# Joe Rogans thoughts on Pride rules (and UFC)



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=26646019&blogId=527914702

I was in the green room of the Icehouse comedy club in between shows Friday night, and we were watching “The Best of Pride” on Spike TV. If you’re new to the sport of Mixed Martial Arts, Pride was a big organization from Japan that was in competition with the UFC until the UFC purchased them. They had some insane fights over there, and some of the greatest fighters ever carved out the majority of their career there. 
There was something extra special about those fights. Part of it was that they were in Japan, and their culture is so much different than ours. The pageantry of the event was off the charts – giant video screen entrances that really built up the hype, and rules that were quite different than we have here.
First of all, they didn’t allow elbows on the ground, because they caused cuts and they didn’t like the idea of a cut stopping a fight. Although elbows on the ground are very effective weapons, the people running Pride felt like it was better to leave them out to avoid potential indecisive doctor stoppages. What they were allowed to do however, is stomp each other in the head while they’re down and soccer kick each other in the face while they’re down. THAT is some pretty brutal shit, and there’s something about that added element of danger that just cranks the dial up on the excitement meter considerably when you’re watching it.

I was watching the fights in the green room Friday night with a buddy, and when Shogun tried to stomp Little Nog’ and punt his head while he was standing over him my friend audibly gasped.
He’s not a martial artist, but he is a fan of the UFC and enjoys some pretty brutal fights, but the purity of intent he witnessed in that move - completely without remorse - of standing over a guy laying on the ground and trying to smash his head like a roach – that kinda freaked him out.
“That’s too much.” He said. “That’s like they’re trying to kill each other.”



I can kind of see where he’s coming from. At least the fights that take place in the UFC under the guidelines of the unified ruled don’t allow such savagery. Stomps and soccer kicks are quite a bit more dangerous with the cage too, because a fighter can get trapped against it and not be able to move their head out of the way like they would be able to in a ring.
I agree with it, but I have to admit there’s something extra crazy about watching fights where they’re allowed to do shit like that. I’m not saying we should allow it back, but **** it made some of those fights intense.

One of the fights on Spike Friday night was Rampage vs Arona, a fight that ended with the most insane slam in the history of the sport. Rampage was caught in Arona’s triangle, and he hoisted him through the air up over his head like a pillow and slammed the back of his skull into the floor in fly swatter fashion, knocking him completely unconscious. I remember having seen it at home thinking it was the scariest thing I’ve ever seen in sports. I, and the folks watching it with me that night were legitimately concerned that Arona might in fact be dead. The sheer savagery of the slam forced me to rewind it at least 5 times, because it couldn’t possibly been as bad as I thought it was.
Every time I watched it, the crazier it seemed.

Another thing I really liked about Pride rules was their judging of a fight.
They treated the fight as a whole unit, and the rounds were just to give the fighters a break so that they could refresh and charge out harder. The rounds were not counted as individual units, but rather strung together as a whole and judged as a complete fight, just how God intended it to be done.

The first round was 10 minutes long, a concept I also liked.
Nothing more frustrating than when you’re watching a good, close fight, and one guy struggles for 4:30 trying to get his opponent down on the ground, and when he finally does the bell goes off in 30 seconds. I like the idea of giving fighters the extra time to work, and breaking it up when it’s just starting to shift momentum can be frustrating. I could see the argument that a 10 minute round is just too long for guys to go all out, but that just means that they have to be better conditioned and better at pacing themselves. Over all, these rule differences; the longer first round, the fight being judged as a whole, and brutality of stomps and soccer kicks made Pride rules much closer to the idea behind the original UFC. 

I think in order for the sport of Mixed Martial Arts to move forward and be accepted by mainstream culture it’s important that we adhere to the guidelines we operate under right now with the unified rules. It’s plenty exciting just the way it is, and what’s really important right now is moving the sport forward and getting it sanctioned in more states and more countries. The rules we have right now are fine.
That said, it sure is nice that we have all these awesome fights from Pride to watch now too. I think when all is said and done the Pride years will go down as some of the most important moments in the sports development and history. Having these shows airing on Spike right now is a real ******* treat.


















