• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UFC 148 (7/7/12 10pm EST): Silva VS Sonnen II

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Ns1 said:
and yet this is obviously no problem:

ufc140gif.gif
Click to expand...
1) A person who is about to be kicked in the head while grounded, and is not able to adequately defend himself, may not be lucid enough to realize he's about to get fucked. In other words, in many cases where an effective soccer kick is possible, the fight would already be won, and the kick would just be "the cherry on top". There, Big Nog had ample opportunity to tap.

2) A shoulder dislocation is not a spinal cord injury or a traumatic brain injury.
method=get&s=zoro-moreira-roger-huerta-gif.gif
 
Last edited:
JackBurton said:
UFC was ORIGINALLY designed to prove who was the best fighter PERIOD. Not some BS watered down sport. If you are looking for a sport where no one gets hurt, check out tennis. I heard that's pretty safe.
Click to expand...
We all know the best 1 on 1 fighters are trained people with firearms. It's not so fun to watch a 10-second real fight to the death, now is it? So then, you add stipulations...
 
Last edited:
QueBert said:
But it was always watered down, you could never kick to the nutts, poke in the eye or pull hair. In real fighting anything goes, so by your logic UFC was always pussified right?
Click to expand...

Yes you could. Original rules: No biting, no eye gouging. That's it! No rounds, no judges, hell the ref couldn't even stop the fight. It was a KO, or the corner had to throw in the towel. Gloves were optional, and Gi's were definitely legal to wear. When you entered the ring, you knew only ONE man would walk out on his own, and HE was the ultimate fighter. No excuses.
 
Last edited:
QueBert said:
But it was always watered down, you could never kick to the nutts, poke in the eye or pull hair. In real fighting anything goes, so by your logic UFC was always pussified right?
Click to expand...

you could hit in the nuts and yes hair pulling was legal


edit: i woulda beat jack but i was looking for links!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UFC++hair+pulling&oq=UFC++hair+pulling&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3...27876.35604.0.35778.37.22.9.6.6.0.151.1806.17j5.22.0...0.0.kd0ijh2Ne5E
 
Howard said:
We all know the best 1 on 1 fighters are trained people with firearms. It's not so fun to watch a 10-second real fight to the death, now is it?
Click to expand...

Please, we are talking about hand to hand. You can't say you are the best fighter when you handicap a BJJ fighter when he gets in the ring with BS rules (no Gi, no strikes to the back of the head, no kidney heel shots). You can't say you are the best fighter when you limit a striker (no head butts, no kicking a downed opponent). Sorry. This person isn't the "Ultimate Fighter," he's a UFC player.
 
Last edited:
waggy said:
you could hit in the nuts and yes hair pulling was legal


edit: i woulda beat jack but i was looking for links!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=UFC++hair+pulling&oq=UFC++hair+pulling&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3...27876.35604.0.35778.37.22.9.6.6.0.151.1806.17j5.22.0...0.0.kd0ijh2Ne5E
Click to expand...

Anything goes!


And THIS is why you don't give up your back to a BJJ expert. And also why you don't talk shit before a match.

Note: It's not UFC, but it was a competing MMA organization (World Combat Championship) with VERY similar rules to the early UFC days.
 
Last edited:
JackBurton said:
Please, we are talking about hand to hand. You can't say you are the best fighter when you handicap a BJJ fighter when he gets in the ring with BS rules (no Gi, no strikes to the back of the head, no kidney heel shots). You can't say you are the best fighter when you limit a striker (no head butts, no kicking a downed opponent). Sorry. This person isn't the "Ultimate Fighter," he's a UFC player.
Click to expand...
Why are you the only person who can choose which rules make for a fair fight, and which don't?
 
Howard said:
Why isn't biting or eye gouging legal?
Click to expand...

Don't know exactly why, but I'd assume they agreed it was too easy to maim someone with biting or eye gouging. They probably considered it cheap too, and most likely why they made groin shots illegal after Keith Hackney's fight. He won, but I think everyone agreed it was cheap.
 
Howard said:
1) A person who is about to be kicked in the head while grounded, and is not able to adequately defend himself, may not be lucid enough to realize he's about to get fucked. In other words, in many cases where an effective soccer kick is possible, the fight would already be won, and the kick would just be "the cherry on top". There, Big Nog had ample opportunity to tap.
Click to expand...

The point is that a serious injury is possible, whether it be from a arm bar or a kick to the head.
 
