stay active and not slow down the pace of the fight trying to stall or pull guard. Furthermore, there is 0 evidence that being kicked while laying down is any more dangerous than being kicked while on the feet. Like Ramsey said, it's not about safety, but the optics of safety.
The ONLY people that stuff takedowns are WRESTLERS and Jose Aldo. Also wrestlers can reach that position via snapdowns. Watch Pride FC and see wrestlers dominating with knees to the head
@@markcorrigan3930 The fuck are you talking about? Only wrestlers can stuff a takedown? Are boxers the only people that can throw punches.
Basic physics is evidence
Punch a floating balloon then punch a balloon anchored to the ground and tell me which one takes more damage
Yes it makes takedowns more risky but it also makes it more rewarding once you have taken them down. Your opponent will be in side control bottom and will probably turtle up trying to stand.
Senator McCain’s (his wife) was highly connected to Bud Light, who was the main sponsor fir pro boxing at the time. He didn’t want UFC sales to interfere with boxing/bud light sales!
That’s the only reason he was interfering!
I’ve heard that too. McCain was a life long boxing fan. He even competed in boxing in the Navy.
I do agree that the round structure and glove requirement favors strikers. But most other rules favor grapplers. The main tension in a cross-style fight is the question -- "can the striker do enough damage to the wrestler/grappler as he closes?" Every rule that protects a wrestler/grappler as they close to contact is a major advantage to the grappler. This is especially true for rules that protect wrestlers/grapplers from suffering consequences after a failed takedown.
A wrestler/grappler can seek and maintain contact without fear of strikes to the back of the head (not just 12-6 elbows, but any strike to the back of the head). A wrestler/grappler can seek and maintain contact without fear of kicks whenever they have a hand or knee on the mat. This drastically lowers the risk of attempting a takedown -- it ENCOURAGES the kind of "crappling" that you're upset about because the chances of getting busted up during a half-ass takedown attempt is far less.
Go rewatch the first few UFCs (Gourdea's two wins in UFC 1, Rozier's win in the first round of UFC 1, Wiet's win in the first round of UFC 2, etc.) and look how many fights were decided by kicks and knees to a grounded opponent.
The rules exist to protect a fighter at his most vulnerable point, but that allows wrestlers/grapplers to be more aggressive, take more risks, get away with more "less than perfect" entries.
If grappler/wrestlers were eating a knee to the head every time they had a takedown stuffed by a sprawl, I guarantee you that fighters would shoot less frequently. Takedowns would be more like a spinning strikes -- they'd have to feel range, feint, and strike to create an opening before taking the risk.
Hey what you said about punches to the back of the head isn't really true
@@gagebatek1809 yeah they can still land plenty quality punches to the side and the top of the head.
Wrestlers would be the people ending up at the top of a successful sprawl more often. In my humble opinion if we went back to original no gloves vale tudo no rounds style anything allowed, you would see grapplers dominate.
@@zacharycompton5624 Strikes to the back of the head have a much higher effect because they directly affect the cerebellum responsible for vital functions and not just the frontal cortex.
I agree with OP that this "grounded opponent" rule strongly favors grapplers/wrestlers.
Also, the cage favors wrestlers/grapplers. Imagine the fight taking place on a football field where the striker always has enough space behind to stay out of clinch/TD range.
@@zacharycompton5624 You're missing the point. Whether strikers or wrestlers successfully sprawl more often, its ALWAYS in response to a wrestler/grappler. Therefore, a rule that makes counter-striking after a sprawl less potent inherently favors wrestler/grapplers.
Think of it like this a striking analogy.
Spinning kicks are great. They generate a lot of power and that leads to knockouts. But they also leave you very exposed if you miss. So strikers spend a lot of time setting them up and only use them smartly. But, IMAGINE if the rules said "you may not attack a standing opponent from his rear quarter." After a spin kick, you'd have to wait until they reset and were facing you again. With that rule, strikers would throw spin kicks all the time with far less care for quality, because the rules restrict the counter. Its the same thing protecting the back of the head and a grounded opponent for wrestlers/grapplers.
This is so eye opening for me. It was so easy to watch UFC without questioning these things having grown up watching boxing and accepting many of these rules were just the norm for fighting.
Yep, the only thing is that he is a grappler and thus the bias.
,,Striking is touching each other too! Didn't you know that, guys?" awesome
IMO, UFC rules favorite grapplers more. They put too much restrictions on striking, particularly limiting what can be done on grounded opponent.
The only rule really favorite striker is the round time.
That Makes no sense
Limitations of what you can do to a grounded opponent effects both sides. But the fact that every round starts with striking only favors strikers.
@@silentassassin423 That's like saying the real world favors strikers because all real world fights starts with striking.
@@kwanarchive No. That is different. Of course if a striker wants to win against a grappler, the fight has to start on the feet. But round system is different. Sometimes a wrestler gets a takedown and he works really hard for it. And the striker has no clue how to get up, so he just tries not to get finished and waits for the round to end. And they start on the feet again. Now the grappler has to work even more because the striker got saved by the bell. Even if there are rounds, I would like it more if fighters started the next round with the position they were in, in the previous round. If that's the case, then the striker wouldn't get saved by the bell, because they will start the next round on the ground. And the striker would have to use his own skills to get up.
@@silentassassin423 That's not fair either, because the grappler had a rest. Maybe before the round finished, they were gassing out and would have let go. But because of the rest, they get their stamina back and hold on when they would have failed.
I've seen grapplers broken up and forced to stand. I've never seen strikers broken up and forced to grapple.
You've included some great clips of old UFC to illustrate your points here!
Great stuff coach, love how u tell Jack Dempsey stories . I reader that book thanks to you and my boxing level rise 100%. The mechanics are perfect and if u follow jacks instruction u will definitely get better
Dempsey’s book is exceptional!
I agree SO HARD on this. Striking makes for good business. Grappling makes for effective fighting.