Discuss.


----------



## GMK13 (Apr 20, 2009)

good read, ufc could use some flashy entrances from pride and the rules about the fight as a whole would make more sense.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Im more interested in the soccer stomps and kicking a downed opponent.

It makes the fights so much more intense. I think seeing blood squirting out of a fighters head/face (via elbows) looks more brutal than kicks/head stomp KO's. I would rather see some one get KO'd via head stomp/soccer kick rather than a fight being stopped via cuts through elbows. 

Also Rogan didnt mention it but i thought the yellow card rule for lack of action they had in Pride was a great addition.


----------



## Crester (Apr 5, 2009)

Nice to see a UFC guy say nice things about Pride. And I also agree that we need the fight to be judged as a whole.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

Mckeever said:


> Im more interested in the soccer stomps and kicking a downed opponent.
> 
> It makes the fights so much more intense. I think seeing blood squirting out of a fighters head/face (via elbows) looks more brutal than kicks/head stomp KO's. I would rather see some one get KO'd via head stomp/soccer kick rather than a fight being stopped via cuts through elbows.
> 
> Also Rogan didnt mention it but i thought the yellow card rule for lack of action they had in Pride was a great addition.


Completely disagree. I'm glad there's no soccer kicks or head stomps. They do way too much damage and take no skill or technique. A worse fighter can win a fight due to their opponent sliping a lot easier with soccer kicks and stomps. It gives a very unfair advantage.

Whilst they were fun to see in Pride, I just don't think they fit into MMA today and I'd hate to see them return.

On another note, yellow cards need to come in. They would be a great addition to the UFC and it would stop snore fest lay'n'pray fights from taking place and may urge a few certain fighters to fight to win, rather than fight to not lose.


----------



## gwabblesore (May 2, 2007)

I'd like to see face stomps, soccer kicks and elbows all allowed. And obviously the fight should be judged as a whole. I can't make up my mind on the yellow card thing. It is annoying watching boring fights but I'm not sure if fighters should lose a part of their pay because of it.


----------



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

Bring back knees to the head of a grounded opponent ! ! too long have wreslers been abuseing the rules


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> Completely disagree. I'm glad there's no soccer kicks or head stomps. They do way too much damage and take no skill or technique. A worse fighter can win a fight due to their opponent sliping a lot easier with soccer kicks and stomps. It gives a very unfair advantage.
> 
> Whilst they were fun to see in Pride, I just don't think they fit into MMA today and I'd hate to see them return.
> 
> On another note, yellow cards need to come in. They would be a great addition to the UFC and it would stop snore fest lay'n'pray fights from taking place and may urge a few certain fighters to fight to win, rather than fight to not lose.


Disagree!

I really dont think a head stomp or soccer kick do any more damage than a brutal head kick, in fact id say head kicks are more dangerous and powerful, getting all of your body behind it. They give the perception of doing way too much damage because they look so brutal, but in reality, they dont. There have been no cases of severe injuries occurring in pride via these kicks.

They DO take skill. If you dont execute a stomp or soccer kick right you can break your foot and have a great risk of being trapped into a leg/ankle/heel lock. Timing, speed and execution are all required. You mention if a fighter slips, ultimately a slip comes down to a fighters lack of balance, which requies skill. If a fighter ends up on his back, they only have them selves to blame.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

If a fighters on the ground with his head on the mat, a stomp is going to do alot more damage than a standing head kick due to there being no-where for the head to go, and the 'stomper' can use his full weight if he wants. 

Saying you can't put your body behind a soccer kick or stomp is not correct. At least with a headkick your head has somewhere to go impact. 

Imagine Alves leg kicking someone. Now replace the leg with a grounded opponents head. 

They take skill IF jumping into a ready opponents guard (Shogun was a beast at this)I'll agree, but if you've already knocked a guy down, kicking him in the head is just like kicking any inanimate object and the force a fighter can produce in doing so could (even though it didn't happen in Pride) really damage someones career.

And not all slips are due to bad balance or a fighters mistake.


