Question about a double standard with regard to wrestlers... - Page 3

johnsq316 · 06-05-2008, 02:05 PM

Good thread, and you managed to get two long time trolls banned for their comments in the process!

I agree with much of the above, wrestling is not as aesthetically pleasing as a slick BJJ sub or a stunning KO, I think that's the majority of the issue that many fans have. The fans that have an issue with wrestling & so called lay n pray are the same fans that think Machida is boring.

For me I enjoy a great wrestling/GnP style. GSP is probably the best practitioner in the UFC today, but even he has had some fights that caused fans to complain about lay n pray (the Koscheck fight comes to mind).

Suqleg · 06-05-2008, 02:06 PM

I agree with TS. The problem that wrestling brings to the cage is that the USA by and large has the most thorough and competative wrestling program in the world and it is going to take a lil bit of time for the rest of the world to catch up.

For the record I think most of us know that Knee's to the head of a downed opponent will go a long way towards improving the sport. We kinda should clamour back on the calling for it though. It is an education process let the public learn what they are seeing before we go changing it on them.

MontrealMauler · 06-05-2008, 02:08 PM

My beef with wrestling is I feel the unified rules favor it.

Knees to a downed opponent would make shooting more dangerous. More importantly it would make secondary shots exponentially more dangerous. The secondary shot is the bread and butter of wrestlers in the UFC right now....

They take a shot and get sprawled. Since they are the bigger/stronger man with the lower center of gravity, they just explode up and get top position despite the PERFECT initial sprawl. If knees were allowed the guy would get FUCKED UP after the perfect sprawl.

The best example of this type of wrestling is Jake O'Brien vs. Josh Shockman at UFC 65.

Or a wrestler being able to take a knee at the fence when struggling for a takedown so he doesn't take a knee to the head.

I'm aware of all the arguments that say that knees to a downed opponent would also make wrestlers more dangerous....but that doesn't undo my argument. With knees to a downed opponent only top wrestlers would take their opponents down and if they did, they should be given more tools to finish. It's win/win.

blackthorne · 06-05-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontrealMauler

My beef with wrestling is I feel the unified rules favor it.

Knees to a downed opponent would make shooting more dangerous. More importantly it would make secondary shots exponentially more dangerous. The secondary shot is the bread and butter of wrestlers in the UFC right now....

They take a shot and get sprawled. Since they are the bigger/stronger man with the lower center of gravity, they just explode up and get top position despite the PERFECT initial sprawl. If knees were allowed the guy would get FUCKED UP after the perfect sprawl.

The best example of this type of wrestling is Jake O'Brien vs. Josh Shockman at UFC 65.

Or a wrestler being able to take a knee at the fence when struggling for a takedown so he doesn't take a knee to the head.

I'm aware of all the arguments that say that knees to a downed opponent would also make wrestlers more dangerous....but that doesn't undo my argument. With knees to a downed opponent only top wrestlers would take their opponents down and if they did, they should be given more tools to finish. It's win/win.

I agree completely, but this is a different argument for a different thread IMO.

Psybeerian · 06-05-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vangor

Not allowing knees to grounded opponents in mma has made for all of the boring ground fights. I can't believe they'll outlaw knees, but allow elbows which are far more dangerous becaue they cause the majority of cuts.

That is a key point right there. Wrestling would be THE most important facet of MMA if knees to downed oppoents were legal. There would be basically nonstop action as there would be no position where you couldn't initiate a strike as long as you didnt' strike the back of the head or spine. If you couldn't defend a takedown you'd better be able to keep someone in your guard or else you're dead.

Imagine GSP if knees were allowed? Crazy.

MontrealMauler · 06-05-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthorne

I agree completely, but this is a different argument for a different thread IMO.

Then I missed the point of the thread.

I thought the point was "why aren't wrestlers given props for exploiting their opponents weaknesses like strikers and sub artists."

and my counter was that they're not given props because wrestling is "broken" in MMA right now. If it was balanced with knees to the head then people would revere good wrestlers as much as they do strikers and sub artists that work their craft.

Psybeerian · 06-05-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontrealMauler

...

I'm aware of all the arguments that say that knees to a downed opponent would also make wrestlers more dangerous....but that doesn't undo my argument. With knees to a downed opponent only top wrestlers would take their opponents down and if they did, they should be given more tools to finish. It's win/win.

Thats a good point, lots of wrestlers shoot in with knees on the ground basically making them unhittable. Allowing knees from all positions would lead to more action everywhere. It is win/win in my view as well.

blackthorne · 06-05-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MontrealMauler

and my counter was that they're not given props because wrestling is "broken" in MMA right now. If it was balanced with knees to the head then people would revere good wrestlers as much as they do strikers and sub artists that work their craft.

Wrestling is anything but "broken" in MMA right now. Look at the landscape:
LW belongs to a grappler.
MW belongs to a striker,
HW belongs to a grappler.

Course, this just goes to show you how useless these labels are in MMA these days. BJ can strike, Silva can grapple, and Nog can box. Just the same, GPS can strike and strike well, and Quinton can crack as good as anyone in the division.

Even in the WEC, what "wrestler" is dominating the division? Faber's the FW champ, but he's as well rounded as they come.

Suqleg · 06-05-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psybeerian

Thats a good point, lots of wrestlers shoot in with knees on the ground basically making them unhittable. Allowing knees from all positions would lead to more action everywhere. It is win/win in my view as well.

I agree it is win/win, take downs get tougher and when they do happen there are more weapons to use when it is there. Personaly though I do not mind LnP. I know it is not exciting but it is a competition of skill and if you are getting LnP to a decision you have had at least 3-5 chances to stop the fight from going to the ground plus 15-25 minutes to stand up. If you can't do that then you have some work to do.

MontrealMauler · 06-05-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthorne

Wrestling is anything but "broken" in MMA right now. Look at the landscape:
LW belongs to a grappler.
MW belongs to a striker,
HW belongs to a grappler.

Course, this just goes to show you how useless these labels are in MMA these days. BJ can strike, Silva can grapple, and Nog can box. Just the same, GPS can strike and strike well, and Quinton can crack as good as anyone in the division.

Even in the WEC, what "wrestler" is dominating the division? Faber's the FW champ, but he's as well rounded as they come.

It's definitely not as dominant as it once was.....but wrestlers have changed the landscape. Basically if wrestlers are a bad style matchup for you, then you're not a champion or in contention.

If a striker could knee them to the head after one sprawl then I think you would see strikers giving BJJ guys a run for their money at the top levels.