Grappling was exposed in pride fc which is why they implemented all the modern day sissy rules which handicap strikers so quit lying and go watch some pridefc fights because its obvious grappling was exposed and its useless when a striker has all his tools to work with
@@bobbyjoeyoung2becausesteph194 stfu lol you’re just mad that grappling is better than striking at every aspect. Pride fc is flawed simply because there were way more strikers than grapplers in the league.
@@bobbyjoeyoung2becausesteph194 The king of pride FC was Fedor, a judoka. so no, pride did not expose grappling.
Great breakdown. There is at least one very simple fix to one of the (big) imbalances you are listing: the ref could start the new round from the position the fighters ended the prior round in. Not a lot of discussion, it’s done in BJJ tourneys the entire time, usually to bring the two competitors back to the center of the mat.
The original idea behind rounds in boxing was to prevent striking a downed opponent and/or groundfighting. Before the Marquis of Queensbury rules were introduced a round ended whenever someone was knocked down. If even a knee touched the floor, then the round was over and there was a break of up to 30 seconds. The Queensbury rules introduced the idea of a standardized round length, before then rounds could vary from a few seconds to 20+ minutes.
Yep. That’s why many of those old fights went on for over a hundred “rounds”. I have often wondered if those old boxers just took a knee whenever they needed a break.
@@RamseyDewey yup they did indeed drop to a knee sometimes just to have a rest. Old newspaper articles from the time mention it occasionally. It was fairly frowned upon though, and sometimes the two boxers even agreed before the fight that it was against the rules, and if the ref caught either man intentionally dropping to a knee he could stop the fight and disqualify the guy.
Great video Ramsey! For the most part in life, I have come to the conclusion that all perceptions of safety are an illusion that may dissolve at any moment.
Informative and interesting as always!
It's annoying when you hear people talk about mma being "so brutal" but then boxing is all Well and good. Happens less these days though.
Whenever I explain MMA rules to anyone I basically say "Boxing with a little bit of grappling ducttaped on top." The way they score grappling is atrocious and arbitrary.
Basically. The 10 point must system doesn’t work for MMA. And so say that as someone who has judged hundreds of professional fights on the 10 point must system.
Yeah, most people really just want to see an active version of kickboxing, while most UFC grappling simply isn't good enough to be described as "a chess match". You just don't see too many fights of the quality of the 2006 bout between Parisyan and Sanchez. I think that, more than anything else, people like to see finishes rather than decisions and striking results in more finishes than grappling.
Using the Thai clinch setting up knees and elbows has won me lots of thai fights but when I try it in MMA it doesn't last long in the clinch and often goes to the ground.
Yep, double collar ties have to be used very differently when you’re dealing with the level changes of wrestling.
Your point about the gloves is spot on, gloves are basically a weapon. I mean like a level 1 weapon, but a weapon none the less, it would give you a distinct advantage over a bare handed combatant.
"Crap-pling". Solid gold, Ramsey. Just right on point. 😆
I'd love to see modern MMA competitions with no rounds and say about a 30 min. time limit
This is why I love Dewey, he breaks down common sense into scientific facts
I agree with Dewey, but this just a discussion. Not a scientific fact, please don’t confuse the two they’re vary deferent.
I've been watching a few of the old ufc fights lately. Specifically the Gracie/Shamrock fights. Definitely the no time limit fights ended up not as dramatic for the average spectator. The rules version made the sport more palatable for the networks and sponsors. I also agree many of the rules are for the sake of safety theater. Thank you for your great commentaries and videos.
I remember getting into a discussion about this with the Oleinik vs Lewis fight. Just before the first round ended Lewis was in a very tight kimora and most likely would've tapped had there been no bell/started in the same position next round. But 2nd round came and Lewis won by tko.
I was sad about that lol.
It’s the same thing with the more recent Brunson and Cannonier fight. Brunson was on his back looking for the RNC, and almost had it.
So? Same can be said about the wrestlers who gas out quickly but get a takedown every round to win on the scorecards...
@@memevarg2530 guys like colby and khabib dont gas dum dum. Wrestlers usually have great cardio
@@JonAfrica-vg7xq those are exceptions. Them and gsp. I've seen more wrestlers gas out in the stand-up than strikers...
UFC rules favor strikers because Mark Coleman and Mark Kerr used to combine grappling with headbutts and there was really no way to counter it so they just banned it and started adding more rules
A shame, or else Lethwei would be knocking on the door. I would love to see headbutts being used in MMA.
Ramsey- I have a question for one of your Q&As: How much attention do you give to determining your opponent's timing and what techniques (like certain feints) do you find affective to help you gauge their reactions? I'd love to hear and see you walk us through your techniques and especially your mindset as you do this.
For self defense usually a Grappling focus is just better. Also biting, eye gouging, even headbutts are all at grappling range.
I thought they did that to make the sport more television-friendly; to kill the boredom and boost ratings.
Very much appreciate the history, sir. Didn't know any of that. Also appreciated the "security theater" comment... you clearly get it. Great video!
But most the rules also help the grappler. Had fights where I can't take the guy round 1, talk to my corner next rounds I can take the guy down and keep them down after resting and analyzing a different approach. Gloves allow me to punch harder during ground and pound.
they help both - just strikers benefit more from it
@@grappling.enthusiast I will accept this take.
This man always has good views and you can tell he knows his stuff well. He's an interesting character.
"Crappling" is such a great term, and it is entirely what I do 😆
In my opinion, it's good that the rules favor strikers for two big reasons: 1. Striking is usually more entertaining and fun fights are good for the sport 2. In a real fight you can NEVER go to the ground because you WILL get your head stomped on. Now don't get me wrong grappling has its place; for example, when you are trying to pacify someone without hurting them, and standing grappling is useful all around, but please, if you live in a dangerous neighborhood, don't learn bjj.
1. Mma is a real fighting. It is sucks to watch a streetfight it is sucks to be part in one. Mma shouldn't imitate street fights.
