pride vs UFC standard judges

[takertitan]

This is a question any MMA fan can get behind. I stand on the side that the PRIDE scoring system is a far better judge of talent shown in a match and is generally a more consistent judging system than UFC's boxing based round system.

This also brings on the question; what other rules do you agree/not agree with in current MMA.

Kicks to a downed opp and knees can be deadly, but limits can be put on both(no knees from a North south position for example). Elbows has become another major question recently, but do you really want to limit Jon Jones on the ground?

the sports rule set has evolved to a point where it should be based fight per fight to give the best results(letting #1 contenders to 5 rounds makes sense a lot of the time), and boxing allows minor discrepancy's to rules like glove size for example.

[brashleyholland]

At the moment, I prefer the 10-point-must system, purely because most judges are not well educated enough to properly, consistently and uniformly judge fights.

The 'Pride' system simply adds further subjectivity to the matter. People rag on US judges, but there have been some truly, truly awful decisions in Japan over the years.

As for the soccer kicks, knees, etc...I'm in two minds. For the purity of the sport, I say yes. Having been soccer-kicked repeatedly in a fight that probably should have been stopped, I can see why a lot of fighters say no. There is always the argument that while they are more dangerous blows, if a ref is doing his job properly then you shouldn't take many of them before a fight it stopped.

On the flipside, it makes the sport look horrible. The fact is, most people see a person getting kicked stomped and they feel a little sick, as they should. For that reason, if I was pressed, I'd vote no.

Great thread, btw.

[brashleyholland]

Elbows has become another major question recently, but do you really want to limit Jon Jones on the ground?

Just to add on elbows, I think it's horses for courses. Bellator bans them for tournament fights and with good reason; you get cut, you get suspended and can't fight in the next round.

Strikeforce were pressured by CBS/Showtime...because they weren't comfortable with the gore on primetime TV (particularly CBS)...that's understandable, and a small sacrifice to get mainstream publicity.

[seanmc]

The judging systems, both 10 point must and Pride, are horribly ineffective IMO. The 10 point must is only questionably effective for Boxing, and they only have 1 aspect of fighting to judge. The Pride system is too easily corrupted. It just seems like it'd be too easy to win an entire fight just by looking better at the end. And by that I mean, by being less damaged after the fight. It's a rather common mindset to believe that the fighter that takes more damage clearly lost the fight. That's simply not true. What MMA needs is a system that scores everything. Striking, Grappling, Ground Fighting, Effective Aggression and Control.

Soccer kicks and knees while grounded should be legalized. However, stomps shouldn't be. The big place I'd love to see knees is when the LnP Wrestler has a shot stuffed and is just sitting there on his knees futilely holding onto a leg, jokingly trying to finish the TD. With knees to a grounded opponent legal, the fighter could not afford to sit on his knees holding one leg because the other knee could and would be coming trying to end his night. And it would kind of force the dominant Wrestler to learn how to do other ****, because even the most prolific take down artist has 1 in 5 stuffed. That 1 time could be where the fight is ended by a knee. Hopefully that'd mean we'd see Jon Fitch in a REAL fight, and not a glorified Wrestling match.

[samuricex]

The Pride system is too easily corrupted. It just seems like it'd be too easy to win an entire fight just by looking better at the end. And by that I mean, by being less damaged after the fight. It's a rather common mindset to believe that the fighter that takes more damage clearly lost the fight. That's simply not true.

Judging is a hard thing to call in MMA because there are so many different aspects, but the one thing that is universal to everything else is damage. So I believe that damage should play a huge part in the scoring, and that works best when the fight is judged overall.

The way I see it is that the 10-point must system is total and utter garbage. While the Pride judging system is better overall. I hate seeing guys who get beat up win a decision just because they held the other guy against the cage for 4 minutes each round. With the Pride system that guy would have lost, and I do believe that is the better call also.

[Daffanka]

I prefer the Pride scoring system although it's not without its own set of problems. Murilo lost way too many fights by being punched a lot at the end.

Also I think elbows and knees should be allowed on the ground. Giving people more offensive weapons on the ground encourages a more dynamic ground game. I hated it in Pride when guys would just play double wrist control and get stood up, elbows solve that problem nicely. Knees on the ground would discourage sloppy shots and give wrestlers a very effective weapon to use if they manage to pass the guard and get into side control/north south.

I'd like soccer kicks as well but I don't think they'll ever be allowed. We'll probably see knees on the ground within a few years though.

[Pampero Firpo]

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw stomps, kicks, knees and elbows to a grounded opponent. Those are brutal techniques that diminish the sport in the eyes of the general public (and regulators). I think MMA would be served to forbid those techniques as to do so would help garner broader public acceptance.

As for scoring, I prefer the PRIDE system of judging the fight as a whole instead of on a round by round basis. It's not perfect, but it helps avoid situations where one fighter easily wins one round and barely loses the next two. In the 10-point must system he'll lose the fight 29-28, whereas in reality he did better in the fight overall and should therefore win.

I do think the sport needs to look at the scoring criteria. The idea of MMA should be to knock out or submit your opponent, and attacks that try to accomplish those ends should be given the most weight. In my opinion too much credit is given for control and not enough for attack that have the potential to finish a fight -- particularly submission attempts.

To me a takedown shouldn't be worth much of anything as far as points. The benefit of a takedown is it puts you in a dominant position that will allow you to more effectively attack your opponent. But if you just take him down and then hold him there without attacking, that shouldn't be worth anything. To me that's like giving points to entering a clinch and then hugging your opponent tight so he can't do anything. Yes, it's control -- but if you don't use that control to actually threaten your opponent then it shouldn't be worth any points.

I particularly hate it when a guy gets a takedown and then doesn't do anything other than pin down his opponent and periodically slap him across the face so the referee doesn't stand them up. Meanwhile, the guy on the bottom is throwing punches and stringing together submission attempts. The way things are judged now, the guy who was on top would win a round like that, whereas I feel the guy on the bottom should win the round based on his attempts to damage/submit his opponent with strikes and sub attempts -- even if they were attempted from bottom position. In my opinion, strikes and submission attempts (even from the bottom) far outweigh one takedown and control without any attacks.

[Jennie Bomb]

The main problem with the 10 point-must system is not the system, but the application of it by judges. I think that if judges were more inclined to hand out 10-8, 10-7 etc. rounds where they're approriate, I think the perception of the fairness of the system would increase massively. I mean, if a guy clearly dominates one round while aggressively trying to win the whole way through, then Roy Nelson lies on top of him thinking of cheeseburgers for the other two rounds, the other guy should get at least a draw for his dominant round scoring 10-8 against Roy's 10-9 naps.

