Different rules for fighters

MMAMasta06 · 03-21-2006, 11:50 AM

I am a bigger fan of the UFC as oppsed to PRIDE, because I was first intorduced to the UFC about 14 years ago. As I have been watching the two organizations now, I have noticed the overall qualtiy of PRIDE is in better shape. Now, there has been many deabtes over PRIDE vs UFC. But IMO you cannot compare these two leages due to different rules and fight format. In Fedor's fight againt NOG he was hit in the eye with an elbow and a NC was decided. Now I believe that Fedor is the champ among champs, but if he would have been in the UFC he would have been beaten, for elbow strikes are legal. Also in PRIDE a opponent may be struck with a knee on the ground as long as he is not face down. If this was true in UFC Suolev might have been able to defeat Baroni, but a timeout was called due to the infraction.

My overall point is that these difference can cause a change in what we argue about, here on Sherdog. Now "The Crow" was destroyed by ACE, and Im not a fan of Loiseau, but he had heart and I think has the nastiest elbows around. Now Im not saying that because he has good elbows that he would own PRIDE fighters, because that is obviously not the case. But it is something that causes a difference and should be considered while we argue.

I am hopefully going to try to start a sherdog rules for fighting( so we can incorporate both UFC rules and PRIDE rules into one on sherdog).SUGGESTIONS NEEDED AND WANTED FOR RULEBOOK Then all aspect of the MMA game are thrown out on the table.

**skarface** · 03-21-2006, 12:03 PM

there were no elbows when he fought nog it was a headbutt

maybe you were talking about the fight with tk

MMAMasta06 · 03-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skarface

there were no elbows when he fought nog it was a headbutt

maybe you were talking about the fight with tk

Yeah my bad. But do you have a reply to the overall point, Im looking for some good input

TheHolyMountain · 03-21-2006, 12:13 PM

maybe i dont quite understand what putting all the rules together on sherdog will accomplish... both fight organizations will still have the same set of rules, so how will that change anything? also, i dont really think you can speculate as to how a fight may have ended differently had elbows or knees been allowed, because then you also have to assume that the other fighter would be able to use them as well.. it seems like no matter what, you'd be comparing apples to oranges...

Stupid Rookie · 03-21-2006, 12:18 PM

Doesn't the FAQ outline the basic rules?

MMAMasta06 · 03-21-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHolyMountain

maybe i dont quite understand what putting all the rules together on sherdog will accomplish... both fight organizations will still have the same set of rules, so how will that change anything? also, i dont really think you can speculate as to how a fight may have ended differently had elbows or knees been allowed, because then you also have to assume that the other fighter would be able to use them as well.. it seems like no matter what, you'd be comparing apples to oranges...

No, its not like comapring apples and oranges at all. My point was that if MMA rules were the same for both organizations alot of fighters records and outcomes of what we say would change dramatically.Of course I know the other fighter would be able to use the other techniques as well. I was stating that alot of people argue the dead horse of PRIDE v UFC, but if they had the same rules alot of "what if's" could be cleared up.

Darwinist · 03-21-2006, 12:26 PM

Pride and UFC will never unify their rules - they are playing to diffrent markets, and have diffrent priorities. Due in part to the Buddhist tradition of Japan, drawing blood from your opponent is considered undesireable, and a bloodless victory is considered the best. Thus, they will never allow the cut-inducing elbows. The audience simply doesn´t want to see it.

In America, there is a similar cultural disdain for kicking a downed opponent. "Kicking a man when he´s down" is considered a cheap, dirty move. Getting peopel accustomed to ground fighting is hard enough. "Stand up and fight like a man!", is a saying I somewhat doubt is in as frequent usage in Japan as in the states. Thus we get the frequent standups and no stomps and soccer kicks.

Both orgs are doing what they should be doing in order to make their product as palatable to their respective audiences. Satisfying the demands of a few hundred hardcore fans of Sherdog that want to see all these elements unified simply isn´t worth their time and money.

This isn´t about what is "fair" or even what is realistic. It´s about pushing a product on the public, marketing 101. And that´s how it will stay.

Just about the only change I see that we have an outside chance to see is knees on the ground back in the UFC. And even that is a stretch.

jakesteele · 03-21-2006, 12:28 PM

I believe what you are talking about is what the PKA (Professional Karate Association) use to call "blended rules". They would do this for special fights when they would fight a different organization that had slightly different rules. They would reach some sort of compromise or meet each other half way.

The most notable fight with "blended rules" I can remember was when Rick Rufus (sp), the reignging heavy Karate Champ took on a Thai kickboxer heavy weight Champ. I can't remember the specifics, but the fight started out the first few rounds with Rick just kicking the living shit out of the Thai guy with spinning back kicks/fists and the fight almost ended several times because of knock downs. Finally, in the last two rounds the Thai guy started doing low kicks to the legs and kneed in the clinch, which, at the time was not allowed in the PKA. The end result was that the Thai guy kicked the legs out from under Rick similar to Marco Ruas -vs- Paul Varleans. It was a thing of beauty!!

rooku · 03-21-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMAMasta06

I am a bigger fan of the UFC as oppsed to PRIDE, because I was first intorduced to the UFC about 14 years ago.

that's interesting considering the first UFC event was in november of 93, 12.5 years ago. you must have known way ahead of time what was coming.

i call bullshit.

MMAMasta06 · 03-21-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rooku

that's interesting considering the first UFC event was in november of 93, 12.5 years ago. you must have known way ahead of time what was coming.

i call bullshit.

I call a type-o I wasnt really trying to be mathematically correct, I was just trying to start my thread. Thanks for the input though.