2. Ground and pound ends most of the street fights. What your plan after you got knock down or if somebody jumped on you. Do you eat all the stomping and wait untill they went away?
@@katokianimation >>Mma should imitate street fights.
---
Um... Have you actually seen a street fight? I'm not asking if you've been in one, because it's obvious that you haven't, but have you at least witnessed a fight on the street or in a pub, or anywhere in public outside the controlled environment of a gym or a sports hall?
I have. People who fight on the street are, more often than not, absolute idiots, often drunk and/or drugged out of their mind, windmilling their hands uncontrollably, and often the fight ends not because one of the two morons is a better fighter, but because, being the untrained weak slobs that they are, they both get gassed quickly. Or someone's friends come to help and/or save their buddy. Or the security guards or the police break the fight up.
Why the hell should elite fighters imitate that?
@@Tigermaster1986 it meant to be as an ironic statement. I Agree . A sport should be technical, fun to watch. And fun to do if you are into it.
I have been in some brawl. And holding a person down until he is gassed out and yelling with his friends to bring him away from me is no fun.
Fighting with noobs is never fun even if everything goes smoothly...
@@katokianimation Oh. Sorry. English isn't my first language and occasionally I don't get written irony well enough.
@@katokianimation Yes mma is real, fair fighting, but street fights are almost never fair. Its almost always something like 2 against 5. And the problem is, when you say it's fighting, a lot of people think, "Ok every evening I walk through a dangerous area from work, lets see how can I defend myself? Hey mma has the most real fighting, but it looks a bit too dangerous. What about bjj, Joe Rogan said it's good for fighting, plus all the mma guys train it, lets learn that" That guy tries it when he gets in a bar fight, takes the someone down and gets socker kicked in the head by another guy. MMA will always be seen as real fighting, and people will think what works there is the best thing for them. That's all I wanted to say with the second point.
Btw, I like bjj, its great 1v1; it just doesn't belong in a street fight.
Not in every situation. How about when someone is bent over, pinning his opponent to the cage trying to get a takedown and the back of the grappler's head, neck, kidneys and spine are open, BUT its against the rules for the striker to elbow/punch them.
There's a lot of occasions where the grappler is bent over, grabbing the legs and they're back and neck is completely open and incredibly vulnerable in a real fight, but you aren't allowed to strike there in MMA.
(And when I say the grappler is bent over, it also could be a "striker" who shoots the takedown and is in a vulnerable position to be struck, but protected by the rules)
If you have your back against the cage because a halfway competent guy is in on a double leg or a single leg, the reason you would still be able to remain standing is under hooks and over hooks. As soon as you release that in an attempt to strike, you’ll go down.
I wish they would legalize 12 to 6 elbows just so the world could see that it is not the game changing move people think it is because of the taboo.
@@RamseyDewey I've seen Israel Adesanya in that position where his legs are sideways against the cage, he had an underhook and his opponent is bent over and Izzy still had a free hand where he could elbow the back of the head, neck and spine.
It's not even about 12:00 to 6:00 it's about how vulnerable the back of your head, neck, spine and kidneys are and how many positions those are actually open.
Not saying it would have stopped Khabib, but watch the first takedown against Conor. Conor knees Khabib and then sprawls and Conor has one hand free and tries to hit Khabib and has a lot of open targets, but none of them are legal.
Khabib is in a turtle position holding a leg and his vulnerable back and neck areas are wide open.
There's a reason kidney blows, hitting the spine and back of the neck are illegal it's very dangerous to get hit there and that 100% favors certain grappling positions
@@RamseyDewey I don't entirely disagree with the premise of the video tho, there's plenty of rules and stuff in MMA that favor strikers. Gloves and wrist tape favor strikers, not to mention the gloves make it just a little harder to choke your opponent.
Plus if there were no gloves at all, people would have to be a lot more careful throwing punches
@@stephanwatson7902 striking the kidneys is NOT illegal in MMA. That’s a myth.
@@RamseyDewey myth must have come from that rule that didn't allow heel kicks to the kidneys from Guard.
Still follows my point, its very effective to elbow or punch the back of the head, neck, spine and kidneys and the head/back of neck/spine, are illegal and that does benefit people in certain grappling positions
Confirmed! The Ramsay Dewey Invitational will be Combat Jujitsu rules.
Union rules also favor strikers. WORKERS UNITE!!!!
Personally wouldn't like it if grapplers are also limited in what they do and I say this as a Muay Thai enthusiast.
gloves actually make punching more dangerous and cause more concussions, same with rounds. Literally the opposite of the Safety they wanted.
2:30 that’s silly.
Gloves can assist a grappler in holding his opponent arm in place. I personal felt this when I got caught in a sub and I was almost out but I had to struggle to free my hands because of my gloves
Even if gloves “Favor strikers” they don’t inhibit grapplers.
If that happens to you again, start dropping elbows. If the other guy controls your hand, he doesn’t control your elbow and shoulder joints.
Coach if you were to make a ruleset that had less flaws than the current universally accepted one that favors both boxers and grapplers and didn't have any of the well intentioned dumb rules how'd you go on about it? I'm really curious and hope it gets picked on by people and hopefully more people come to realize it, anyhow thanks for the great content and keep on with it
A+ Ramsey on the "Crappling" call out, brilliant play on words!
I don't know I think they favor grapplers because they promote them so heavily
(Before Watching the Video) UFC rules are biased against grapplers, especially wrestlers. The majority of banned strikes could only be fully utilized if the opponent is on the bottom or ground. A good grappler/wrestler is more likely to be the one standing up or in top control, thus being in a better position to utilize these strikes. You can't kick someone when they're down unless you can take them down to begin with. Same is true for knees to the head. Downward elbows are only really useful in top control. Strikes to the back of the head are often only available if you have your opponent's back. That's not even including the rules about gloves or rounds that negatively effect grapplers. Gloves and wraps prevents wrist submissions, makes holding onto the wrist harder and allow strikers to punch harder without the fear of breaking their hand. There have also been many fighters who were saved by the bell when they were in a bad spot on the ground. By comparison, a flying knee to the face which is a danger for wrestlers is allowed by the ruleset. Grapplers, especially wrestlers, win despite the rules of UFC, not because of them.
