Has anyone ever heard of rules requiring shin guards and larger gloves for amateurs?
Or rules that take out leg kicks and ground punches?
How have these rules changed MMA? Good or bad?
Thanks
Good for kids.
Ken, I can't make the meeting on Friday. I think the rules are good now. 4 min rounds, no elbows.
Shin pads will interfere with the guard, subs, etc. Don't like it.
I fought in Ohio with the Combat Sport training gloves and shin pads. I was fine with the gloves. I really didnt like the shin pads though. We had 3 - 3 minute rounds. One thing I didn't like was a rule that had no strikes to the head on the ground, no knees, kicks, elbows or fists. Anything was allowed on the feet but no head strikes on the ground. Also, if someone was knocked down by a strike, there was a standing 8 count. I dont like that rule either.
However, I understand that these rules were put in place to help get the doors open. I also appreciate having the opportunity to fight, even with more rules. The rules were great for us first timers and nubes.
I like the current ISCF Amateur rules....nothing wrong with them at all.
Downtown, you did not fight under Ohio Athletic Commision rules.
You might have fought under USKBA rules.
Amateurs in Ohio wear 6 oz gloves, no shinguards, cannot kick or knee to the head, 3x3min rounds
I may be the only one thinking this way but I think it benefits the fighter big time. If there is a huge distinction between the am's and pro's it would force the pay rate to rise. At the moment many promoters can have all amatuer shows or very few pro fights. If the rules are changed to make a huge distinction than most shows will be forced to be all pro. Which in turn will make a fighter more valuable to an orginization. Supply and demand. If more shows need more good fighters than the best fighters will demand top dollar and the promoters will be forced to raise the purses. I think it is a great idea. I have said many times one of the problems with mma pay is that there is not a big enough distinction between pro and am the way boxing has it.
Only my opinion but I would love to see what would happen to the pro pay scale if this went into effect.
i don't like the standing 8 count. I also don't like "no strikes to the head" on the ground. I believe that amateurs should be protected somewhat but that is too much.
I do like the larger gloves but maybe not that large.
I appreciate the input - The only thing I strongly disagree with is salaries will rise if we have more pro.Trust me, the money is not there. If anything , less Am fighters would mean less shows. Just My Opinion, I respect yours.
If your state allows amateur mma:
shinguards , yes or no
strikes to head from ground, yes or no
It would save me a lot of research if you all could just list your state and yes or no on a couple of key issues
Thanks
Also,
Georgia is leaning towards adopting the USKBA rules as adopted and amended by New Jersey. Does anyone know who wrote the rules and what their qualifications are?
I am not trying to be an asshole, the only 2 I really have issue with are no leg kicks and shinguards. Why remove leg AND HEAD kicks and then require shin guards? If we remove punches would we increase glove size?
Thanks again
if u don't have strikes to the head on the ground how the hel do u finish the fight if your not a submission guy? like kos when he first started?
If the rules get changed to that than I guess I will just have to do jiu jitsu tournaments and kickboxing fights seperate because those are some of the shittiest rules I've seen. wtf shin guards, but no leg kicks???
stop ruining my sport you sonsabitches
Ken,
Why is GA looking to change? I cant think of anybody thats been hurt( badly) The schools and competitors in Ga are always well train and well prepared for competiton. Just seems kind of crazy to change when you've got a good thing going. Just curious.
So, What other states mandate use of shinguards, 8 counts and no punches to the head on the ground? I am making a list to submit to the commission, can't just go in and say "this sux". Thanks
here are the rules for Arizona
On the feet: Kicks allowed to legs up to head. Knees to the body. Closed fists to the body, open hands to the head. No Elbows.
On the ground: No kicking at all if either opponent is on the ground. No knees at all. No elbows at all. Closed fists to the body, open hands to the head.
Now those are amateur rules in AZ.
For pro rules in AZ, its all the same as above except while on the feet, you can hit with a closed fist to the face. On the ground it is still open hand.
Why change? The feeling of the new commission is that we were too "unregulated" before. If we do not make a sincere, respectful and convincing argument then these rules will be in place very soon.No need to bitch here, it's preaching to the choir. California and Nevada have well respected athletic commissions....what about am rules in those states?
That sucks dude. I wasnt bitching, just curious. I've fought in alot of different states acros the country and always thought Ga had a good thing going. Good luck with it.
Chris
Chris,
I didn't mean to imply that you were bitching, I am glad ou asked what's going on - just trying to keep the thread in the right direction.Since this afternoon I have read the rules over many times and spoken to several experienced trainers and fighters. Shinguards are no big deal and 7 oz gloves are a good idea IMO. Three rules I don't like are "no slams", "no strikes to head of downed opponent", and a standing 10 second count after a knockdown". They are also saying no hea kicks period but really, how many amateurs throw good high kicks anyway? Does anyone have any examples, insight or information to assist us in convincing the commission to no institute those 3?
those are the rules we use in NJ