Posted On:3/01/2004 8:20pm
Quote: Slams add significantly to the danger of the sport, allowing fighters to purposely slam opponents directly on their head increases that risk to an unacceptable level.
Its been legal in Brazil for years and it doesn't increase the risk to an unacceptable level. Igor could have died from any number of legal blows to the head. Why are the illegal one considered so much worse?
Quote: Are you crazy? You donít see how a knees on the ground either in the north south position or the side mount, are more forceful, damaging, and dangerous than standing knees? Kneeing someone in the head while standing is very hard to do, unless you pull their head down, which is really hard to do. Soccer kicking a downed opponent in the head or stomping on their face is even more dangerous.
For nourth south position the knee are more powerful than standing knee if you extend your leg fully but they are not more powerful than legal Thai round kicks standing. By the way , I was just on MMAfighting.net and read the UFC is trying to change the rules regarding knees.
Why do you think that stomping and soccer kicking are more dangerous than high Thai kicks to the head? The mat disfuses the force on stomps and the secondary impact caused by the normal force of the mat pushing the back of the head isn't very strong because the initial give of the mat. With Soccer kicks it depends on angle of impact but the amount force caused by the full rotation of a legal high round kick is greater. The greatest danger has do with the impact angle availiable on the ground which aren't normally availible when standing not the amount force at impact. Serious damage can occur in both positions but that kind of damage is still unlikely in both positions.
Quote: IMO, there is no way for these techniques be applied safely and effectively at the same time.
The report doesn't say that so on what basis do you assume this?. The techniques being used would fall under the weight bear and twisting catagories. The repetitive-use injurys you quoted aren't likely.
Quote: If someone were to be killed or paralyzed in the UFC it would likely be the end of MMA in the United States.
And that can still happen regardless of the rules being debated.
Quote: I attempted to humor you before, but you canít really compare MMA to football. Injuries in football are for the most part unintentional. Still they wear large amounts of personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of injuries and there are rules in place to prevent the intentional infliction of injuries.
Injury rates aren't entities that care about intention they simply are. MMA fighters don't intend to cause the kind of injuries found in football. Most injuries in football are the unintended consequences of perfectly legal fully intentional techinques. Most of the injuries that happen in football are caused by the momentum of tackles similiar momentum can't be created in the Ring because of the limited space. MMA fighters try to get a submission or the Ref stops them before a bad injury happens.
Quote: At first your werenít the just advocating the addition of these techniques. You wanted to get rid of almost all rules.
Same difference. If the only reason a rule was added was to eliminate the use of certain techniques and I want those techniques to be used then the easiest way to allow those techniques once again is to drop the rule that bans them.
Quote: One of the things I like about the sport is almost anything can happen, but that lessens the likely-hood or a single dominant figure that the public can rally around or against, and it hurts the entertainment value, mainstream appeal, and the financial bottom line.
I fail to see how allowing stomping, soccer kicks, wristlocks, more elbows, and more knees decreases entertainment value. I give you spitting and maybe pinching and clawing even though that doesn't seem to hurt the entertainment value of Pro-Wrestling.
Quote: Frankly MMA isnít about what you want. The responsibility of the UFC, Pride, and other MMA organizations is to have rules that ensure a fair contest and the safety of the fighters. They donít do it out of altruism either. A fair and safe environment means more fighters, which equals more fans, which equals more money.
Well, MMA is about what we as fans want. I don't think most fans would object to allowing stomping, soccer kicks, pile drivers, more slams, more elbows, more knees, wristlocks, headbutts and some clawing. Many on the major internet forums would actually would welcome most of these being allowed. I don't think the pool of fighters would drastically decrease but I might be wrong.
I never said there are no good marketing or political reasons for the rules. My point is that safety reasons for the rules are mostly BS and that the rules are there for the politicians not for the fighters or the fans.
Quote: You have every right to form a competing organization with less restrictive rules, with the primary goal of evolving martial arts and allowing every entrant to test his or her theories and abilities. I wish you luck.
Actually, I don't that right because a less restrictive organization would be consider illegal pitfighting because of the nannies that run the CA state government. Changing the rules of an existing legally recognized organization is easier than building a new one.
Articles and Reviews
Tools and Info