[samuricex]

The main problem with the 10 point-must system is not the system, but the application of it by judges. I think that if judges were more inclined to hand out 10-8, 10-7 etc. rounds where they're approriate, I think the perception of the fairness of the system would increase massively. I mean, if a guy clearly dominates one round while aggressively trying to win the whole way through, then Roy Nelson lies on top of him thinking of cheeseburgers for the other two rounds, the other guy should get at least a draw for his dominant round scoring 10-8 against Roy's 10-9 naps.

That's a terrible example. I hate to think you're just going by what Dana said. Roy had an extremely dominant position and his fight against Kimbo should have been stopped in the first round.

[Jennie Bomb]

That's a terrible example. I hate to think you're just going by what Dana said. Roy had an extremely dominant position and his fight against Kimbo should have been stopped in the first round.
What? I wasn't thinking of a specific fight. I was speaking hypothetically.

[ampulator]

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw stomps, kicks, knees and elbows to a grounded opponent. Those are brutal techniques that diminish the sport in the eyes of the general public (and regulators). I think MMA would be served to forbid those techniques as to do so would help garner broader public acceptance.
I disagree, but only partially. Knees, stomps, and kicks to the head? Yes.

Elbows as whole, knees stomps, or soccers to the body or leg? Heck no. I see absolutely no problem with elbows.

[seanmc]

Judging is a hard thing to call in MMA because there are so many different aspects, but the one thing that is universal to everything else is damage. So I believe that damage should play a huge part in the scoring, and that works best when the fight is judged overall.

The way I see it is that the 10-point must system is total and utter garbage. While the Pride judging system is better overall. I hate seeing guys who get beat up win a decision just because they held the other guy against the cage for 4 minutes each round. With the Pride system that guy would have lost, and I do believe that is the better call also.

So Chael Sonnen would've been in danger of losing if he'd went to a decision with Anderson Silva? He was clearly more damaged, but he did dominate the fight. I hate the guy but he clearly would've won if he knew how to defend subs. Anyways, what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact he spent the entire fight on top on the ground, controlling and jokingly GnPing, the cut he suffered would hold more weight? I'm sorry but that's not even close to being right. Borderline dumb really.

[Pogo92]

So Chael Sonnen would've been in danger of losing if he'd went to a decision with Anderson Silva? He was clearly more damaged, but he did dominate the fight. I hate the guy but he clearly would've won if he knew how to defend subs. Anyways, what you're saying is that, regardless of the fact he spent the entire fight on top on the ground, controlling and jokingly GnPing, the cut he suffered would hold more weight? I'm sorry but that's not even close to being right. Borderline dumb really.


Chael Sonnen was doing a lot more than just laying there, he was legitimately producing damage through his ground and pound and he kept busy, though he never really worked for position. If that fight went to a decision, Chael would have won under any judging standard, Chael straight up did more damage over more time than Silva had. And damage isn't measured in "cuts", quit being dense. It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.)

[samuricex]

Pogo hit the nail on the head. I never even stated my definition of damage, and it certainly isn't all aesthetic. Some people cut more easily or bruise more easily, so you have to factor in more than what someone looks like after a fight.

[seanmc]

Chael Sonnen was doing a lot more than just laying there, he was legitimately producing damage through his ground and pound and he kept busy, though he never really worked for position. If that fight went to a decision, Chael would have won under any judging standard, Chael straight up did more damage over more time than Silva had. And damage isn't measured in "cuts", quit being dense. It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.)

Pogo hit the nail on the head. I never even stated my definition of damage, and it certainly isn't all aesthetic. Some people cut more easily or bruise more easily, so you have to factor in more than what someone looks like after a fight.

Bottom line, physical cuts and bruises are clearly more indicative of damage. Chael landed more blows, but they were mainly his harmless GnP, aimed at only keeping the fight on the ground. None of the GnP was as damaging as the few body kicks and 1 elbow Silva landed.

Pogo, get off Fails nuts, he kept busy but was far from doing any damage, with the exception of the 1 punch that scored him the fluke knockdown at the very beginning of the fight. If you can't see that, then you're the dense one who needs somebody's sack a rest. Seriously, it's quite sad.

[ampulator]

I wouldn't call Sonnen's GnP harmless, but rather, that he has no power in his hands. He has a lot of power in other parts of his arms, though, so those shots he does still hurts. It's just that, he won't knock anyone out, but it's not like it won't slow you down if you keep getting hit by them. It's kinda like what happened in the Nelson/Santos fight-even if you almost never go down, you slow down because you hit so many times.

The opposite in terms of arms, to me, is Matt Serra. Someone said to me, this: "Anvil Heads, Midget Arms". If you get caught, you can go lights, but if you aren't careless, you'd be okay.

When you get to someone like Brock Lesnar or Shane Carwin, who has powerful hands AND arms, their GnP pretty much means you dead meat if you get stuck.

[Payne]

Chael Sonnen was doing a lot more than just laying there, he was legitimately producing damage through his ground and pound and he kept busy, though he never really worked for position. If that fight went to a decision, Chael would have won under any judging standard, Chael straight up did more damage over more time than Silva had. And damage isn't measured in "cuts", quit being dense. It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.)

So then the judging becomes subjective based on Estimates? So, if I think Anderson Silva worked harder from the ground, because he was actively searching for defense and throwing up submissions, he would have clearly won that?

Lesnar was just as active defending the punches, as he was kicking (I can't remember his name right now) away, and defending?

Or is it just offense? Does defense not count for anything? Would Lyoto Machida lose every fight because he a counter-fighter? He's not aggressive, but he inflicts damage.

What about GSP's "safe style"?

This leads to a lot of very subjective judging. If you have a favourite, you could very well just be watching him, and missing many points.

I think a 10 point must is the best, but the criteria needs to be expanded. Maybe have a "number's cruncher" showing strikes thrown vs. strikes landed, takedowns attempted vs. successful takedowns, top position offense vs. bottome position offense, defensive maneuvers......etc.

[brashleyholland]

So then the judging becomes subjective based on Estimates? So, if I think Anderson Silva worked harder from the ground, because he was actively searching for defense and throwing up submissions, he would have clearly won that?



Yes, unfortunately that's exactly how it works. When looking at damage, for example, you have to 'judge' who, in your opinion, landed the more damaging blows. Depending on where you're sitting, it's often impossible (especially with bigger cages) for each individual judge to see if a blow lands, or more importantly is effective in causing damage. So you gave to guestimate.