I'm glad that there is now a good video I can point to concerning these points.
Absolutely. Just the concept of a "standup" in general is so biased toward striking it's insane. Many fights would be over just because one guy got top position. Once.
I don't think so, grapplers can get away with more mistakes than strikers due to rules.
I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if they removed the "down opponent" rule.
Edit: this is only slightly related but what do you think it's the safest combat sport? I'd say olympic fencing.
I'd go as far as saying that crappy double legs are to mma what inactive clinching is to boxing
I really dont think you realize how often and fast fights would end die to broken hands if there were no gloves in mma or boxing.
Think about having every striker lose 30% of their power if they removed gloves.
Another thing you gloss over is the existence of rounds, they give strikers time to rest and strategize. It forces grapplers to be more cautious and pace themselves more.
There is a reason most street fights devolve into grapling. Striking requires a rules set to exist outside of thr initial aggression of a fight
@@httohot the first thing you said is stupid.
I agree with the rounds argument, coach Ramsey didn't say anything wrong, he just downplayed what I said in my comments.
@@httohot the broken ha.fs thing, yes is a valid point but only because they currently do not train to punch properly. And certainly don't train to fight without gloves. But their training would be affected and they would adapt over time . Once they figured it out they'd be hitting harder than they were with the gloves on. And alot more open cuts to the face and less knockouts , your really not likely to actually knock someone unconscious without gloves, it's the gloves that help that to happen in the first place.
Also the intro was hilarious !
On the eight count front, sports like BKFC and Muay Thai often wave the fight on knockdowns which the referee considers to be sufficiently severe. As we move to a world where many referees ref multiple sports, and most don't start in boxing, this practice is starting to trickle into boxing.
Did you know that in Douglas vs. Tyson people say that Tyson received a quick count when in reality the referee waved the count before it reached ten? You can watch it slow motion on UA-cam. Horrific knockdown, btw
Of course it does. Why are there rounds otherwise? So many fighters are saved from submission by the bell or just stall when they are on bottom.
The rule that actually protect wrestlers/grapples is strikes to the back pf of the head not allowed. They are viable since the cage helps to defende the takedown, be it punches, elbows or even karate chops.
And yes, strikes to the head would make defending a TD against the cage much easier. Hard to push thru a td while your cerebelum is being hammered.
Ramsey which do you think is easier to takedown? (wrestling)
a) tall lanky guy in your weight class
b) short stocky guy in your weight class
The one who doesn’t know how to wrestle is easier to take down.
I wonder who or how there should be a push to change the rules based on modern knowledge to protect the fighters.
I understand the complaint about knees to the head of a grounded opponent but what about spiking and small joint attacks (especially if they got rid of gloves/wraps) Wouldn’t strikers have a hard time if their fingers and wrists were getting broken all the time?
ua-cam.com/video/lfmff5BzbII/v-deo.html
Spiking:
ua-cam.com/users/shortsD21kqfG93n4?feature=share
ua-cam.com/video/J5BNBB0MCVc/v-deo.html
Well generally that's when they would learn to not break them lol
But as I'm sure his replies point out those other things you mentioned are legal in UFC
As with all things like that tho, it would greatly alter the training UFC fighters undertake and the techniques they use. I'm just personally not a fan of competition but that would definitely make it alot more realistic, although the reality of a fight is what they are attempting to get away from by having the rules they do.
Mma rules will always be discussed among mma fans but I do think that they are not that bad. What Ramsey is looking for are rules for a "perfect fight", as close as a "real fight" can be. But when we watch mma, we are not really watching a fight, we are watching a sport. It is not only about fighting, it is also about entertainment, fair competition, tv logistic, ritualisation, creating a fan community, and so on. For exemple, who does not appreciate an athlete's comeback after a strong speech from his coach after a disputed round, even if this make no sens when it comes to pure fighting?
Also rules are the same for everyone , so wreslers can vert well change their game and include more striking if it is more efficient due to those rules... which is not really what is happening in mma.
Agree on the 12/6 elbow though
I thought this was obvious from most scoring details(a judge would most likely award a win to a striker that opened a cut on his opponent vs a grappler with good top control but no submission) but the only rule I know that can benefit grapplers is the inability to knee/kick an opponent once a leg is down. Also idk how many fake grappling people have seen to think they would be able to 12-6 elbow someone on a takedown attempt unless maybe to the top of the skull/back of the head, which is already illegal. While I do think it makes sense due to the fact that many "fans" do not appreciate grappling on a technical level outside of an imanari roll/choke/kimura, it also does require the strikers to learn some grappling because if any boxer with zero MMA or grappling training had to fight under ufc rules against someone from a jiu jitsu background they would just get rag dolled
"Top Control" is almost as meaningless and subjective as "Octagon Control".
@@IncredibleMD if you agree that UFC is geared towards strikers, you should get that something as meaningless and subjective as "top control" is going to be a lot easier for grapplers to be scored toward. A great example is early in Khabib Nurmagomedov's fight with Al Iaquinta, but I'm curious what you think would be a better method to score towards grappling advantage that would be able to apply to judges trying to score a fight
@@ElijahLoganmaztrpeac3official The problem with grappling is that it's a lot more binary than striking. It either worked or it didn't.
Punch someone in the face, and he'll feel that for the rest of the fight. A submission attempt doesn't do anything, in the long run. If it had been effective, it would've been finished. Six submission attempts and zero submissions just means you got your offence totally shut down a half dozen times.
Counting submission attempts is like counting dodged punches.
@@IncredibleMD that's why I was asking what you think would be an effective way to score points because realistically a decision victory is going to the more effective striker
@@ElijahLoganmaztrpeac3official Effective grappling doesn't need scoring, because if the grappling was actually effective, the fight would've ended in a stoppage.
