Apparently Shamrock is now injured and the fight is called off.

 On the drugs issue, I was talking about Kimbo's "BackYard" fights..

 Pretty sure they didn't drug test for that one..

 Everyone has that "Button" the nerve behind you're jaw, but some fighters have a much higher tolerance to punches, Forrest Griffin for example, Obviously Kimbo does not have as strong of a chin as his backyard fights let us believe.

 Totally forgot about the japan fight, you got me on that one.

 Kimbo has gone down about 15 notches in my book... weak punch, weak performance, weak fight, thankfully I didn't pay to see it..

Hammer fists are illegal?

I swear, MMA is quickly becoming boxing.

Fine - I'll restate:

Blows to the back of the head are illegal?

I swear, MMA is quickly becoming boxing

I would not be opposed to gladiator fights, assuming they were voluntary.  The main problem is that it is difficult to build a fanbase when fighter careers are so short.  No possibility for comeback fights or rematches.

But even without going all the way to the extreme, we don't have to get all wimpy.  Fighting is dangerous.  We know that.  People get injured in a variety of sports, both combat sports and others.  Fine - we can remove the dangerous elements that are unnecessary for the sport. 

But the whole point of MMA is that there are a wide variety of moves available.  Every time they make move "X" illegal they further narrow the range of viable strategies, thereby undermining the central purpose of MMA, making it more like boxing (or wrestling, or whatever).

No striking in the back of the head has been a MMA rule for a while now, and is set in place to protect the fighters from brain injuries.

Which is think is great because it allows the Fighters to have a longer career. Your view off mma is messed up. Go watch American Gladiators.

Bruce Banner wrote:  The main problem is that it is difficult to build a fanbase when fighter careers are so short.  No possibility for comeback fights or rematches.

Faceplam. jpg

Boo hoo.

Most of those rules came into place after the first couple of UFCs.  Yet many fighters fought in several successive fights during the early tournaments.

Some or all of those rules are NOT in place in various other fighting regimes around the world, and they manage as well.

Besides - the rules don't work.  How many deaths and brain injuries from MMA so far?  How many from boxing?

How many spine injuries from MMA?  How many from wrestling?

These rules are artificially put in place in an effort by the organizers to legitimize the contests against hater critics.  They have little to do with the "safety" of the fighters.

I can see prohibiting some moves that have a very high likelihood of leading to major injury - as much as I like small joint manipulation, I can understand that rule.  Without it, half the fights would end with broken fingers and wrists.  Same for eye gouging.

But kidney kicks?  Groin attacks?  Stomping?  Headbutting?  Elbow strikes?  Come on.  Seriously.

My private message from Tical:

-- Previous Private Message --
Sent by : Tical3.0
Sent : 07 October 2008 at 2:25pm

Stick to politics and world events. You clearly know nothing about MMA, the rules and why they are inforced.

-----------------------------------

My response:  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Making claims on the internet about what people do and do not know is always risky, because, you know, you'll be wrong a lot.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: I was on your side right up until Groin Attacks Susan.

People are way too wimpy about that.  You just have to learn to protect yourself.

EDIT - but the main problem with prohibiting groin attacks is that we now have silly situation where refs are forever stopping matches because people were kicking at the thigh and hit the crotch instead.

Lots of stoppage over a very technical target distinction.  Boring and artificial.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: That's the thing about groin attacks though. They come when you least expect them. I could see throwing that rule out if it was like a common rule between the fighters to not go for the groin. But that won't happen because getting kicked in the groin hurts and in most cases is an automatic I WIN button.

Well, you shouldn't be getting surprised - you should protect your groin as well as your noggin.  If we are trying to emulate "real" fighting, we should allow this type of attack.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to allowing fighters to wear good groin protection - my main beef with this rule is that stoppage and debates about where exactly the kick landed.

The old Keith Hackney fight is a great example.  Whatsisname was presumably wearing a cup, and was no worse for the wear - he fought several more fights after that one.  I just don't see the point of the prohibition.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: ...getting kicked in the groin hurts and in most cases is an automatic I WIN button.

That's certainly not true.  People get kicked in the groin all the time and fight on.

Yes, a powerful, clean, direct hit to the groin could be a game-ender, but the same is true for a powerful, clean, direct hit to the head.

But as with the head, clean hits to the groin are rare.  It's actually pretty hard to get to.  Glancing blows hurt, but are not game-enders.

Oh lord.  Let's see.

The fighters you listed were just the ones that fought in other UFC events.  Many others went on to fight in other untelevised events.

By other rule regimes I was thinking a bit more globally.  In Muay Thai, for instance, down elbows are standard fair.  Heck, all of Southeast Asia is full of fighting leagues that are far more brutal. 

The original UFC rules were basically the standard rules used in fights in most of South America, and those rules are still in place, 15 years later.