When you see a fight that has taken place primarily in one part of the cage (for example, a good wrester has repeatedly taken his opponent down in against the fence in his own corner) it's not uncommon to see one judge score the fight completely differently. Most Sher-tards immediately jump to the 'bad judging' conclusion, having never A) Sat that close to a cage and tried to objectivly score a fight and B) actually learned how to score a fight outside of looking at the Unified Rules judging criteria online.

With the Sonnen/Silva example, Sonnen wins that fight every time, whether it's in the US, Japan or Mars. Effective Striking, Effective Grappling, Damage, Aggression, Octagon Control - there are the main judging criteria. Let's disregard damage for a second...Sonnen takes every round on effective grappling/striking, aggression, control. That wins him the fight.

Lesnar was just as active defending the punches, as he was kicking (I can't remember his name right now) away, and defending?

Carwin took that round on effective striking, damage (he landed the only damaging blows in the round), aggression (he was clearly the aggressor) and Octagon control (he put Brock down and kept him there). It's hard to score anything Brock did in that round...you could say that his transition at the end was effective grappling, but because it constituted such a small percentage of the fight, it would not have been looked at by the judges (unless literally NOTHING else had happened).

Or is it just offense? Does defense not count for anything? Would Lyoto Machida lose every fight because he a counter-fighter? He's not aggressive, but he inflicts damage.

Machida wins his fights by Octagon control (he controls the pace of the fight, makes his opponents come to him), effective striking and grappling and damage...he's not aggressive in the traditional sense, but when you can't hit him and he can hit you, he doesn't have to be.

What about GSP's "safe style"?

Effective grappling (takedowns, guard passing) Octagon control (self explanatory in GSP's case), aggression (actively looking for guard passes/submissions/takedowns) and damage (Matt Serra 1 was the last time that somebody landed more damaging blows than GSP in a fight).

This leads to a lot of very subjective judging.

Absolutely.


If you have a favourite, you could very well just be watching him, and missing many points.

If you have 'favourites', you shouldn't be judging their fights, period. Most judges I've met are professional enough not to have favourites in that sense, but I've met more judges that aren't what I would call 'qualified' than ones that are.

[brashleyholland]

One thing people don't know/remember about the judging criteria in the US is that a percentage system is used to give weighting to striking and grappling.

What this means is that if there is more grappling than striking in a round (i.e. most of the fight takes place in the clinch or on the floor) then grappling is given priority in scoring.

So lets say you have a fight where a wrestler takes down a striker and controls him on the mat for four minutes. He doesn't really do much, maybe passes guard one or twice, but lands enough 'pitter-patter' strikes to prevent the ref from standing the fight up. The striker, for his part, throws up a triangle or an armbar, the odd hammer-fist etc.

At the four-minute mark, the fight is stood up. The striker goes nuts, landing 40 blows in 60 seconds, getting almost nothing in return. The wrestler is on the back foot, covering up, eating shot after shot. He's a bit busted up by the time the buzzer goes.

Now, you could argue that the Striker was the aggressor...he attempted a submission or two from his back, and he certainly did more damage and went for the finish. He wins effective striking too, right?

If that fight was scored correctly, he would not win that round. Because the portion of the fight he dominated (and arguably did more to win the round in) was only 20% of the total round, it will only be given a 20% weighting by a judge who is doing his job properly.

[Pogo92]

So then the judging becomes subjective based on Estimates? So, if I think Anderson Silva worked harder from the ground, because he was actively searching for defense and throwing up submissions, he would have clearly won that?

Lesnar was just as active defending the punches, as he was kicking (I can't remember his name right now) away, and defending?

Or is it just offense? Does defense not count for anything? Would Lyoto Machida lose every fight because he a counter-fighter? He's not aggressive, but he inflicts damage.

What about GSP's "safe style"?

This leads to a lot of very subjective judging. If you have a favourite, you could very well just be watching him, and missing many points.

I think a 10 point must is the best, but the criteria needs to be expanded. Maybe have a "number's cruncher" showing strikes thrown vs. strikes landed, takedowns attempted vs. successful takedowns, top position offense vs. bottome position offense, defensive maneuvers......etc.


All judging in MMA is subjective. We use no objective measures to gauge the fight, it's all based on what a judge considers "Effective". I think you need to look up what "Objective" means, as it's well regarded that most UFC decisions are far from it.

And notice that my description has nothing about defense. Because defense doesn't score points--the point of strong defense is to nullify your oppositions ability to score points/put you into a position to score points. You know, like almost ANY OTHER SPORT.

Lyoto Machida would win most of his fights, as he lands considerably more blows and is just about the least hit fighter in the UFC (Both by blows and percentage-wise).


In the Anderson Silva fight, he showed little ability to both end the fight (Outside the final triangle armbar) and deal damage. Chael Sonnen displayed immense control which translated into a lot of damage, through little increments of striking (Though there was several times in the fight where he was postured up over Silva raining down hard blows).

Brock Lesnar did no damage in the first round of his fight and never came close to even attempting to finish in that round. How do you jump to the conclusion that a professional judge could give him the round? Such hyperbolic examples are just ridiculous, quit building arguments out of exaggerations and try to come up with something logical.


Like I said:

"It's estimated roughly through number of blows and the effectiveness/power of each strike (And then you would throw in more scoring for attempting to finish and effective use of subs.) "

The attempting to finish is about the only controversial part of this, but in truth it's more or less the least emphasized part of my criteria. The idea is to score against fighters who choose to run away or, in the case where other criteria are at a dead heap, the round would go to whoever worked harder for it.

In the case of GSP's "Safe" style, as you put it, yes. The whole point of this system is to discourage that kind of fighting; keep in mind those fighters with top control will still have just as much opportunity to dish out damage from the top as before. The only difference is if they choose not to (For fear of not winning by boring decision) or are incapable of thanks to the bottom's defense, in which case, nuts to them. They shouldn't have brought the fight to the ground if they can't win it there.

I generated this criteria with the basis of what Martial Arts stand for, practically. The idea was to train ones body so it could be used a weapon of offense and self-defense, yes? And in a fight, what is one's objective? To, in short, eliminate the threat whether it be by death or incapacitation adequate enough to escape and get help from an authority (And everything inbetween).

Where does laying on top of your foe play into that? Sure, you're neutralizing them, but only in the most temporary of manners--The second you get up, he's still fine and ready to brawl. Thus, an emphasis need be put on effective elimantion means, either submissions or striking, and trying to accomplish this means throughout the fight.

Bottom line, physical cuts and bruises are clearly more indicative of damage. Chael landed more blows, but they were mainly his harmless GnP, aimed at only keeping the fight on the ground. None of the GnP was as damaging as the few body kicks and 1 elbow Silva landed.

