I like to watch kicks and stomps but can understand why they will never fly in the US, knees to head on the ground though should be allowed
"just you face in with a nice combo"
Sorry?
I mean YOUR face....
lol
Oh you'd like to see my head kicked into the crowd? That's pretty hectic dude, must have really slighted you huh. What's the deal?
you know... bit of this, bit of that...
besides that's what I love and do best...so bear with me
Alrighty then... Noted.
You're right though, I'm fairly pretentious.
don't worry, it will go away one day
I see what you guys are arguing about...but the substance behind the arguments confuses me.
MMA was developed from the abandoned husk of vale tudo...& continues to slowly be developed & stylized into whatever box-wrestle-brawl incarnation the "public" deems entertaining.
There are still some good "fights" to be seen in this evo/devo-lution of MMA...I'm not suggesting that everything sucks or that MMA is dead...however, this lowest common denominator demographic is determining the direction not only of MMA, but of the fighters as well...
wild bloody brawling gets a bigger fan response than any other type of fight, it makes no sense to me that an element which adds TO the carnage the average fan craves would be so lobbied against.
I guess I'm just trying to say if you're gonna blame someone, blame the most responsible party...the fans.
KO via leaping stomp.
its got a ring to it.
ttt
I have been a fan of the UFC and Pride since the beginning. It has been pretty much my favorite sport to watch.
However, first with the watering down of the UFCs rules, and then the watering down of the quality of its fight cards, I have had a hard time maintaining interest. While I have liked the TUF shows, the watering down of the quality of the fight cards in the UFC has coincided with the TUF because the UFC shifted the cards to more well known, but often lower caliber or less credentialed fighters. Other than being interested in Couture fights, or now CroCop fights, the UFC cards have not motivated me to buy a PPV in a long time.
Pride was still able to get me interested, with better rules, and a generally higher caliber of fighters. To hear that there will now just be a monopoly and the UFC is going to impose its rules, and take nothing good from Pride, sickens me. The elimination of knees on the ground being the deal breaker for me.
I will probably still have some level of interest in this watered down sport, but not nearly as much. It disgusts me that instead of just letting Pride remain somewhat unique, or even just trying to see if they can eventually get knees allowed here, they are going to homogenize it and take away the knees on the ground. The simulation of being as close to reality as possible, within reason, is the intrigue, and preventing knees on the ground comes up WAY too many times in fights, making a big interference with the outcome. While I love the stomping and the soccer kicks, I could accept losing them, but the knees on the ground issues changes virtually every fight or every other fight. Dana White said he supported knees on the ground. If he is not a liar, then why not now try for it. If they don't do it now, while they have the perfect excuse of saying it is part of a rules unification, then the will never do it. That is a huge bummer, and I can see on this board that many also feel strongly about it. My only hope is that another organization sees the opportunity to be the new Pride equivalent. I would not be surprised if Zuffa or whatever the official entity buying Pride destroys the value of what the business they buy in Japan.
Obviously it's a smart business move if you can water down your product and end up selling it to MORE people for a higher price.
The bottom line is no true fan should be happy about this. This is like whisky lovers getting excited about watered down whisky taking over because they think it'll make the drink more popular and hopefully make the farmers (who have families to feed!) more money.
In summary, if you like the watered down rules then you have no love or respect for the genuine article.
and why would any fan want his sport to change so that the "general public" accepts it?
1. So the sport doesn't get banned again
2. So we can continue to see FREE mma fights on tv
3. So the guys actually FIGHTING can make a decent living
"1. So the sport doesn't get banned again
So we can continue to see FREE mma fights on tv
So the guys actually FIGHTING can make a decent living"
MMA can do just fine if banned in the USA in other countries and we can still watch the events on PPV or the "internets".
Ooooo! Free fights with crappier rules, great.
You should change your name to Adam LaLOL cause you're so funny! Fighter pay is gonna go up now that the top two orgs are owned by the same company huh? durrrrrr
The simulation of being as close to reality as possible, within reason, is the intrigue, and preventing knees on the ground comes up WAY too many times in fights, making a big interference with the outcome.
Anyone who thinks that MMA was EVER "as clost to reality as possible, within reason" of a true combat situation is both deluded and naive. At BEST, you might compare UFC 1 to a sloppy barfight, but even that is stretching it tremendously.
Most bar fights end up using a bottle or multiple opponents. Most street fights similarly involve weapons (carried or improvised) and usually a group of people versus a group of people.
There is no need for a "unification" of rules NOW. That ALREADY HAPPENED back when the "unified rules" were created in New Jersey, WITH PRIDE REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT!! While I would like to see knees on the ground made legal, it's doubtful that it will ever happen, and there are CERTAINLY enough ways for a fighter to win a fight that not having a couple of specific tactics is NOT going to change the outcome of most fights very much.
In summary, if you like the watered down rules then you have no love or respect for the genuine article.
That's interesting, considering the ORIGINAL VALE TUDO RULES in Brazil were pretty watered down also. Not much different from current UFC rules, from what I've seen. It might MEAN "anything goes," but they had plenty of rules in place too. Just like "No Holds Barred" means no HOLDS barrd (not no STRIKES barred), "anything goes" is actually quite ambiguous, and STILL not properly representative of a realistic combat situation.
1. MMA can do just fine if banned in the USA in other countries and we can still watch the events on PPV or the "internets".
Great, so we can go back to having just a few shows a year, paying for all of them, most American fighters won't be able to ever make a living (because AMERICANS like AMERICANS, other countries could care less about us!).
How did you put it? DURRRRRRR
LaClair, go build another maginot line you fucking idiot.
Having elbows is worse than losing soccer kicks and stomps? Negative.
LaClair, go build another maginot line you fucking idiot.
You superiority just overwhelms me so much, I'm going to go cower in fear and embarassment.
How old are you, 13?
SSgtDiamond, why do you feel elbows suck worse? They are one of the most effective and realistic combat techniques there are for sport OR true combat. I'm surprised to hear a military guy diss them.