And my point with the MMA vs boxing injuries was exactly what you said - despite the restrictive rules in boxing, there are far more serious injuries there than in MMA.  Wrestling also has lots of serious injuries.

And as for your various quasi-medical explanation for all the bad things that can happen from illegal moves?  Boo hoo.  This is a fight sport.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: I don't even watch MMA, I just want to see someone die from brain hemoragging. Is that so much to ask?

Not at all.  Just watch some boxing.

Tical3.0 wrote: Not as wrong as you on this subject.

Look.  You are welcome to your shoot-fighting and whatever restricted fighting forms you want to watch.  I am not opposed to those.  I like those as well.

All I want is something more unrestricted as an option.

Whatever happened to allowing two consenting adults to beat on each other in a manner of their choosing?

Just so you know I wasn't trying to be a turd asking you to elaborate simply for an argument. I tend to get a little heated when on topics about MMA and sometimes have trouble typing about it to make sense

agentwhale007 wrote: It is hard to wade through the gibberish, but: 1) Alot of fights even without that rule end in broken hands and wrists Then why even have the rules if the end result is the same? I ment that when your swinging punches like a wild man ala Lidell some don't connect as planned and it results in hand injuries. Sean Sherk vs BJ Penn - Sherk broke his hand in one of the rounds from a punch Kalib Starnes vs Nate Quarry - Nate (apparently) Broke his hand in that fight which resulted in a Marathon. Randy Coutre vs Gabrial Gonzaga - Randy Broke his Forearm and 'Wrist' Blocking a kick. It is ok. You like boring MMA. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, I like watching Judo and Tae Kwon Do tournaments. I like all MMA, from Jui Jitsu to Sambo to Judo to Karate. It just so happens we are on the Topic of Mainstream Televised MMA. I have respect for all disaplines.  A lot of you MMA bros think that real martial arts are boring because of the level of rules and lack of OMG BRO KNOKOOOUT. Which is indeed ironic. I am not a MMA BRO. I don't even own any form of Tap Out Affliction clothing nore do I complain if a fight goes to the ground.

Tical3.0 wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: Tical3.0 wrote: Not as wrong as you on this subject. All I want is something more unrestricted as an option. Rio Heros, enjoi

Dude.  Quote.  It's hard enough to track these things without you writing in the middle of posts.

But on point - I know there are lots of other options, but none of those are on TV here, at least not easily.  And having watched all the early UFCs live I miss the enjoyment.  I survived without before the UFC, and I will survive now without real UFC.  It's just frustrating to now be reminded about how good it was every time I see "ground 'n pound" on TV these days.

And as to all those hand injuries from punching - that's part of the reason why boxing has wrapped hands in heavyish gloves, to protect the hands of the fighters.  This was successful - boxing has few hand injuries - but contributes to the staleness of boxing.

We can always further limit injuries by restricting fight options.

My point exactly.

Bruce Banner wrote: Tical3.0 wrote: Bruce Banner wrote: Tical3.0 wrote: Not as wrong as you on this subject. All I want is something more unrestricted as an option. Rio Heros, enjoi   Dude.  Quote.  It's hard enough to track these things without you writing in the middle of posts. But on point - I know there are lots of other options, but none of those are on TV here, at least not easily.  And having watched all the early UFCs live I miss the enjoyment.  I survived without before the UFC, and I will survive now without real UFC.  It's just frustrating to now be reminded about how good it was every time I see "ground 'n pound" on TV these days. And as to all those hand injuries from punching - that's part of the reason why boxing has wrapped hands in heavyish gloves, to protect the hands of the fighters.  This was successful - boxing has few hand injuries - but contributes to the staleness of boxing. We can always further limit injuries by restricting fight options. My point exactly.

but anyways tell me if I understand this right, because I don't think I do. 

You think by taking away the rules there will be less injuries?

Tical3.0 wrote: You think by taking away the rules there will be less injuries?

Yeah, that's pretty much the opposite of what I said.

Generally speaking, more rules equals fewer injuries (not always true, but close enough).

But more rules also equals less exciting fights, and less varied fights.

We are trading the excitement of the fights for reduced injuries.  This could be done with all sports, until we have bubblewrapped the whole universe.

Nobody is forcing these guys to fight.  If they want to fight with open rules, let them.

But, also, in this case we are not trading actual injuries (there haven't really been many) but the fear of future injuries and the perception of barbarity.

The early UFCs were specifically advertised as "no rules, no time limits" etc.  This caught them some flak, so they tightened up a bit.

Speaking of that - other changes to the rules of the UFC include time limits and the introduction of rounds.  This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with anything but making this more attractive to spectators and making it more "sport-like".  I also miss the no-time-limit, no standing back up old rule.  I hate this just as much as the new "safety" rules.  It all chips away at the basic idea underlying the original UFC.

lol interwarz