Pogo, get off Fails nuts, he kept busy but was far from doing any damage, with the exception of the 1 punch that scored him the fluke knockdown at the very beginning of the fight. If you can't see that, then you're the dense one who needs somebody's sack a rest. Seriously, it's quite sad.


Perhaps to someone without and basic grasp of how to knockout someone out, yeah cuts look pretty bad. But I'd figure most MMA fans would know that cuts (outside of seriously horrific wounds or cuts that bleed into the eyes) are almost entirely unimportant. And if you truly think that Silva had done more damage for the 4 1/2 rounds, I think you need to get off Anderson's nuts. I was rooting for the man and even I realized that he was effectively dominated in any measure of MMA.

[brashleyholland]

I generated this criteria with the basis of what Martial Arts stand for, practically. The idea was to train ones body so it could be used a weapon of offense and self-defense, yes? And in a fight, what is one's objective? To, in short, eliminate the threat whether it be by death or incapacitation adequate enough to escape and get help from an authority (And everything inbetween).

That's not really relevent in a discussion about judging criteria for MMA though, which is not a fight where one needs to consider 'death or incapacitation'.

Where does laying on top of your foe play into that? Sure, you're neutralizing them, but only in the most temporary of manners--The second you get up, he's still fine and ready to brawl. Thus, an emphasis need be put on effective elimantion means, either submissions or striking, and trying to accomplish this means throughout the fight.

It plays in to MMA in a big way, as it's one of the seven perfectly legal and acceptable endings to a fight, as stated in the Unified Rules. KO, submission, TKO, decision, forfeit, DQ, no contest. Doing just enough to win is fine, because that's what the rules of the sport say.

Nobody likes to see guys who are intentionally spoiling, but at the same time, there's no need to start changing rules that will force fighters to take unnecessary risks. What the sport needs is referees who can properly and uniformly implement them, and judges who can properly and uniformly score fights using them.

[ampulator]

There were something goofy about all rules. Pride allowed knees, stomps, and soccers kicks to the head on the ground, but no elbows at all. That's just... odd. Allowing those but not allowing elbows? Really?

As for unified MMA rules, not allowing the 16-9 elbow, but allow other elbows. Uh, what?

I think the rules, are mostly fine, but I prefer the PRIDE way of judging the fight as a whole, and judging by damage. It just makes sense, if you look in light of Rua/Machida 1.

[brashleyholland]

There were something goofy about all rules. Pride allowed knees, stomps, and soccers kicks to the head on the ground, but no elbows at all. That's just... odd. Allowing those but not allowing elbows? Really?

Unfortunately the 'no elbows' rule was nothing to do with Pride (who wanted a Vale Tudo-style rule set with head-butts and elbows) and everything to do with their commercial and television partners. Pride was 'Primetime' programming in it's heyday...TV didn't want blood all over the ring/sponsor logos/fighters, and because the money was coming from TV and advertising, not PPV, TV got it's way.

Far from being a 'safety' issue, it was simply a way to reduce blood from cuts. Stomping on a dude's face was still all good though :D

As for unified MMA rules, not allowing the 16-9 elbow, but allow other elbows. Uh, what?

Widescreen elbows? :p

Seriously though, you're right, it's a stupid rule. I have no idea if the brick-breaking story is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised!

[takertitan]

I really like the rule from PRIDE where "intent to end the fight" is looked at. This helps nullify guys who sit around round 3 and just try and maintain control vs doing damage. People may say bonus's are there to give incentive, but a loss on your record i think is more incentive to look to be active at all times.

I am also in favor of point deductions for stalling or waiting for a ref stand up. I think its bull **** you can have a Ken Shamrock vs Royce Gracie 2 (super-fight) match where one guy just keeps guard and the other guy waits for the other guy to move. PRIDE used to have the card system for this where fighters lost a % of your purse for being inactive, but it was a pain in the ass for most fighters when you only made 5G's on a fight and left with under 1K after fees.

The current judging system is flawed in so many ways you could dissect it for days. I think the main problem is a lot of the judges just don't know enough. Get people like Eddie Bravo, Severn, Frank Shamrock, Rickson Gracie, Chuck, Pat miletich, greg jackson... to judge fights. Get your retired guys who KNOW when someone hit someone cause they know EVERYTHING about the sport. Not some boxing judge or smark.

[Payne]

I'm glad my post made for good conversation. I was mainly playing Devil's Advocate.

But, my main point was to say that all judging IS subjective, and to get a truer (is that a word????) judging, one would have to go to replays and the aforementioned "number crunchers"

[brashleyholland]

I really like the rule from PRIDE where "intent to end the fight" is looked at. This helps nullify guys who sit around round 3 and just try and maintain control vs doing damage.

It's a debate in itself. If you control a fight for 18 of 20 mins with takedowns, grappling and wrestling, yet your opponent knocks you down and flurries three times, do you deserve to lose?

I think there is also a misconception that the 'Effort to finish' rule led to exciting or decisive fights. The truth was, there were just as many boring fights in Pride as there were anywhere else - the 'Effort to finish' criteria often didn't come into play as there wasn't any discernible effort to finish from either fighter.

I am also in favor of point deductions for stalling or waiting for a ref stand up. I think its bull **** you can have a Ken Shamrock vs Royce Gracie 2 (super-fight) match where one guy just keeps guard and the other guy waits for the other guy to move.

To be fair, that fight was a looooong time ago...under the current rules it would have been stood up repeatedly and points deducted/ruled a no contest.

PRIDE used to have the card system for this where fighters lost a % of your purse for being inactive, but it was a pain in the ass for most fighters when you only made 5G's on a fight and left with under 1K after fees.

This is a double-edged sword for me. Obviously hurting someone in their pockets is a great incentive...but it's hard to justify taking money off a guy who is making $200 for a fight. Also, the system was massively abused by Pride, whose officials were obviously employees...the term 'foreigner tax' was often thrown around liberally.

The current judging system is flawed in so many ways you could dissect it for days. I think the main problem is a lot of the judges just don't know enough. Get people like Eddie Bravo, Severn, Frank Shamrock, Rickson Gracie, Chuck, Pat miletich, greg jackson... to judge fights. Get your retired guys who KNOW when someone hit someone cause they know EVERYTHING about the sport. Not some boxing judge or smark.

Former fighters are more often than not the WORST and least subjective people when it comes to judging fights. Especially the really successful ones, because more often than not they have a very specific idea of what wins a fight. It's the same reason that the Liddell's of the world don't make the best coaches.

Matt Hulme is one of the best and fairest judges in the sport IMO, and he's very much an exception to the rule.

[Daffanka]

PRIDE used to have the card system for this where fighters lost a % of your purse for being inactive, but it was a pain in the ass for most fighters when you only made 5G's on a fight and left with under 1K after fees.