JackBurton said:
Don't know exactly why, but I'd assume they agreed it was too easy to maim someone with biting or eye gouging. They probably considered it cheap too, and most likely why they made groin shots illegal after Keith Hackney's fight. He won, but I think everyone agreed it was cheap.
Click to expand...
Biting's fighting.
 
Howard said:
Biting's fighting.
Click to expand...

Please quit with the stupid arguments. They (the Gracie's) wanted an event where they could prove once and for all which fighting style was the best. They wanted an event as close to a street fight as possible. Obviously two rules away from a full no rules street fight (hand to hand) is pretty damn close, and would allow all martial arts to put theory into practice and demonstrate their skills without limitations. Biting and eye gouging would most likely benefit the ground fighter (the Gracie's), but they most likely agreed it was cheap, too easy and wouldn't really put their art in a good light. They probably said, "we don't need to resort to those tactics to demonstrate what Gracie Jiu-Jitsu can do."

The UFC wasn't introduced to be a sport. It was introduced to prove who the the best fighter, bar none, period. And to do that, you can't have 45 pages of fucking rules of what you CAN'T do.
 
JackBurton said:
Please quit with the stupid arguments. They (the Gracie's) wanted an event where they could prove once and for all which fighting style was the best. They wanted an event as close to a street fight as possible. Obviously two rules away from a full no rules street fight (hand to hand) is pretty damn close, and would allow all martial arts to put theory into practice and demonstrate their skills without limitations. Biting and eye gouging would most likely benefit the ground fighter (the Gracie's), but they most likely agreed it was cheap, too easy and wouldn't really put their art in a good light. They probably said, "we don't need to resort to those tactics to demonstrate what Gracie Jiu-Jitsu can do."

The UFC wasn't introduced to be a sport. It was introduced to prove who the the best fighter, bar none, period. And to do that, you can't have 45 pages of fucking rules of what you CAN'T do.
Click to expand...
You're arbitrarily deciding that two rules are OK, but more aren't.

You also claim to stand for what would represent a true street fight, and yet are perfectly OK with disallowing two groups of techniques that can be, and sometimes are, used in real street fights where a win must be taken at any cost.
 
JackBurton said:
The is nothing arbitrary. I gave you the reasons, you just don't like my answers.
Click to expand...
I don't like your answers because you contradict yourself. How do "likely to maim" or "cheap" come into play when you're trying to decide who gets to leave the cage when you throw two trained fighters into it?
 
Howard said:
You're arbitrarily deciding that two rules are OK, but more aren't.

You also claim to stand for what would represent a true street fight, and yet are perfectly OK with disallowing two groups of techniques that can be, and sometimes are, used in real street fights where a win must be taken at any cost.
Click to expand...

lol what street fights have you been in where someone eye gouged and bite? Street fighting is still a level above fighting for your life.
 
Howard said:
You also claim to stand for what would represent a true street fight, and yet are perfectly OK with disallowing two groups of techniques that can be, and sometimes are, used in real street fights where a win must be taken at any cost.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to stay in P&N. You have all the traits of a good P&N troll: you don't know what you are talking about and you blinding keep moving forward with your agenda no matter what information is put in front of you.

AGAIN, the original purpose of the UFC was to take theory and put it into practice. Before the UFC, every martial artist claimed they had the best fighting style but there was never a place to demonstrate it. When the UFC was brought to the US, it was finally a time and place to put up or shut up. No longer could you hide behind theory. If you thought you were the best, you now had a place to prove it. And to get it through your bonehead, weapons were not part of the equation. It was a hand to hand competition as close to its purist form as you could get. And THAT was the point of the UFC. To prove who was truly was the ultimate fighter, with no excuses.
 
JackBurton said:
Maybe you need to stay in P&N. You have all the traits of a good P&N troll: you don't know what you are talking about and you blinding keep moving forward with your agenda no matter what information is put in front of you.

AGAIN, the original purpose of the UFC was to take theory and put it into practice. Before the UFC, every martial artist claimed they had the best fighting style but there was never a place to demonstrate it. When the UFC was brought to the US, it was finally a time and place to put up or shut up. No longer could you hide behind theory. If you thought you were the best, you now had a place to prove it. And to get it through your bonehead, weapons were not part of the equation. It was a hand to hand competition as close to its purist form as you could get. And THAT was the point of the UFC. To prove who was truly was the ultimate fighter, with no excuses.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that now the UFC is no longer a venue where a better-skilled fighter with a superior martial art, or blend of martial arts, can consistently win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top