----------



## KillerShark1985 (Jan 6, 2010)

I'm with KryOnicle 100% with the head kicks, it comes down to weather you want to watch a brawl for show or skilled sport, rules like this are needed to progress the show into a sport.

as for the scoring system I just had a flash idea whats more than likely very stupid, when I first has this idea 5 mins ago I thought it was stupid but now I think more about it, I'm starting to think it would be quite good.

So here is my idea, Only score the final round!!!

Reasons why I think this is a good idea, or at least not as stupid as I first thought

Fighters would try harder to finish the fight before the final round

The fighter most likely in the best condition at the end of the fight would win

You would always get one hell of a final round to look forward to if both fighters always had it all to fight for

It would not be as random as you think when during the fight strategy could adapt to try and weaken your opponent during early rounds ready for the final slaughter round


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> If a fighters on the ground with his head on the mat, a stomp is going to do alot more damage than a standing head kick due to there being no-where for the head to go, and the 'stomper' can use his full weight if he wants.
> 
> Saying you can't put your body behind a soccer kick or stomp is not correct. At least with a headkick your head has somewhere to go impact.
> 
> ...


Yea, i suppose they do more damage than a standing head kick as the head hasnt got any where to go against the mat and you can get your body into it, but with good refereeing, any serous damage can be avoided (it was in pride). The worst that could happen is a fighter being KO'd. Referees would not allow repeated stomping to a fighters head, now this would cause serious damage.

If you knock some one down and then start punching them repeatedly in the head, isnt this really the same thing? Both punching and kicking require skill and technique which ever way you look at it. Again fighters are at great risk of getting tangled up in a submission attempt. Timing and accuracy involve skill.

What do you mean with the slips thing? If the canvas is slippery and wet? It still comes down to the balance of the fighter.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

The force generated between a Stomp or soccer kick is far greater than a punch, and no it isn't at all the same thing. Following up with punches after a knockdown the fighter normally has to also go to the ground himself(and if he doesn't the power generated again is not as much as it would be against a standing opponent), which gives the rocked fighter a chance to grab hold, try and pull guard and recover. Also power wise you cannot get as much torque into the punches when you are also on the ground. It'd be alot harder to try and grab hold of someone who is standing trying to kick you in the head or stomp on you when you're on queer street. 

If repeated stomps to a fighters head can cause serious damage, why can't one or two stomps do the same thing? 

If a fighter is rocked, I'd much rather see him get finished with punches than seeing him get repeatedly kicked in the face or stomped on. I just feel they give to great of an advantage to end the fight.

Of course it isn't the fighters fault if he slips on some left over water from a corner, or some blood. Some things you just can't help. Although this happens very, very rarely.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Like the 10 min first, like the fight judged as a whole. The stomps no thanks (not a fan of kicking a guy while down period) also the entrances do nothing for me....only thing they do is remind me of the WWF. There is no real need for them, it is about the fights to me, I couldn't care less how they come out. The lights shutting off and a good song coming on is good for me.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> The force generated between a Stomp or soccer kick is far greater than a punch, and no it isn't at all the same thing. Following up with punches after a knockdown the fighter normally has to also go to the ground himself(and if he doesn't the power generated again is not as much as it would be against a standing opponent), which gives the rocked fighter a chance to grab hold, try and pull guard and recover. Also power wise you cannot get as much torque into the punches when you are also on the ground. It'd be alot harder to try and grab hold of someone who is standing trying to kick you in the head or stomp on you when you're on queer street.
> 
> If repeated stomps to a fighters head can cause serious damage, why can't one or two stomps do the same thing?
> 
> ...


Soccer kicks and stomping a fighter when rocked would increase the chances of a KO (this makes a fight more exciting to me). I think that how the rules are currently, it gives the grappler a significant advantage because you have to go to the ground to land the punches, where a grappler can just grab and hold on for dear life.

I would rather see the consequences of getting rocked become greater. If a guy gets tagged and rocked and ends up on the ground, it is their own fault.

