Posted On:7/25/2004 11:50pm
Style: Chinese Boxing
I like Shamrock's shoot box areana concept.
Posted On:7/26/2004 6:13am
Originally posted by Strong Machine
You're crazy, marek.Cages prevent action.They create a situation where it is easiest to win by just getting a guy to the fence and stalling.
Not really, it's far more "real" to have a wall which one fighter is backed up against and it's not like people don't lean against the corners and ropes in Pride.
It's harder, but not impossile, to take down someone leaning against a fence, and it's far easier to punch/kick them.
I'd like to see more situations where people work from the clinch.
Posted On:7/26/2004 8:10am
Marek, if you want to see things worked from a clinch then watch a BJJ match. UFC and Pride are MMA. As far as saying it far more real to have someone backed up against the wall. I would say is it more real to grab the fence and pull yourself up? Is it far more real to grab the fence to stop your ass from being taken down? Yes, I know your not allowed to grab the fence in UFC, but if you watch it like I do then you should know that it is grabbed all the time. Its stratagy that fighters use in UFC, just as Pride fighters use the corners and ropes. But anyway now we're getting into a Pride vs UFC debate. Whats going on with BJ Penn?
Posted On:7/26/2004 8:30am
Originally posted by MuayThaiBri67
Marek, if you want to see things worked from a clinch then watch a BJJ match. UFC and Pride are MMA.
What? The clinch is a big part of fighting and certainly a part of MMA.
As far as saying it far more real to have someone backed up against the wall. I would say is it more real to grab the fence and pull yourself up? Is it far more real to grab the fence to stop your ass from being taken down?
Irrelevant, as people can just as easy grab the ropes as the fence. People grab both, and get reprimanded for doing it.
The octagon concept is better because fighters can't drag their ass out of it and get restarted standing. As for the octagon making it easy to grab the fence and lean, you can just as easy grab the ropes and lean.
Seeker of Truth
Posted On:7/26/2004 7:50pm
Style: Five Animal Fighting
According to mmaweekly.com, BJ Penn is suing the UFC. It turns out that the Nevada State Athletic Commission prohibits exclusive contracts between fighters and promoters. BJ also claims that there was no such agreement between him and the UFC. Therefore, he had every right to fight in K-1 and the UFC can't strip him of his belt.
I tend to be on the UFC's side on this one. Sure BJ beat the **** out of Ludwig, but what if he lost? All that does is support the idea that other organizations are superior. The UFC has a champion that someone else beat, but still has the belt because it wasn't UFC sanctioned. A champion who just got his ass kicked on someone else's PPV is worse than not having any champion at all.
BJ may have a legal leg to stand on here, but UFC will learn from it and find a way to keep their champions from fighting on other people's shows. Boxing ferderations strip people of titles all the time for not fighting mandatory challangers and the like. UFC could dissolve BJ's title and make every one fight light weight or middle weight and most people would never know the difference.
Posted On:7/27/2004 8:00am
Marek, I could answer your questions easily, but then it just gets into a Pride vs UFC contest, which has been done countless times before. Now has anyone heard anything more about BJ Penn? Thats the real question.
Posted On:7/27/2004 4:30pm
Style: Tao Ga
There's not much info available at the courts, just filings, and no decisions as yet, but if you're interested (or anal) - Go Here:
Then, click on the Case Number. The menu to the right will help you find the "not much" that's there.
Here's the scoop from the Nevada Athletic Commision, about the illegal contract issue:
"NAC 467.112 Bout agreements between promoter and unarmed combatant: General requirements. (NRS 467.030)
1. The bout agreement between a promoter and an unarmed combatant must be executed on a form provided by the commission.
2. A bout agreement which provides that an unarmed combatant must fight exclusively for one promoter or at the option of the promoter is prohibited.
3. A bout agreement which provides that an unarmed combatant is to pay for the services of his opponent is prohibited.
[Athletic Comm’n, § 86, eff. 4‑25‑78]—(NAC A 12‑13‑82; 11‑2‑88; 12‑2‑97)"
If you really want to see, go here:
and scroll down to NAC 467.112
Boy, I gotta get a life!
Posted On:7/30/2004 9:34pm
Thank you Meex for pointing me in the right direction.
Posted On:7/31/2004 6:40am
Yeah, I wanted to know, too. I considered calling a friend (who used to train at BJ's brother's gym) to ask, but figured that'd be rude.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info