You can punch someone, and not knock them out, and still do damage. But a hold doesn't really do damage until the point the ref will stop the fight over it.
Choking someone half-unconscious is the same as not choking them at all. That's how BJJ gets away with training full force on each other and choking each other hlf-unconscious a dozen times in a session without ill effect.
THANK YOU MR.DOO-WEE!
It's like cricket, the rule changes usually benefit the batter, simply cos some one smashing 6's over the fence is entertaining to the masses. It takes a fanatic to appreciate the intricacies of spin bowling that no-one can score off.
Likewise a smash & basher with armoured hands is more exciting to watch than a couple of dudes writhing on the mat
Stand ups after a “stalemate” on the ground also favors strikers
By “stalemate” they usually mean “boring grappling that the casuals boo at”
@@RamseyDewey So, how long shall we be treated to two grapplers locked on the ground waiting for an opening? 10 minutes? 15 ? An hour?
@@Mike_LaFontaine75 however long you think it would take for you to get up against a ufc fighter lol
@@gagebatek1809 Good luck with that, I'll watch boxing action instead.
@@Mike_LaFontaine75 it was a joke not serious 😒 but boxing is boring its too repetitive and it's way more dangerous
The only thing I can really see in this that favours the strikers is the structure of the rounds. Even that I have to take with a grain of salt because by that logic every grappler should have won every fight in Pride but that simply was not the case. Strikers had the ability to strike with a lot more freedom on the ground. Knees and 12 to 6 elbows to a grounded opponent were allowed. So were soccer kicks to the head if they were just attempting lazy takedowns to try and get a rest.
I think realistically with the rules that are in place. If you're a grappler predominantly you're going to feel like the rules are in favour of the strikers with the energy that you have to use going for takedowns. As a striker you're gonna feel like the grapplers have a rule advantage with the fact that you're not even allowed to strike with your full arsenal. I mean Demetrius Johnson got knocked out with a knee while he was trying to grapple in one championship because they allow knees to head on a downed opponent. But as you said, without a bell to save you from some of these takedowns that you're not fighting to get back off the ground from. What are those fighters gonna do then ?
PS. I'd love to hear people's thoughts and opinions on this if anyone's got anything to add or challenge in this.
It's favors wrestling and the standing game. Only slow and technical submission grappling suffers from this round structure. You have to quickly throw some reckless elbows and haymakers to score points with the risk of them slipping away.
But for wrestling the 5 minutes round is perfect. You have time to take them down and you have a little break.
And probably this is on purpose. People want to see a kick-box match with takedowns and g&d. They don't want to watch them hugging on the floor for 10 minutes fighting from two guy sitting on each others leg, to two guy sitting on each others leg slightly differently wich really matters according to a bjj nerd.
Instead of fuck i don't care if the position isn't secure enugh i have to run for the submission because the clock is ticking
i think rounds massively favour strikers, but not only that, the gloves. why tf are strikers allowed to wear gloves? if you break your hand from punching then dont punch.
@@grappling.enthusiast Gloves don't just save athlete's hands though as bare knuckle boxing has shown. Multiple fighters have left with broken orbital sockets after never suffering that injury through their entire MMA career. It's not a coincidence that the one time they receive a punch without any padding, their face breaks. That being said, if you want to talk about the hand wraps under the gloves, they do literally hold your hands together even if you break them, which is an advantage.
However, why wouldn't strikers be allowed to have that advantage when the entire canvas of an MMA ring is designed to give grapplers an edge? There are still high level fighters that pull guard from a standing position in MMA and you can't do that on a surface that isn't heavily padded. The canvas also helps wrestlers In the sense their knees don't get as messed up shooting for deep takedowns. I know not every takedown requires a knee to touch the canvas. However, having the option to mix up your takedowns is what makes wrestlers so effective in the first place. Imagine MMA with no ankle picks or deep takedowns.
@@jamtime4978 No, gloves dont save their hands but they weaponise it - if gloves were taken out of mma, strikers would decline and grapplers would be almost unaffected COMPLETELY. Take waway a grappler's gloves - theyve been training combat sports bare handed like their whole lives.
The canvas not only protects wrestler's who go for takedown but protects strikers from getting suplexed on hard ground. that point isnt even good because half the wrestlers in MMA come from greco roman wrestling, and greco wrestlers hardly use their knees at all.
Also, luckily for strikers spikes are illegal. they got standup rules where the referee stands up the fighters when they are "stalling". but if they stall on the feet, they never take the fight to the ground no.
Both points you mentioned only proves my points. Gloves obviously benefit strikers thats not even remotely debatable, and the canvas protects strikers a lot more, as instead of being suplexed on hard floor, there is cushioning to it. The "oh but their knees" acts as if greco wrestling isnt one of the most represented discipline in MMA.
@@grappling.enthusiastI did forget to mention strikers getting slammed on canvas, which actually does save them a hell of a lot however, it doesn't change the advantages that it gives to other disciplines offensively.
Also why I understand spikes are illegal in MMA however anything with an arc is not which means you can still be slammed on your head. Look at what happened to Belial and Rose in their fights. Suplexes are still legal It's just you don't see big slams like that because most strikers in any MMA situation are going to have a basic understanding of grappling. It's much more likely for an mma striker to stuff a few takedowns before a predominant wrestler gets to a position where they can legitimately slam someone.
On the point with the gloves, the reason I brought up wraps before is because I think you're overestimating how much protection the MMA gloves give the fighters. Hands break a lot in MMA because there's only about six 6oz of padding in an MMA glove. The reason why a lot of fighters can continue to throw strikes with broken hands is because the wrapping and tape underneath the glove is literally holding the small bones in the hands together as tightly as they can. Wraps also give wrist support which can help with other injuries and breaks.