The thing about the kicks and stomps which appeal to me most though are when fighters flop to the ground purposely and try and lure the other guy into their guard. I think it would make the sport more dynamic and exciting if the striker had the option to kick them whilst they just lay there (conscious).

Each to there own though, it all comes down to opinion at the end of the day. Not once in Pride was there a worrying casualty from the result of a stomp or soccer kick and with good refereeing i cant see any thing bad coming from them in the ufc.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

I do love pride. 
That said, I would like to see the induction of knees to the head of a grounded opponent. I would not like to see soccer kicks and stomps re-introduced.

The reason for knees in particular is they have a lot more "attainable skill" to use them. This now allows wrestlers to punish fighters more easily. If a wrestler takes you to the ground, he can now throw knees.

Firstly this will negate a lot of lay and pray from said wrestlers. Because now he has a chance to inflict damage from the dominant position he's gotten and rightfully earned (it's frustrating to watch a wrestler for example successfully gain a dominant north-south and not be able to throw anything significant). On top of this, with the induction of knees fighters on the bottom can no longer just hold on and wait for a stand-up, unless they enjoy being kneed in the head.
This would promote a more realistic MMA environment and fighters would be more ready to sweep and counter in order to move to dominant positions because they can inflict damage themselves, or avoid it.

I believe knees will reduce stalling and un-eventful ground battles. Yes I do love the ground-game in MMA, just as much as I love the stand up. But you'd be ignorant in claiming there was no stalling or lul moments with fighters not willing to throw anything, no sub attempts, or attempts to improve position.
The same can be said for stand-up wars, there have been uneventful fights, and will continue to do so.

Lastly I believe knees to the head will also punish sloppy fighters. If a fighter initiates a poor double leg TD for example and is met with a sprawl, he is now at a huge disadvantage in North-South and incoming knees. I believe this would lead to more refined takedowns for fighters. Being sloppy will now lead to a far greater array of strikes the opponent can throw at you. And as such fighters would hone their skills and abilities in order to not make sloppy mistakes and be punished properly for them.

As with all strikes, back of the head would be point deduction than a DQ. Many fighters will already be familiar with knee strikes so it presents nothing new, and it doesn't give a particular advantage to any fighting style. Knees to head can be advantageous and disadvantageous. However with the induction of them I believe some fighters may become more active on the ground. I believe we may also see more finishes, and less lay and pray fights.
On top of this fighters will refine their techniques to either avoid or use the new tool available to them. It provides new opportunities for all sorts of fighters and I belive this can only be a positive.


----------



## TheAxeMurderer (Oct 27, 2009)

FredFish1 said:


> I do love pride.
> That said, I would like to see the induction of knees to the head of a grounded opponent. I would not like to see soccer kicks and stomps re-introduced.
> 
> The reason for knees in particular is they have a lot more "attainable skill" to use them. This now allows wrestlers to punish fighters more easily. If a wrestler takes you to the ground, he can now throw knees.
> ...


I just read your whole post then imagined GSPs last few fights with knees being allowed on the ground...IMO he would have finished every one of them, and brutally at that...its beautiful


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

I don' think soccer kicks/stomps are the great leveler that require no skill. Shogun was known for his stomps and soccer kicks. You have to have accuracy, power and timing to execute a good one.

That being said, whenever I think about my threshold of brutality I think about if I could stomach doing it to somebody, and soccer kicks are about the level where I hesitate in almost all situations apart from life and death ones. It just seems that if you connected flush and with full power you could really kill someone. I don't know how true this is, its just feels true from some physical instinct. 

But I was fine with what went on in pride and I'm fine with the UFC not having them. 

Maybe a compromise to allow a fighter to take advantage of a situation but not brutalize his opponent is to only allow a limited amount of heads shot from kicks to a downed opponent. 1-3 a round or something.

Knees to the head of a grounded opponent are something I'm fine with. I wouldn't mind if it were implemented in the UFC. Not only would it give wrestlers something to think about when going for a shot, but it gives more options to fighters in dominant positions, and forces the fighter on the bottom to improve his position, and not simply stall.


