Which do you think is better? IFL recently wrote an article about this debate, worth a read: http://ifl.tv/News-07Apr20-Wrestling-Jiu-Jitsu.html
Good article, but it seems like toward the end his conclusion was pointing toward better educating the judges.
yea, if you want to see the fight he was talking about, i found it at YouTube...worth watching if you have some time: Round 1-2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=So7B1XeD3T0 Round 3: http://youtube.com/watch?v=JQollbvA6fg
This is a silly "debate." The techniques used in MMA are neither pure wrestling not pure BJJ. They have to be altered. If it's a question of judging fights, the situation is much more complex than "wrestling vs. jiu jitsu" and I don't believe the oversimplification is particularly helpful in determining how the judging should be done.
Very true, it depends on what works for the fighter and how well they fight, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Wrestling is mostly applicable in MMA for putting someone down and holding them there when they don't want to be there. BJJ skills have been more relevant in how to protect yourself once downed. We've all seen good BJJ guys throw out a slick sub from the bottom to completely turn a fight around. Likewise, we've seen good BJJ guys who have trouble taking the fight down get absolutely tooled by standup guys with good TD defense.
Whilst neither is "better" I think the fighter who was better at submissions deserves to win more than the better wrestler. Wrestling (in regards to takedowns and positional strategy) is a means to an end whereas submissions are the end. The aim of the ground game is to either submit your opponent or to knock him out with ground and pound. The value of wrestling is huge, but only insofar as it facilitates an end to the fight.
I think the point of the article was that the judges look at fights differently, given different backgrounds, not which is "better" for MMA. On that ground, I agree that criteria needs to be determined for judging, and American judges need to be more educated on the jiujitsu game, specifically the bottom game. That said, with few exceptions, the fighter on top is usually in control of the fight. If that's one of the criteria for judging (fight/ground control), then most of the time the guy on top should win that portion. On the other hand, if the bottom man has some nearly-successful sub attempts or is able to shut down the game of the guy on top, I'd say that the bottom man may well be considered in control, and under old Pride rules might win because they're trying to finish the fight. As to the question of which one is more benificial, both. Or perhaps neither, in their pure form or the way they're commonly practiced. Wrestling generally trains takedowns and top control better than BJJ, but its lack of pure subs makes it incomplete for MMA. On the other hand, BJJ has quite a submission arsenal, and has an excellent theory of possitional control, which is emphasized; its downside is that it's typically weak in takedowns and many techniques that are gi-reliant must be modified or discarded for MMA. For my money, the best suited grappling arts for MMA are BJJ that has elements of wrestling (aggressive, non-gi oriented) or has been augmented with a takedown-heavy art (judo, wrestling, sambo), or wrestling with submissions and guardwork added (CSW, shootfighting, catch). Best of both worlds: takedowns, great ballance, control from the top or bottom, agression, finese, and submissions.
I do too, they so much more deadly and you feel so much better about yourself because no one can ever prove you aren't great.
Having watched the fight, I would agree and give it to Leopoldo. While Harris got some amazing takedowns in, he didn't do much to ground and pound. Leopoldo mostly kept him shut down tight in his guard. Also, I only recall seeing one attempt at a sprawl from Leopoldo - the rest of the time he pulled guard once Harris shot. From the jiujitsu player's perspective, the wrestler was helping him get where he wanted to go. Also, the many near-submissions meant that throughout the fight, he was closer to ending it than Harris was. At no point did it seem that Leopoldo was in deep trouble, whereas Harris came very close to getting armbarred, triangled, and leglocked on several occasions.
Pardon me but I think the thread title was really used to grab attention. I think if there is a debate it is "How should different techniques be judged?" and I don't think it is silly I think it is fair because it's a debate many a MMA fan argues about. Everyone prefers finishes but when there aren't, too often there is controversy because there is no standard way to judge techniques from varying disciplines. Ultimately I gotta say I agree with another poster's statement that most of wrestling is a means to an end. However I kinda think that wrestling's focus on control is the most important aspect to fighting. Control is the most important aspect in MMA. It is what lets you submit or knockout BUT it is also gives you an opportunity to lay and pray. If you lay and pray or (FOR jujitsu dudes) close guard and do nothing I think you are demonstrating you don't have enough control to finish a fight and therefore you forfeit your ability to control a decision by the judges.
For what? Conditioning? Wrestling Take downs? Wrestling Positional advantage? Ju Jitsu Submissions? Ju Jitsu
Shooting is a sport... And Matt "the <Bleep>" Hughes put it best...wrestlers get to control where the fight will take place.
Like I said, it's an oversimplification. They can argue about it all they want. Standards for judging should not (when possible) be based on oversimplifications.