The PRIDE carding system existed to screw foreigners out of their money. In fact this still goes on today as Marcus Aurelio got carded against Aoki last weekend for stalling when he was mounted with his legs wrapped up with no chance of escape.

The current judging system is flawed in so many ways you could dissect it for days. I think the main problem is a lot of the judges just don't know enough. Get people like Eddie Bravo, Severn, Frank Shamrock, Rickson Gracie, Chuck, Pat miletich, greg jackson... to judge fights. Get your retired guys who KNOW when someone hit someone cause they know EVERYTHING about the sport. Not some boxing judge or smark.

Eddie Bravo scores this contest 30-24 in favor of the guy that used rubber guard.

[ampulator]

The PRIDE carding system existed to screw foreigners out of their money. In fact this still goes on today as Marcus Aurelio got carded against Aoki last weekend for stalling when he was mounted with his legs wrapped up with no chance of escape.



Eddie Bravo scores this contest 30-24 in favor of the guy that used rubber guard.
That's a fair point. But I don't think the UFC is going to "screw" anyone one money. They do a lot of things... screwing people out of money isn't one of them. They might not pay the lower guys so well, but otherwise...

In any case, I like the idea of having universal rules, but not everything should be universal. We should allow SOME differences in rules, if, at least, to test out which rules work better.

For example, PRIDE did, and Strikeforce does, ban elbows. It doesn't work out so well in practice. I mean, the ban works, but sometimes the fights are wonky on the ground.

[Derek B]

I've deleted a number of posts from this thread as they were in direct violation of GDS Forum Policy. I had considered closing it, but other than those posts the thread seems to be going along quite nicely, so carry on along that line and remember to have fun. :)

[Pogo92]

Thank you, Derek.:)

[Canscrubenha]

Bottom line, physical cuts and bruises are clearly more indicative of damage. Chael landed more blows, but they were mainly his harmless GnP, aimed at only keeping the fight on the ground. None of the GnP was as damaging as the few body kicks and 1 elbow Silva landed.

Pogo, get off Fails nuts, he kept busy but was far from doing any damage, with the exception of the 1 punch that scored him the fluke knockdown at the very beginning of the fight. If you can't see that, then you're the dense one who needs somebody's sack a rest. Seriously, it's quite sad.

He didn't knock him down, he rocked his world though.

[Damian]

The main problem with the 10 point-must system is not the system, but the application of it by judges. I think that if judges were more inclined to hand out 10-8, 10-7 etc. rounds where they're approriate, I think the perception of the fairness of the system would increase massively. I mean, if a guy clearly dominates one round while aggressively trying to win the whole way through, then Roy Nelson lies on top of him thinking of cheeseburgers for the other two rounds, the other guy should get at least a draw for his dominant round scoring 10-8 against Roy's 10-9 naps.

As a fighter myself, I have to agree with this. The fact judges RARELY give more than a 10-9 is what screws up fights. Fighter A has a super dominant first round but only scores 10-9... Fighter B "edges" the next two rounds by laying on top to avoid more of a beating and wins due to two 10-9's? I've seen too many fights "won" this way. It would force Fighter B to actually fight if the scoring was adjusted to be more accurate and reflect the rounds as they really were.

As for banning elbows... ridiculous. Soccer Kicks and Stomps I agree with, there is no technique in them. I do think knee's should be legalized though.

[BlizzardVeers]

If it were up to me, I'd outlaw stomps, kicks, knees and elbows to a grounded opponent. Those are brutal techniques that diminish the sport in the eyes of the general public (and regulators). I think MMA would be served to forbid those techniques as to do so would help garner broader public acceptance.
Pretty much everything that you said in this post makes sense, -except- this.

The first thing is that stomps, kicks to the head while on the ground and knees to the head on the ground are generally seen by the United States as being brutal. Other countries don't share that same mentality of, "don't kick a man when he's down."

Second, you are hurting the fighters, and only the fighters, by removing these techniques. You're hurting their ability to be practically offensive, while complaining when fighters shoot in for takedown after takedown and then don't do anything with their takedowns. Opening up more striking possibilities will -stop- the lay and pray that we see so prevalently right now. Don't ban the techniques, ban 'attack areas'. Instead of saying, "No, you can't stomp their face." Say, "No, you're not allowed to strike them to the back of the head." It's stupid to ban techniques, because you're only damaging the ways that a fighter can actually fight. It's like when boxing banned backfists and effectively killed good "dirty" boxing. It's also like what K-1 is doing right now by trying to stifle people like Semmy Schilt and Alistair Overeem from winning with their clinch-work. :\

Third, do you have a problem with head kicks? What about flying knees? Teeps? Stomps to the foot? Axe kicks? Why is it suddenly taboo to use your legs to attack someone when you're on the ground, but okay to use your fists? The fighters would arguably take less damage from getting stomped two or three times and having the fight stopped versus getting punched for much longer. People say that these things are potentially deadly when it hits the ground, but there's absolutely no evidence to show that these techniques are any more or less deadly while standing up versus on the ground. Limit striking areas, not striking techniques.

As for the topic at hand, I somewhat prefer the PRIDE ruleset, but I think that a 10-9 'must' mentality going away would help decisions somewhat. It would be better if we just got better judges though. Or, better yet, the UFC instituted a less subjective system that wasn't based on things like, 'octagon control', which is simply a perspective based thing.

[slack]

They are called judges for a reason. They are their to score a fight based on their interpretation of action. Judging is a subjective word.

I do agree that judges should use more 10-8's and even 10-7 in very one sided situations. I think that better officiating and allowing more types of strikes (as discussed in length alreay) would provide a better fan experience.

Then again, I've only started following MMA recently, but I've felt more like "man this fight should have been better" than "wow, the judges messed that up".

[ampulator]

Pretty much everything that you said in this post makes sense, -except- this.

The first thing is that stomps, kicks to the head while on the ground and knees to the head on the ground are generally seen by the United States as being brutal. Other countries don't share that same mentality of, "don't kick a man when he's down."

Second, you are hurting the fighters, and only the fighters, by removing these techniques. You're hurting their ability to be practically offensive, while complaining when fighters shoot in for takedown after takedown and then don't do anything with their takedowns. Opening up more striking possibilities will -stop- the lay and pray that we see so prevalently right now. Don't ban the techniques, ban 'attack areas'. Instead of saying, "No, you can't stomp their face." Say, "No, you're not allowed to strike them to the back of the head." It's stupid to ban techniques, because you're only damaging the ways that a fighter can actually fight. It's like when boxing banned backfists and effectively killed good "dirty" boxing. It's also like what K-1 is doing right now by trying to stifle people like Semmy Schilt and Alistair Overeem from winning with their clinch-work. :\

Third, do you have a problem with head kicks? What about flying knees? Teeps? Stomps to the foot? Axe kicks? Why is it suddenly taboo to use your legs to attack someone when you're on the ground, but okay to use your fists? The fighters would arguably take less damage from getting stomped two or three times and having the fight stopped versus getting punched for much longer. People say that these things are potentially deadly when it hits the ground, but there's absolutely no evidence to show that these techniques are any more or less deadly while standing up versus on the ground. Limit striking areas, not striking techniques.