Wow, just ignore my post and read FredFish1's


----------



## 6toes (Sep 9, 2007)

FredFish1 said:


> I do love pride.
> That said, I would like to see the induction of knees to the head of a grounded opponent. I would not like to see soccer kicks and stomps re-introduced.


I liked your whole post but for the sake of saving space I only used part. I agree about re-introduced knees to a grounded opponent fully. I used to be a firm supporter of reintroducing soccer-kicks and stomps but have changed my stance recently. While I feel having all options available makes for the most realistic and unrestricted fighting experience, I have trouble accepting stomping the head of a grounded opponent. With certain regulations maybe but it seems very brutal and if the ref wasn't up to the job I could definitely see serious injury or death resulting from said strikes. 

I was always on the other side of the fence until one day somebody showed me the Bobby J. Blythe video which absolutely horrified me. Regardless of the situation presented in the video, seeing a man potentially being killed due to about 2 stomps to the head was enough to completely turn me off to it. I know things are different in a professional fighting environment but after seeing the potential damage one can inflict I think its for the best to leave stomps out of the equation. Soccer kicks are a bit more acceptable IMO but I can also see the potential to seriously hurt somebody if one connected well. I'm no expert though so I will merely present my opinion that I would accept soccer kicks in NA MMA but not necessarily encourage it. 

And just a little disclaimer: *The video I mentioned is truly disgusting and I'm sorry if I've peaked anybody's interest that hasn't seen it. If your curiosity gets the best of you please research the video before watching, you might regret watching it just like I did.*


----------



## Cptmats (Dec 27, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> Completely disagree. I'm glad there's no soccer kicks or head stomps. They do way too much damage and take no skill or technique. A worse fighter can win a fight due to their opponent sliping a lot easier with soccer kicks and stomps. It gives a very unfair advantage.


Agreed, Mir would have a loss to Wes Sim who isnt even 1/10 the fighter Mir is.:thumb02:


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

stomps, soccer kicks, and knees to the head on the ground should be allowed in the UFC. there is no actual proof that the damage would be a serious problem. All the evidence from orgs where it was allowed (pride being the big one) demonstrates otherwise in fact.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Standing head kick takes WAY more skill to land than a soccer kick, that's for damn sure. Standing kicks take timing as your opponent is fully mobile, not laying on the floor. 

Also, the aforementioned reason stomps shouldn't be legal is partly due to the cage. If a fighter gets stomped against the cage it can cause some serious damage. Especially if, say, the other fighter misses by an inch and it lands more on his neck/chest...


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Just another reason to stay away from the bottom edge of the cage. Don't see why that shouldn't be a valid stoppage, either. Refs can stop a fight in that case just like any other situation.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Why what shouldn't be a stoppage? Getting your neck snapped? The thing is is that it's too dangerous BEFORE the ref can step in.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> Why what shouldn't be a stoppage? Getting your neck snapped? The thing is is that it's too dangerous BEFORE the ref can step in.


count your negatives bro  I said it should be a valid stoppage. You get stomped or kicked against the cage a couple of times, of course the ref needs to be right in there and keeping close tabs, and stopping it if necessary, and of course it might well be quickly necessary.

The whole neck snapping thing is fearmongering imho, though. you're just guessing, and I don't think we should be restricting fight techniques based on guesswork.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Cptmats said:


> Agreed, Mir would have a loss to Wes Sim who isnt even 1/10 the fighter Mir is.:thumb02:


No. The difference is Mir wasnt expecting those kicks because they are not incorporated into the rules. Sims did some thing illegal. If they were legal, Mir would of been a lot more cautious and weary of Sims throwing those kicks and would of been able to defend himself.

You simply can not apply real life fights and situations to what goes on in the ring/cage. I can see why this put you off though. Those saying you could snap some ones neck, crush their head etc have no actual proof. There have been no worrying casualties sustained from stomps and soccer kicks in mma.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

Why not add heabutts from mount as well then? Or when someone goes for a choke, use small joint manipulation to break their fingers?

There's a reason such things aren't allowed, the risk factor, and over all brutality of these moves are near same level as stomping and soccer kicks imo. 

