UFC/Tapout/Affliction *vomit*

[Reborn]

Originally Posted by thats.mana

How are the rules laxed?

No hair pulling, groin striking, refs that know what they're doing etc.

He's complaining it's not the sport it used to be, but that no rules sport was being banned in every state until Dana and the Fertitta's stepped in and legitimized the sport.

 

[thats.mana]

I think he meant that the relaxed rules are ruining the sport, The rules aren't laxed.

 

[CharlieAngel]

Originally Posted by Reborn

No hair pulling, groin striking, refs that know what they're doing etc.

He's complaining it's not the sport it used to be, but that no rules sport was being banned in every state until Dana and the Fertitta's stepped in and legitimized the sport.

Honestly? I'd prefer if it went back to being an underground sport in many ways. I liked the original: No biting, no eye gouging, no time limits, no judges (please note that groin striking was perfectly "legal" in the early UFCs. Joe Son vs. Keith Hackney, for instance). The fighters would still be toiling away in obscurity, for not much money, though, and that'd suck, but I'd hope that the fans would be more knowledgeable and respectful of the fighters. Right now, the sport is just full of douchebag idiots, on both sides of the fence.

 

[Reborn]

Originally Posted by CharlieAngel

Honestly? I'd prefer if it went back to being an underground sport in many ways. I liked the original: No biting, no eye gouging, no time limits, no judges (please note that groin striking was perfectly "legal" in the early UFCs. Joe Son vs. Keith Hackney, for instance). The fighters would still be toiling away in obscurity, for not much money, though, and that'd suck, but I'd hope that the fans would be more knowledgeable and respectful of the fighters. Right now, the sport is just full of douchebag idiots, on both sides of the fence.

So you'd rather have a sport with unathletic "tough guys" fighting underground, then a rapidly evolving legitimate sport that is going through a few growing pains? I've been a fan of both MMA and boxing for my entire life and I think the douche bag fans are well worth the trouble considering the evolution of the sport we are getting to see. Boxing has been figured out for the most part, at this point it's a science that needs to be adapted to each fighters individual strengths. MMA is still in its infancy and is seeing new evolutions in the applications of style every few months.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about MMA, but if you go to small local shows you can still see much of the fighting you desire. I also know you're not alone in your views as many of the originators of the UFC also wish it had stayed "pure" as they had set it up.

 

[IDirector]

Affliction Yes, but Tapout is AR

T!!!

 

[CharlieAngel]

Originally Posted by Reborn

So you'd rather have a sport with unathletic "tough guys" fighting underground, then a rapidly evolving legitimate sport that is going through a few growing pains?
In short: Yes. That's not to say that early NHB wouldn't also evolve, either. I don't think the Mark Colemans and other Lay N Prayers would've have much of a chance against the mid-top tier JJ guys if judges and time limits weren't a factor, and many of the sport's top strikers would falter if various "stand up" rules were removed. The thing is, there's plenty of fighters out there who don't *need* stand-ups; they can get up on their own (see: Chuck Liddell). There's plenty of fighters out there who have a very patient, plodding style that set-up for submissions, etc that are at a distinct disadvantage when faced with time limits, rounds, and judges' scorecards. However, I do take a small issue with the term "legitimate" as that seems to be a loaded term. The only difference between legitimate and "illegitimate" is government sanctioning. Being the punk rock kid I am, **** government sanctioning. I don't need the gov telling me what I can and can't do.

I've been a fan of both MMA and boxing for my entire life and I think the douche bag fans are well worth the trouble considering the evolution of the sport we are getting to see. Boxing has been figured out for the most part, at this point it's a science that needs to be adapted to each fighters individual strengths. MMA is still in its infancy and is seeing new evolutions in the applications of style every few months.

Oh, for sure. The rules were created to provide a more public-friendly/palatable product. There's no denying that modern MMA is well-supported and growing much faster than Art Davis or even Rorion ever dreamed. The douche-bags have money, and their money means we get more shows, more fighters, and people are getting paid. Such is life. I'll continue to watch, but I still can't get myself to watch more than a few episodes of TUF. :/ NHB was also evolving very quickly for the time and exposure that it had. Witness the first batches of "super strikers" that came around to challenge the devastating 2nd gen grapplers (coleman, kerr, etc): Mighty Mo, Bas Rutten, etc, and didn't need a stand-up to survive. In fact, it's from this generation that spawned the cross-training regimes that Frank Shamrock espoused and resulted in modern superstars like GSP adn the like. I'd say that MMA, as a sport, evolves more to fight within the ruleset rather than fight as a survival skillset. I have to admit, though, that even with the modern MMA rules, the fights are still generally more entertaining, although I'm not sure how useful they are from an academic standpoint.

 

[Eason]

There's no such thing as "fight for survival" because that has rule subsets. Weapons, no weapons, multiple opponents, etc. That's a red herring. MMA is the closest thing you can get where people aren't being put in unnecessary danger. If you want that, then watch bumfights or felony fights and not sanctioned MMA.

 

[CharlieAngel]

Originally Posted by Eason

There's no such thing as "fight for survival" because that has rule subsets. Weapons, no weapons, multiple opponents, etc. That's a red herring. MMA is the closest thing you can get where people aren't being put in unnecessary danger. If you want that, then watch bumfights or felony fights and not sanctioned MMA.

You're right, it's a specific subset of fighting. I'm not interested in weapons fighting, but hand-to-hand combat and the tactics and strategy thereof. MMA isn't the closest, old-school NHB is closer. Hell, felony fights and bumfights are closer to "reality" than MMA.

 

[Timbaland]

90% of the people around here who wear tapout don't train at all. They just wear it because they see it on tv. It sucks that its sold in discount stores like Ross and Marshalls now.

 

[630]

Originally Posted by Timbaland

90% of the people around here who wear tapout don't train at all. They just wear it because they see it on tv. It sucks that its sold in discount stores like Ross and Marshalls now.

+1. But a lot of them have the attitude that they can beat some ass without actually being able to back it up. It seems like they think the logo on their shirt intimidates others away from them.

 

[Hard2Fit]

Originally Posted by 630

It seems like they think the logo on their shirt intimidates others away from them.

Those logos intimidate me.

 

[KenN]

I wear a Smith and Wesson shirt

 

[why]

My friend's father has a whole wardrobe of Beretta gear. I want some of it.

 

[Eason]

Every person I've ever met who wore a tapout shirt, I asked "You don't train at all, do you." The answer is always "nope."

 

[Timbaland]

Originally Posted by 630

+1. But a lot of them have the attitude that they can beat some ass without actually being able to back it up. It seems like they think the logo on their shirt intimidates others away from them.

Yea thats what I hate most about them. If they're just wearing it and relaxing having a good time I don't care. But theres always people in there acting like they own the place wearing this stuff.