As for the topic at hand, I somewhat prefer the PRIDE ruleset, but I think that a 10-9 'must' mentality going away would help decisions somewhat. It would be better if we just got better judges though. Or, better yet, the UFC instituted a less subjective system that wasn't based on things like, 'octagon control', which is simply a perspective based thing.
I disagree. It's not the sheer brutality. Hell, if that was the case, I might as well support outlawing fists in a boxing match.

The problem is, soccer kicks and stomps to the ground are too easy. No technique necessary. It's not a damage issue for me. Hell, I can probably soccer kick and stomp as well as a MMA fighter. It's that easy. The expression "so easy you're grandma can do it" comes to mind when it comes to stomps and soccier kicks. Stomps and soccer kicks come to absolutely near zero risk to the attacker as well.

Again, I restart my position: stomps, soccer kicks, and knees to the head, on the ground, no. Stomps, soccer kicks, and knees to just about to the body, legs, and arms, yes.

They are called judges for a reason. They are their to score a fight based on their interpretation of action. Judging is a subjective word.

I do agree that judges should use more 10-8's and even 10-7 in very one sided situations. I think that better officiating and allowing more types of strikes (as discussed in length alreay) would provide a better fan experience.

Then again, I've only started following MMA recently, but I've felt more like "man this fight should have been better" than "wow, the judges messed that up".

The problem, ultimately, in a round-based system, is each round is treated near equal. That's not always in the case. Under a whole-fight judging system, Machida/Rampage would have meant Machida would have won. In a round-based system, it could have definitely been givein to Jackson (I would still have pointed it for Machida, though). The same for the Brilz/Nogueira fight. I thought Nogueira probably won the fight under the round system, but judging the fight as a whole, Brilz won.

[BlizzardVeers]

I disagree. It's not the sheer brutality. Hell, if that was the case, I might as well support outlawing fists in a boxing match.

The problem is, soccer kicks and stomps to the ground are too easy. No technique necessary. It's not a damage issue for me. Hell, I can probably soccer kick and stomp as well as a MMA fighter. It's that easy. The expression "so easy you're grandma can do it" comes to mind when it comes to stomps and soccier kicks. Stomps and soccer kicks come to absolutely near zero risk to the attacker as well.
What? And throwing a winging haymaker or a crappy low kick takes technique? Have you ever actually TRIED to stomp someone on the head or even line them up into a position where you could kick them in the face? It takes more effort than you're making it sound like. Pushing someone up against the cage, or holding them down brings almost zero risk to the aggressor as well, but that's not illegal, of course, unless they screw up. Which, guess what, it's pretty easy to screw up trying to stomp someone and get leg-locked if you're not careful, or to get swept while you're on one foot trying to kick someone in the head.

That's such a silly argument against those techniques. :\

[ampulator]

Have I tried to stomp someone's head? Well... I'll keep that myself. ;) But in any case, I just don't see the case that stomps are soccer kicks open up much problems for the agressor. I look at stomps and soccer kicks as in the same category as spiking... usseful to the agressor, but ultimately too risky and dangerous in the sport.

[brashleyholland]

Third, do you have a problem with head kicks? What about flying knees? Teeps? Stomps to the foot? Axe kicks? Why is it suddenly taboo to use your legs to attack someone when you're on the ground, but okay to use your fists?

There are numerous factors.

- Striking with your fists/elbows on the ground removes most of your leverage. When you throw a punch on the feet, you power is generated from your legs, hips and waist. On the floor, you're essentially throwing arm punches. Not that these don't have power when thrown by a professional fighter, but they don't have anything like the power of the same punch thrown from a standing position.

- With a soccer kick, you're kicking a downed opponent. You have all your leverage, in fact, you have more than when you throw a regular kick because you're not having to use your back arm for balance - you can wind it up much more and kick harder.

- Soccer kicks are more often than not 'blind' strikes - the opponent can't see them coming. If you're on all fours, you have no idea when the kick is going to hit you. As such, your ability to defend it is lessened. More importantly, your bodies natural 'brace' reaction doesn't get chance to work because you're taking the hit blind. This can lead to neck damage as well.

- When you're on the floor, there is a huge likelihood of getting your head bounced. When you take a punch on the feet, your head will snap back, or to the side. On the mat, with someone striking down on you, you hit the floor so your head has nowhere to go, increasing the damage rendered by the blow. Stomps, obviously being many, many times harder than a punch from mount, are going to deal a horrific amount of damage when the head has nowhere to go.

People say that these things are potentially deadly when it hits the ground, but there's absolutely no evidence to show that these techniques are any more or less deadly while standing up versus on the ground. Limit striking areas, not striking techniques.

That's absurd. Of course there is. Knee's from north/south to the top of the head have left many fighters with spinal compression injuries. Soccer kicks have left fighters with permanent neck damage. There was a ton of medical evidence presented to one of the big commissions many years ago (I want to say Cali) when they were opening a debate on allowing knee's and kicks to the head of a grounded fighter.

Numerous fighters spoke out against allowing those techniques as well...in fact, most fighters I speak to on the subject hate the idea of stomps and soccer kicks.

If I had to make an allowance, I'd allow knee's to the head of a grounded opponent *facing up*, not from north/south position. Kicks to the head of a grounded opponent only when they are facing up, or have a maximum of three points of contact with the ground.

[Damian]

Numerous fighters spoke out against allowing those techniques as well...in fact, most fighters I speak to on the subject hate the idea of stomps and soccer kicks.

Exactly, I've been training in MMA for a while now and these kind of subjects come up when we're all speaking pre/post training... nobody likes them for the reason I and others on here have stated; it takes no skill and there is a high danger element, while a VERY short moment for us to defend ourselves. It's exactly why small-joint manipulation is outlawed - bones will break quicker than we can tap.