And it doesn't take a genius to realise the risk of injury is pretty big if you're being kicked and stomped on the head. 'Proof' ? I'm actually glad we don't have 'proof' in this case. However I don't think it's something we actually need to be honoust, it's seems pretty obvious to me that kicking and stomping a grounded opponent can seriously injure a fighter.


----------



## Finnsidious (Mar 14, 2009)

I liked Pride, but I think a lot of people are viewing it through rose coloured glasses.

Scoring the fight as a whole with the rounds solely for recuperation purposes for the fighter is a possibility worth looking at.

The 10 minute first round I think is terrible, there are already too many guys who have sub par cardio, this would only exacerbate the problem. People watch the best of Pride special and forget all the terrible snoozefests there were when two guys gassed at the 6 min mark and spent four minutes standing there staring at each other.

The yellow card is a possibility, but it's awfully subjective. It would be very difficult to have objective guidelines for a ref to follow about when exactly to issue one, and people already complain about refs and judges who don't know enough. Adding the yellow card would not make things easier, it would make reffing and judging harder.

The kicks and knees to downed opponents is definately a bad idea in my opinion. As well as making it easier for less skilled fighters, it is absolutely a death in the ring waiting to happen.

For those who think there is no evidence it's worse than a regular punch or kick, you can find plenty of it. Just look in the obituaries. When was the last time you saw an article in the newspaper about someone killed in a fight or a brawl? It happens every day in North America, and it's almost always someone kicked to death on the ground. I just saw an article this morning about a guy killed in a bar brawl that way. And I live in Ottawa, which is light years less violent than major cites in the states.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

6toes said:


> I was always on the other side of the fence until one day somebody showed me the Bobby J. Blythe video which absolutely horrified me. Regardless of the situation presented in the video, seeing a man potentially being killed due to about 2 stomps to the head was enough to completely turn me off to it. I know things are different in a professional fighting environment but after seeing the potential damage one can inflict I think its for the best to leave stomps out of the equation. Soccer kicks are a bit more acceptable IMO but I can also see the potential to seriously hurt somebody if one connected well. I'm no expert though so I will merely present my opinion that I would accept soccer kicks in NA MMA but not necessarily encourage it.
> 
> And just a little disclaimer: *The video I mentioned is truly disgusting and I'm sorry if I've peaked anybody's interest that hasn't seen it. If your curiosity gets the best of you please research the video before watching, you might regret watching it just like I did.*


I just watched the TV News about this case! I never heard of that before, truly terrifying!

I would have tought that the man was a racist, but his student in the gi who fought him was a black person. So I guess he was obsessed by a Demon.


----------



## FredFish1 (Apr 22, 2007)

Finnsidious said:


> I liked Pride, but I think a lot of people are viewing it through rose coloured glasses.
> 
> Scoring the fight as a whole with the rounds solely for recuperation purposes for the fighter is a possibility worth looking at.
> 
> ...


Actually there is circumstantial evidence to support it. However I don't think the Commissioning bodies would rule in favour of it. On the surface it's a step backwards for mainstream MMA acceptance. Every time there is a stomp, all of us are going to have to defend, explain and argue for why it's not 100% as deadly as it may seem. That is the problem, MMA has come so far, it would be silly to add stomps and soccer kicks now.

Disagree about the 10 min rule and yellow card system, especially for the reasons you provided, but never mind. I still don't think they'll be implemented, and frankly I don't want them to at this point.

However, about the street fight thing, you're taking it out of context. The biggest KILLER in a street fight, is the person being knocked down and their head hitting the CONCRETE. Statistics support this as well as all recent medical documentations, over the past, 30 years or so.
Stamping in a street fight is also very different, the addition of shoes or even boots, the fact their may be more than one person doing the stamping. Then you have to consider the fact that even after the person being stamped on may go unconscious, their is no referee to pull the attacker/s off instantly. The UFC would also have highly trained medical staff right there to deal with the situation.
And lastly, it's the stamps + the back of the head hitting concrete that make them so lethal in a street fight.