Taking both the wraps and the gloves into account, I still can't agree that striking would be minimal in MMA. You'd still see plenty of kicks, knees and elbows on top of the fact that people would find ways to strike regardless of the risk of breaking the hand. It's not going to happen to everyone every fight that's for sure. It's certainly not like everybody who's ever thrown a punch at somebody broke their hand now is it? Not to mention there are other ways to strike that have been proven to be legitimate. Not so much in modern day MMA but at least Pancrase had a bit of palm striking from Bas Rutten which actually led to him finishing several people on the ground.
In regards to stalling, you can definitely stall on the feet. Happens all the time in the clinch and there are separations. Not only that, but if you refuse to engage your opponent on the feet that is also stalling and you will also be penalised.
Also, we still haven't addressed the elephant in the room in the sense that knees and kicks to a downed opponent's head aren't legal in most forms of MMA and the organisations that do allow it have had multiple finishes to grapplers via those strikes.
I think the rules favour mixed martial artists instead of fighters with just one fighting style. If you’re a world class striker with zero grappling experience and you fight someone that just knows how to take you down you’re going to loose
This guy gets it!
Agreed
Very insightful Ramsey! A Fountain of knowledge! Osu! 🙏🥋🙇♂️
The Pride FC tended to favor strikers as well.
edit : i remember someone told me how the final bout of the UFC 2 was lame because ''Royce Gracie took his sweet time to submit".
and the fight you mention, Orlando and his wife literally told on a French tv it was barbaric, and David Douillet (2 time judo olympic champ) highly critized the other guy by saying ''he s not a good judoka, i didnt know he was a good brawler".
What was that Gracie fight where the wrestler was in his guard for 45 minutes? Yaaawnn.
King of Pride was Fedor, the Judoka so i have no idea where this idea Pride was a strikers pit came from
Of course they do -- striking is more fun for most people to watch.
Ramsey, does every country have their own martial art? Why I mean is, it seems there are tonnes of versions of grappling, e.g. Pancration, Greco Roman, believe there is a Chinese and Mongolian but they all have specific names.
Is this the same for all martial art types? Furthermore seems to be Chinese boxing, etc. Heard a guy on YT claim 70% of Korean martial arts are kicking?
Well I mean... a good wrestler can win an entire fight by sitting on his opponent and throwing rabbit punches. Need I say more?
Give It Up Oh yeah
Well there will be no words of fighting, around here
'Cause I have no manners
'Cause it ain't clear
Well it could be on a Monday
Or it could even be a Sunday
So if you can't stand the distance
You better disappear
Do I make myself clear?
I'm ready to rock
I'm gonna rip it
Ready to rock
Yeah, I'm gonna stick it
Give it up, give it out
Whip it up, all about
Stick it up, shout it loud
Come on
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up, yea
Oh yeah
Well it's a big storm a' howling, around here
And there be no one to sinning, and no beer
I'm gonna aim to fire a rocket
There ain't no damn way to stop it
I got a sure fire bullet to get you out of here
I said - do I make myself clear
I'm ready to rock
Yeah I'm gonna whip it
Ready to rock
Yeah, I'm gonna stick it
Give it up, give it out
I said whip it up, all about
You gotta stick it up, shout it loud
Come on
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
I'm going crazy on your wedding-night
Take your pick of anything you like
Give it up
Give it up
Sitting pretty, all ready to bite
She give it up, I get cream delight
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up, give it out
And whip it up, all about
You gotta stick it up, shout it loud
Give it up, all around
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Stick it up, stick it out
Stick 'em down
Give it up, all around
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up
Sticking it out
Give it up
Give it up
Give it up, oh
Yeah baby
Do I make myself clear?
Yes, insofar as striking is allowed, the rules favor striking.
Coach Ramsey, Chael Sonnen has made multiple videos talking about how ineffective kicks are in a fight. I’m curious if you can comment on that. He basically says kicks carry more risks than rewards and it’s better to just punch in a fight.
Hey Ramsey, what do you think about different enclosures for fights and which would you consider the most "authentic?" Like the ring MMA of Pride, the typical Cage and the Karate Combat pit.
MMA in the karate combat pit would make takedowns ridiculously easy. At least with a cage wall, both fighters have to work evenly when up against the fence. MMA in a boxing ring sucks. It’s just bad… nope.
Anything bigger and more open than a cage, and you’ll just burn more time on the clock before the fighters run into the barrier again and test its limits.
"Reach out and touch someone with your fist" will make a good t-shirt though.
Hey Ramsey
I have been practicing K1/Dutch style for 1,5 years and i also did some Karate when i was younger.
Yesterday i had a conversation with that friend who is a judo guy but also has some Karate experience (he did private Wado Ryu lessons and i know for a fact that he has never had a striking sparing session in his life). He sent me a 30 second video of Kyokushin highlights and started saying the usual staff that a TMA guy would say like: "This is real fighting for the streets! You Combat sports wimps can't even fight without your wimpy gloves and headgears! Any karate guy would finish you in seconds... blah blah blah"
Isn't it funny that the guys who know nothing always have the most loud mouth? And also don't you think that 5 rounds of sparing with experienced fighters would change their opinion a lot?
Oh, guys like that generally don’t make it past 30 seconds of sparring, let alone a full round, IF you can get them to agree to spar at all.
Which is funny because Kyokushin and Judo are combat sports. So is Taekwondo, and even Kung Fu (Sanda). All a combat sport is in essence is you make a sport of any martial art by adding a ruleset to it. I could make a ruleset for Fujian White Crane or Wing Chun if I wanted.
Back then, Judo and Karate didn't have rules or a sport, it was reality based self defense except it's actually based in reality.
Good points, as usual.
Strikers would do even better if they were allowed strikes to downed opponents including soccer kicks like pride. It would be interesting to make just one really long round to help balance it out and let grapplers work.
15 to 20 minutes of Jujitsu is just boring to most people . Only a few enjoy what's going on the mat of the ring . So of course striking and throwing would be favorable to the crowd .
Insightful as always.