[BlizzardVeers]

- Striking with your fists/elbows on the ground removes most of your leverage. When you throw a punch on the feet, you power is generated from your legs, hips and waist. On the floor, you're essentially throwing arm punches. Not that these don't have power when thrown by a professional fighter, but they don't have anything like the power of the same punch thrown from a standing position.
What? What about the punches thrown while someone is STILL STANDING. Or when they dive in? Diving strikes are blind strikes as well, and are dangerous to the health of the person being hit. But, so is getting punched while you're on your back in general. Due to the fact that your head can bounce off the back of the ground, period. That's what makes it dangerous, not that the power differential is there. But physics dictates that it's still going to have the power to KO you if someone that's 200lbs hits you while you're standing up, on your back, or on their knees - if they dig into the strike. We still get KOs from the guard, mount, side mount - etc from strikes. Not to mention the power that an elbow wields is significantly more dangerous from a short range position than a knee strike is. Do you know how many oribtal sockets have been broken from elbow strikes on the ground? How about jaws? Busted ears? Point is this, as a professional fighter, you're going to take damage, and literally everything you do has the potential to kill you if the wrong area is struck.

- With a soccer kick, you're kicking a downed opponent. You have all your leverage, in fact, you have more than when you throw a regular kick because you're not having to use your back arm for balance - you can wind it up much more and kick harder.
Then make punches while standing and the opponent on their back illegal as well. This is not a detriment to the technique, this is an advantage of position. The technique should not be illegal because it is even more advantageous to do it than something else. If a fighter is put into a position to be soccer kicked, and they are, they should have done something differently. But the point is that I've seen people -be- soccer kicked and survive and still win. It is no different than any other technique. Now a soccer kick or stomp to the neck..

- Soccer kicks are more often than not 'blind' strikes - the opponent can't see them coming. If you're on all fours, you have no idea when the kick is going to hit you. As such, your ability to defend it is lessened. More importantly, your bodies natural 'brace' reaction doesn't get chance to work because you're taking the hit blind. This can lead to neck damage as well.
These are called knock outs. What you described is generally what has happened anytime someone lands a knock out blow. But, you rarely get injured more when you're unconscious than you would when you -are- conscious, for the simple reason that your muscles will, more often than not, relax on a scale that you're not capable of when conscious. That's why many drunks survive horrible car crashes that sober people do not. Also, can you actually name any fights where you've seen someone put to sleep by a soccer kick that wasn't a street fight? I can only name Wanderlei versus Yuki Kondo, and those were stomps, and it was -after- Wand had blasted him on the feet with punches, and then dropped about 4 stomps.

- When you're on the floor, there is a huge likelihood of getting your head bounced. When you take a punch on the feet, your head will snap back, or to the side. On the mat, with someone striking down on you, you hit the floor so your head has nowhere to go, increasing the damage rendered by the blow. Stomps, obviously being many, many times harder than a punch from mount, are going to deal a horrific amount of damage when the head has nowhere to go.
The first part of this comment is the reason why punches and elbows while on the ground are just as damaging. Elbows present a significant amount of force as well from that position, much more than a stomp, if done by the right person, with the right technique. A stomp is dangerous, but it's not a instant killing blow by any means. The first death in MMA involved nothing but punches from the mount, and I'm not talking about the one in Texas, I'm talking about the one in Russia with Douglas Dedge. And if that's a primary concern, why not ban slams entirely? We banned spikes, but slams can involuntarily lead to spikes, and they can cause just as much, if not more, damage to the person's body.

That's absurd. Of course there is. Knee's from north/south to the top of the head have left many fighters with spinal compression injuries. Soccer kicks have left fighters with permanent neck damage. There was a ton of medical evidence presented to one of the big commissions many years ago (I want to say Cali) when they were opening a debate on allowing knee's and kicks to the head of a grounded fighter.
No, that commission did not do 'extensive' medical research, they did 3 months in 2000 and 3 months in 2001. It was New Jersey that did it first. You find the evidence to support the claim that medical reports have shown that fighters get spinal compression from knees to the north/south and that soccer kicks have caused the permanent neck damage you say they have, and I'll consider backing off of my opinion. Because the safety -is- what matters, but I have seen no evidence to support those people that say that these techniques are somehow worse than the techniques we already allow. (Especially elbows.) And we've got a lot of data available, mostly from Valetudo in Brazil.

In past years, the State
Athletic Control Board (SACB) had been hesitant to sanction mixed
martial arts events due to the lack of formal rules in the sport which
created health and safety concerns. For example, the sport generally did
not divide contestants into weight classes, had contestants participate
in several matches on the same evening and did not provide time limits
on either round or bout length. However, in the last year or so,
promoters of mixed martial arts events began to develop formal rules and
regulations which included procedures to minimize the risk of injury to
the contestant. After becoming aware that detailed regulations were now
in place for most mixed martial arts events, the SACB then began a
course of communications with the California State Athletic Commission
with regard to the subject of regulating mixed martial arts events.
California has established rules and regulations for the conduct of the
sport in their state. As of September 2000, the SACB began to allow
mixed martial arts promoters to conduct events in New Jersey upon
submission and review of their established rules and regulations. In
addition, the promoters had to agree to incorporate the SACB's medical
testing and safety requirements. The intent was to allow the SACB to
observe actual events and gather information needed to determine what
would be necessary to establish a comprehensive set of rules to
effectively regulate the sport. On April 3, 2001, the SACB held a
meeting in Trenton to discuss the regulation of mixed martial arts
events. This meeting was set up by SACB Commissioner Larry Hazzard, Sr.
in an attempt to unify the myriad of rules and regulations which have
been utilized by the different mixed martial arts organizations. At this
meeting, the proposed uniform rules were agreed upon by the SACB,
several other regulatory bodies, numerous promoters of mixed martial
arts events and other interested parties in attendance. The meeting was
quite comprehensive and lasted over three hours. At the conclusion of
the meeting, all parties in attendance were able to agree upon a uniform
set of rules to govern the sport of mixed martial arts. In recent
months, other states, including Nevada, have begun to sanction mixed
martial arts events based upon the SACB's regulatory framework which
arose at the conclusion of the April meeting. The SACB anticipates that
this proposal will result in uniform rules for mixed martial arts events
held throughout the United States. In a similar sense, in March of 1998,
the SACB proposed uniform rules for the conduct of championship
professional boxing matches. Since the proposal, these rules for
championship rules have become the norm throughout the country.
For those interested.

Numerous fighters spoke out against allowing those techniques as well...in fact, most fighters I speak to on the subject hate the idea of stomps and soccer kicks.
Yeah? The only guys I've ever talked to about the subject were okay with them, as long as they weren't the ones being kicked or stomped. Though to ask in a more empirical manner, "Who?" Who has spoken out against allowing those techniques? Go start this topic on the Underground, see what kind of response you get.