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

KryOnicle said:


> And it doesn't take a genius to realise the risk of injury is pretty big if you're being kicked and stomped on the head. *'Proof' ? I'm actually glad we don't have 'proof' in this case.* However I don't think it's something we actually need to be honoust, it's seems pretty obvious to me that kicking and stomping a grounded opponent can seriously injure a fighter.


I can't agree with this tbh. Not having evidence to back an idea up but believing in it anyway leads to unsubstantiated beliefs akin to organised religion. I think the absence of proof might actually go some way in vindicating those that say those strike aren't as brutal as they seem. 
I agree though, that stomps are bad, or at least, look bad. But without properly analysing the effects of them, we can't really come to a conclusion which was main gripe with your post.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Hey you guys, we should ban right hooks. They take like NO skill at all and if you hit someone right they could do serious damage. It just makes fights look brutal and nontechnical to have right hooks.


:confused03:



Soccer kicks and stomps take a lot of practice and skill and make the flow of a fight much, much more natural.


----------



## Ashurum (Sep 23, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> Hey you guys, we should ban right hooks. They take like NO skill at all and if you hit someone right they could do serious damage. It just makes fights look brutal and nontechnical to have right hooks.
> 
> 
> :confused03:
> ...


Sorry man but that doesn't actually work. This isn't a real fight. If it were people who shoot for a double leg takedown would get elbowed in the spine or back of the head. 

This is really a sport now and not a true fight and soccer kicks and head stomps are not legal for the same reasons as strikes to the back of the head and spine. Actually strikes to the back of the head are probably less damaging.

Kicking downed opponents looks brutal and honestly I like the sport of MMA and not some brutal pit fight.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Ashurum said:


> Sorry man but that doesn't actually work. This isn't a real fight. If it were people who shoot for a double leg takedown would get elbowed in the spine or back of the head.
> 
> This is really a sport now and not a true fight and soccer kicks and head stomps are not legal for the same reasons as strikes to the back of the head and spine. Actually strikes to the back of the head are probably less damaging.
> 
> Kicking downed opponents looks brutal and honestly I like the sport of MMA and not some brutal pit fight.



Double leg take-downs are effective in real life, I can guarantee you that. And thinking that strikes to the back of the head are somehow less damaging than a soccer kick... :confused05:


You guys understand that a head kick is a head kick whether the opponent is down or not, right? Gonzaga vs CroCop or Crocop vs anyone else is essentially just a standing soccer kick to the head. Hughes got KO'd by GSP essentially by a soccer kick to the head.


Should we make head kicks illegal in general?


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

FatFreeMilk said:


> I can't agree with this tbh. Not having evidence to back an idea up but believing in it anyway leads to unsubstantiated beliefs akin to organised religion. I think the absence of proof might actually go some way in vindicating those that say those strike aren't as brutal as they seem.
> I agree though, that stomps are bad, or at least, look bad. But without properly analysing the effects of them, we can't really come to a conclusion which was main gripe with your post.


I think it's quite proven that a great enough force to a human head can injure someone quite gravely. And with stomps and soccer kicks, especially if someone has already been rocked enough to fall to the ground just escalates this risk. Just because it hasn't happened inside the ring does not mean that it cannot happen eventually. 

Don't even try and make a comparison from what I said, to religion. The proof we don't have I was referring to was a given case of someone being injured due to a stomp or kick. That, is just luck so far. Those moves can generate more power than other blows and therefore the risk of injury is greater.

I'll say it again, that soccer kicks and stomps to a grounded opponent gives way to much of an advantage and a much easier way to KO a fighter.

They also look brutal, and cheap. And MMA would have to yet again defend itself against them everytime they're used to win a fight.



khoveraki said:


> You guys understand that a head kick is a head kick whether the opponent is down or not, right? Gonzaga vs CroCop or Crocop vs anyone else is essentially just a standing soccer kick to the head. Hughes got KO'd by GSP essentially by a soccer kick to the head.
> 
> 
> Should we make head kicks illegal in general?


Um what? Standing you have a moving opponent and have to time a headkick. His head also isn't against the canvas so the impact is reduced. The time for a kick to reach an opponents head also gives time to counter.