I think the main problem with the lack of rule changing is the desire among some people to make MMA a sport, they want mean looking things like kicks to the head of a downed opponent and bare knuckle fighting to stay gone for the sole purpose of marketing the sport to the wrong people, I am a firm believer that MMA isn’t a sport, it’s ritual combat, the idea that the kind of sportsmanship you see in sprinting should be mirrored by people who are about to go out and attack each other is insane, I guess my experience isn’t unanimous but I cannot imagine playing friendly with someone one minute and then trying to beat, choke and break them until the referee stops it, if some guy threw me onto my head and I landed badly I cannot imagine what it would feel like to know that I might not be there if I had taken it more seriously
MMA is is a sport. That is it's designed intention. Same for boxing wrestling karate tournaments etc. It's all a sport
@@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812 I have to disagree, competition isn’t and has never meant the same thing as sport, I used to compete in a lot of karate tournaments and having watched other sports, it’s very clear that sportsmanship is expected, in MMA it is psychotic to expect sportsmanship, not to mention the fact that it doesn’t work like a sport, it’s just prize fighting, it’s not on a tournament basis and no matter how good you are if no ones gonna watch your fights you will never fight for championships and if you have a mediocre following like Yoel Romero they’ll drop you for being too good and being a roadblock for more popular younger guys, to call it a sport is stupid, no one can say who the best MMA fighter in the world is, there’s a best sprinter, a best swimmer, a best footballer, a best judoka, a best wrestler etc etc, there’s enormous guesswork in naming a best boxer or mixed martial artist and even then it’s almost always a popularity contest
@@lilalmonds4595 because there is not a "best fighter" in the world, being a better fighter does not guarantee you will win the fight. In MMA or in real life. It is a combat sport the same as any other combat sport which actually originated as practice, not a competition , not a real fight just practice. If it was a "real fight" they wouldn't even be out there lol
@@lilalmonds4595 and as I mentioned in my view of it, actual competition is stupid and senseless . But that is the goal they are going for there. Martial arts never belonged in sports, but it's there now so it is what it is 🤷
@@willtherealrustyschacklefo3812 what are you saying? You’re saying combat sports aren’t real fights as if the ultimate goal of MMA isn’t to replicate a real fight, no holds barred etc, and people did go out and fight in ufc 1, not to mention the fact that the majority of the time the better fighter wins but I hate to break it to you, the fact that you compete against and not next too your opponent is another reason to not consider it a sport
Strikers over grapplers and wrestlers over Strikers. Staying on top without doing anything gives you domination points. Taking down smoothly without any impact has the same points as a significant strike...🤔
Fantastic video Ramsey! Though I agree with many of your points, I would imagine rules, namely gloves rounds, and time limits are in place to encourage a more exciting fight for a casual audience.
At the end of the day, the UFC and other fight promotions have to run a business and if more scrappy striking matches which have an urgency given time limits sell better, than that’s gonna be the product.
Again, great video!
7:08 I remember seeing that live on pay per view. I was like "Whoa!"
I don’t necessarily agree with your title but I do like your points that certain rules favor certain styles.
Sad bjj noises 😢
I stand to be corrected, but I’m pretty sure an 8 count is when a fighter gets held up by the ropes when they would otherwise have been knocked down. A normal knockdown receives a 10 count.
No. The standing 8 count is an anticipated rule that was abandoned by most boxing organizations in 1993 (some kickboxing shows still use it though) where the referee had the liberty to stop the action when it otherwise would have ended in a TKO, abs give the losing fighter 8 seconds to recover. It had nothing to do with being held up by the ropes. It was a very stupid rule, and it ruined a lot of fights.
@@RamseyDewey I don’t know the history of the rule but I mentioned it because I remember Povetkin getting a standing 8 count against David Price - I could be remembering this wrong. I’ve had a brief read just now and from what I can see, there are still a few places/organisations that use it.
*ive just rewatched it and the count happens right at the end of the round so it may just have been a 10 count and the commentator didn’t know the rules.
I haven't been able to find any real stats of any kind, but I think it's very possible that striking leads to more finishes than grappling. Are more fights finished by striking than grappling? Any stats on that?
Almost 50% of UFC fights end via TKO, the remainder are fairly evenly distributed between KO, decision, and submission
@@RamseyDewey - Thanks! It's interesting when one considers how well grapplers did, overall, in the UFC before the round system was introduced. It's also easy to see that if, within a set time limit, a bout is as likely to end by decision as by submission, grappling isn't seen as being as "decisive" as striking today.
Given no time limit, the early UFCs were a good argument, not for the "superiority" of BJJ, but for the idea that grappling was an effective way of neutralizing a single opponent. Even though that's still true, imposing any kind of time limit on bouts in the interest of showing more fights was a natural evolution, not of fighting, but of the business of selling fights within a predictable timetable/format.
In the fight world of today, it's an interesting question as to whether, without rounds and in a non-tournament format, UFC events WOULD show more, or even better, fights than they currently do. Even though he won almost as many fights by KO/TKO and decision as by submission (8/10/11), no one really had an answer to Khabib Nurmagomedov's grappling, even WITHIN the rules of the UFC as they currently stand and in an era when takedown defense is seen as fundamental as any other fighting skill.
what rule set would you implement if you had agency to replace what UFC currently uses to regulate fights?
MORTAL KOMBAT
I do not think it is possible to read that and not hear it screamed in your head ua-cam.com/video/3hQul77MJxA/v-deo.html
take off the gloves and get rid of the rounds. legalise grounded knees and stomps. then the ufc gets bankrupt because sadly not everyone is like me and wants to see fight simulations.
I think grappling doesn't dominate as much as it used to, due to literally every fighter having some form of Juijitsu Wrestling or Judo ect training.
At the very least they know how to defend takedowns.
I see your point about gloves too, and rounds too.
My favorite. Not being able to kick your opponent if he has a hand touching the floor. Specially when you're on your back...
