Pankration?

Question

I personally think its a less violent version of mma

Any opinions?

Answer 1

I just started taking it a few months ago.  I don't think the original version is "less violent", but the modern version is.  It's mostly groundfighting now.

James

Answer 2

I think it's a lamer version of MMA. No head-contact is just lame. It develops really unrealistic habits.

Besides there are amature MMA comps that have no head contact.

What I do like about Pankration is that it allows people from, say, a grappling background to dabble in something akin to MMA before doing it. They get to try some less intense before going headfirst into the deep end. It's a good bridge between sub grappling and MMA.

Answer 3

Maybe

But, there are a lot of differing rules in what we accept as modern MMA. For example, the UFC took out head-butts, most ground kicks. and technically elbows, which are now referred to as "forearms".

Pancrase is one form of Pankration and strikes are allowed to the head. You just cannot use a closed fist to the head. High kicks to the head are allowed, just because in reality, they rarely land. The primary reason for not allowing knuckles to the head was that most of the participants had to go to work on Monday. A swollen head arouses suspicion of bad character in the real world. A broken hand can put someone out of work for months. I don't personally believe that this somehow hinders the ability to remember how to strike.

I do believe that Pancrase/Pankration is less violent, but there are too many rule variations to make an absolute statement.

Answer 4

I agree with your assessment.  It's because of the "less violent" nature that its Olympic at all.  Also I'm a big fan of Keith Hackney, though I'm not sure if he's still involved with Pankration.

Answer 5

i think so too since it has the same rules as mma, except allows no striking to the head.  also, i know many people that compete in pankration but have only trained in mma.