A couple of people involved in MMA, off the top of my head in-favor of the techniques.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0aCfbK6BjY - Nick Diaz
http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/1772 - Joe Rogan

Those strikes being available dramatically changes the outcome of a fight, and changes the strategies involved, to something I think is generally more exciting and is as Rogan says, "intense."

But, to another point. One a smaller scale? Smaller shows and such? There should be a much more restrictive ruleset for the fighters. It should be done to protect the fighters in their 'infancy' and allow them to get the skills necessary to protect against the more dangerous techniques (I fault poor referees for adding that extra element of danger when the techniques are allowed.) Which.. are actually anything striking wise on the ground. The RINGs ruleset would apply nicely to smaller organizations. No strikes to the head while on the ground, but body shots are acceptable. But when it comes to the UFC and Strikeforce? The big shows? These are supposed to be the elite of the sport.

tl;dr: I have seen no evidence to support the claims that knees, stomps and soccer kicks are more dangerous than punches and elbows on the ground.

Edit: I also want to restate, that I'm not in favor of the techniques just being allowed wherever. I want attack -areas- (back of the head, neck, small of the back, groin) to be banned, I also want what constitutes a 'downed opponent' to be changed.

[Damian]

To be honest, this entire debate is pointless unless you have trained or fought yourself. We know what hurts and what is uncomfortable for ourselves, we don't need people with uneducated opinions telling us what we can/can't do. Us fighters aren't all mindless thugs who like to hit people.

[Pogo92]

To be honest, this entire debate is pointless unless you have trained or fought yourself. We know what hurts and what is uncomfortable for ourselves, we don't need people with uneducated opinions telling us what we can/can't do. Us fighters aren't all mindless thugs who like to hit people.


While I agree with you, you sound like you're speaking for EVERY professional fighter in the world.

I would really want to see a professional survey done with fighters in the top professional organizations, and a combined survey with low- and high-level organizations on the fighter's opinions on these strikes.

[brashleyholland]

To be honest, this entire debate is pointless unless you have trained or fought yourself. We know what hurts and what is uncomfortable for ourselves, we don't need people with uneducated opinions telling us what we can/can't do. Us fighters aren't all mindless thugs who like to hit people.

That's pretty much the long and short of it for me. The common themes that come up whenever I've discussed this with people in the past are A) I don't want to get hurt and B) I don't feel comfortable stomping my heel into someone's face. :-p


I would really want to see a professional survey done with fighters in the top professional organizations, and a combined survey with low- and high-level organizations on the fighter's opinions on these strikes.

I could have an informal pop at that I suppose. Going on a bit of an interview tour in the new year of the UK and EU, then to Cali in March for a mate's fight at Tuff-N-Uff.

From past experience though - and bare in mind that I do about an 80 hour week, at least half of which is spent talking to fighters, promoters, coaches and managers in the fight business, so lots of time to shoot the poop (and I can talk for England, believe me!) - I would say that you're looking at about 1 in 10 fighters saying 'yes' to soccer kicks/stomps etc. Probably half of that for promoters.

In fact, I can't think of any promoter I've ever met that has been in favour of them. Andy Geer and Dave O'Donnell gave a weird variation of 'Pride Rules' a go back in the Cage Rage days (downed fighter had to be facing up, inside a marked area away from the cage AND the ref had to call "Open Guard" before soccer kicks and stomps were legal) but it didn't last.

[BlizzardVeers]

To be honest, this entire debate is pointless unless you have trained or fought yourself. We know what hurts and what is uncomfortable for ourselves, we don't need people with uneducated opinions telling us what we can/can't do. Us fighters aren't all mindless thugs who like to hit people.
One, that's a logical fallacy, fighting doesn't require a PH.D or some level of knowledge that normal people can't possibly possess. I have a friend that has never rolled, or had any formal training, for example, that can read fighters and results nearly perfect more than 60% of the time.

Two, I have and do roll. I have also participated in kickboxing. And I've been stomped on the head before, and I've been elbowed, and I've been headbutted. Ad-hominem arguments detract from substance.

Three, I agree with you, that you don't need people with uneducated opinions telling you what you can and can't do. But you have rulesets set by commissions of people, that heavily favored boxing based rulesets, that have -not- done proper medical research into the effects ANY of these techniques would have. They've banned them due to a public stigma about 'kicking someone when they're down.' Knees to the head while on the ground are seen as 'cheap' or 'barbaric' so are stomps and soccer kicks. Oh, and what the results of the techniques -could- be. You're telling me that you trust the results of a commission from 2000-2001 on what is best for MMA, especially given the current set of Judges that commissions provide?

[BlizzardVeers]

I could have an informal pop at that I suppose. Going on a bit of an interview tour in the new year of the UK and EU, then to Cali in March for a mate's fight at Tuff-N-Uff.

From past experience though - and bare in mind that I do about an 80 hour week, at least half of which is spent talking to fighters, promoters, coaches and managers in the fight business, so lots of time to shoot the poop (and I can talk for England, believe me!) - I would say that you're looking at about 1 in 10 fighters saying 'yes' to soccer kicks/stomps etc. Probably half of that for promoters.

In fact, I can't think of any promoter I've ever met that has been in favour of them. Andy Geer and Dave O'Donnell gave a weird variation of 'Pride Rules' a go back in the Cage Rage days (downed fighter had to be facing up, inside a marked area away from the cage AND the ref had to call "Open Guard" before soccer kicks and stomps were legal) but it didn't last.
That would be an interesting read and if you actually do that, it would be fantastic! Though, putting a little variation into it would be a little more controlled. Ask about each of the techniques, rather than lumping them together.

[brashleyholland]

Three, I agree with you, that you don't need people with uneducated opinions telling you what you can and can't do. But you have rulesets set by commissions of people, that heavily favored boxing based rulesets, that have -not- done proper medical research into the effects ANY of these techniques would have. They've banned them due to a public stigma about 'kicking someone when they're down.' Knees to the head while on the ground are seen as 'cheap' or 'barbaric' so are stomps and soccer kicks.

I suppose the counterpoint would be, of all the promotions that operate outside of this kind of regulation all over the world, why do only a tiny, tiny minority still allow these strikes? Keeping in mind that public perception isn't an issue for most of them as they're not trying to get on TV or into 'the mainstream'.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, btw :)

[BlizzardVeers]

I suppose the counterpoint would be, of all the promotions that operate outside of this kind of regulation all over the world, why do only a tiny, tiny minority still allow these strikes? Keeping in mind that public perception isn't an issue for most of them as they're not trying to get on TV or into 'the mainstream'.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here, btw :)
To be honest? Because I think that a lot of the negative opinion that comes in favor of banning these techniques, isn't based on any real evidence, but what we're taught as people, traditionally, to be honorable.