In 2013 Josh Barnett got KOed by Travis Brown, by some very 12-6 elbows, but the “angle” made it legal? I guess.
ua-cam.com/video/dBKdxFJq8q0/v-deo.html
@@RamseyDewey yea, I’m saying it may “look” 12-6 but it actually wasn’t.
What do you think about Rio Heroes tournament? They had no gloves, no time limits, allowed the headbutts, etc.
Gosh, this video is semi brilliant
Quite interesting. Never thought about it that way. I'd love to be able to utilise all my striking from TKD but prob important to be competent in grappling. Which U used to do through BJJ.
Hey Ramsey, do you prefer having a beard or a shaven face? Always a question that's been on my mind
I guess neither? Alright then
Had some ideas, there's no real MMA schools or fight clubs here other than a karate school. This place would be perfect for a center like you have!
Crappling is the word of the Year 😂😂
Hi coach. Great video. I agree 100% with your take on boxing. I would like to know how would you make the sport of boxing safer. What ruleset would you introduce if you had the chance? I love the sport, but certainly we could make it safer. Although i think it could cost money and that's why nobody tried (or maybe tried but did not accomplish any major change), i would like to know your take on that.
Keep making videos! and sorry for my english.
FINGER PEELING which is really how you break holds grapples. Are illegal and gloves do not help
False. Small joint manipulation is illegal. That means bending or twisting one or two fingers only.
To be fair, while I agree with some of the other guys here that these rules help the spectacle (to some extent), I wish we'd have some more of the old stuff as well, for the reality of it. I wish we'd get guys in Kimonos fighting guys in Muay Thai shorts for half an hour, like a tekken game.
The rules favor grapplers not strikers. No 12 -6. Which is perfect for When a guy tackles you against the cage with his head exposed. No striking behind the head.. but you drop someone on their heads or back of head. No eye poke no down knee that’s all strikes
You can see a valley of plenty videos that demonstrate that you can not defend a take down with elbow strikes.
Striking behind the head would favor the one who can take your back...
Eye gouching also out of the table... and testicle squeezing if we go crazzy kung fu bs about it.
There's no Crappling here!
I had to login just so I could argue. Impressive bait in this capacity, I never do this.
I agree on a couple of things. As an aside, the reason the boxing commission made the rules is that they were the ones taking the risks. They would theoretically be on the hook for medical bills of fighters, providing refs, judges, and medical doctors and staff on hand should be their responsibility as well.
I am a striker, not a grappler, and with the caliber of strikers in the OneFC I'm amazed they allow spike elbows to be honest. It's very dangerous on the neck from standing (where you mentioned you saw the knockout). The reason it's not allowed in Muay Thai competitions in America is that the spike elbow has you basically jump and land with all your weight on an opponent's head with your elbow, it can REALLY hurt someone's neck doing that technique. Same with shots to the back of the head, they're illegal in every single fight sport for a reason. The human body is simply not meant to take shots to the back of the head.
12 to 6 elbows on the ground really aren't that bad all things considered as you say. But the leaping spike elbow is what should remain banned.
The round reset you give it 100% to the striker and I think around 80% favor to striker would be more fair. Wrestling is exhausting and a minute of one on one time with a solid coach who's been watching your opponent for the last 5 minutes can get some invaluable advice that can change the tide of the fight on top of the ability to rehydrate. The coach can take that minute to give a new trajectory for takedown based on a weakness the coach perceived and the fighter couldn't. The break doesn't always only favor a grappler, I've seen blitzes that stun a grappler and a few more seconds could have earned a knockout but the reset allowed the grappler to recover and wind up getting the submission next round.
The three touch rule of grapplers, one hand or knee on the ground being enough to not allow strikes is a significant favor to the grappler because it discourages a knee to the face to defend against the double leg which is the absolute best defense a striker has against it.
I saw what you mean about grappling for the takedown which makes the knee in that scenario less relevant, agreed. Nevertheless it's still taking good tools away from the striker and that should be acknowledged.
The gloves benefit everyone in my opinion. Ever see the fight with the great grappler Urijah Faber where he broke both hands in the first round of a five round war with Mike Brown? Talk about grit! But if his hands were intact, I think Faber would have taken the fight altogether. Without gloves, this scenario is likely to happen even more often when a good grappler can't grapple with broken hands.
the reason for the rules is audiences were getting bored with watching 2 people on the ground hugging sometimes seeming to be doing nothing so the rules changed to allow the ref to stand the fight back up if nothing was actually being done on the ground except holding. that rule was simply to do with ticket sales
2:14 "super physiological level"
a picture of deltoid Derrick would have fit so nice here
Hahaha!
can't hold the fence, no knees to the head of a grounded opponent, no 12-6 elbows, no spiking, no head butts..grapplers are definitely given far more safety nets due to the rules than the striker is.
How? No Holding the fence is so you don’t get your fingers ripped off. Spiking is a grappling technique: ua-cam.com/users/shortsD21kqfG93n4?feature=share
Head butts can only be used inside a clinch or from a dominant position on the ground (ie: grappling)
The only rule you brought up that substantiates your argument even a little bit is the 12 to 6 elbow, and I already tore that one to shreds in this video.
@@RamseyDewey
No holding the fence favors the grappler for pretty fair and obvious reasons, but still favors the grappler nonetheless.
no spiking allows a grappler the safety to attempt submissions, if a striker was allowed to spike before the submission was even locked in and being held we'd see far more Rampage Jackson/Jessica Andrade knockouts.
If headbutts were allowed a striker could use them while a grappler was pulling guard or trying to tie them up on the feet, so again that gives the grappler the advantage by making them illegal..how many jits guys would be willing to lay on bottom for a breather if they still had to take a forehead to the face after wrapping up arms and legs? How many wrestlers would be content to hold a guy against the fence if he was still taking foreheads to the orbital or nose?
the knee to the head of a grounded opponent should be pretty obvious and you didn't address it in your comment, so I'll assume we're on the same page with that one.
@@Broken_Orbital that’s still not what spiking means. Watch the video link I sent you.