Randomly kicking a fighter in the head and stomping on him once he is down, and comparing that to standing kicks is ridiculous.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

HexRei said:


> count your negatives bro  I said it should be a valid stoppage. You get stomped or kicked against the cage a couple of times, of course the ref needs to be right in there and keeping close tabs, and stopping it if necessary, and of course it might well be quickly necessary.
> 
> The whole neck snapping thing is fearmongering imho, though. you're just guessing, and I don't think we should be restricting fight techniques based on guesswork.


That's what I meant... note the post time (3:46 AM). 


Anyways, yeah it would be a valid stoppage if the other fighter's neck is broken, but I'm sure the UFC would like it if his neck was never broken. And I'm not just guessing about the brutality of stomps + a cage. It's a very logical train of thought that "Wall + Object + Massive Pressure pushing object against wall = Extreme danger for object." These guys usually weigh around 160 lbs for the lightest fighter in the UFC. Can you imagine people jump stomping Shogun style against a cage when it takes between 16-170 lbs of force to crack a skull depending on thickness and area of application, both limits are easily exaceeded with such a technique. 

Now, if you add an amendum to the rule saying that the stompers feet can never leave the ground, then maybe it would be different, but so long as people are allowed to leap into them and cause massive amounts of damage I totally disagree.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> I'll say it again, that soccer kicks and stomps to a grounded opponent gives way to much of an advantage and a much easier way to KO a fighter.
> 
> They also look brutal, and cheap. And MMA would have to yet again defend itself against them everytime they're used to win a fight.
> 
> ...


What are you talking about? You can't soccer kick someone when their head is glued to the mat... are you talking about a stomp? And when you kick someone's head when they're down you're usually kicking their head in a more natural direction vs. a standing headkick, there's LESS opposition to a soccer kick to a grounded opponent than to a standing opponent.

So you're saying having to time a headkick (soccer kicks take timing too) is why they're legal? That's so absurd... it's clear you're grasping at straws here.


And MMA having to defend themselves for every soccer kick? Yeah right. Elbows on the ground are 10x more brutal looking and you don't see a press conference about them every time Florian fights.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> That's what I meant... note the post time (3:46 AM).
> 
> 
> Anyways, yeah it would be a valid stoppage if the other fighter's neck is broken, but I'm sure the UFC would like it if his neck was never broken. And I'm not just guessing about the brutality of stomps + a cage. It's a very logical train of thought that "Wall + Object + Massive Pressure pushing object against wall = Extreme danger for object." These guys usually weigh around 160 lbs for the lightest fighter in the UFC. Can you imagine people jump stomping Shogun style against a cage when it takes between 16-170 lbs of force to crack a skull depending on thickness and area of application, both limits are easily exaceeded with such a technique.
> ...


haha, how could you stomp someone without your feet leaving the ground?  And you are still guessing, because you don't have data. LOL @ cracking skulls and stuff. At least Tito would have a basis for his claims some day right?


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

khoveraki said:


> What are you talking about? You can't soccer kick someone when their head is glued to the mat... are you talking about a stomp? And when you kick someone's head when they're down you're usually kicking their head in a more natural direction vs. a standing headkick, there's LESS opposition to a soccer kick to a grounded opponent than to a standing opponent.
> 
> So you're saying having to time a headkick (soccer kicks take timing too) is why they're legal? That's so absurd... it's clear you're grasping at straws here.
> 
> ...


I was talking about a stomp in the regard yes. And of course you can soccer kick someone if their head is on the mat, please explain how someones head being on the canvas stops their head from being kicked?

The opposition isn't less due to the mobility of the fighter on the ground is reduced. Also if the grounded fighter is rocked, soccer kicking him in the head is far more dangerous than punches. I don't see how soccer kicks take as much timing as standing kicks. Standing you have alot more mobility than being on the ground and more time to evade. You're a sitting duck for kicks and stomps. I'm grasping at straws for listing valid points on why stomping on a grounded fighters head, of kicking repeatedly shouldn't be in MMA? Please.

I didn't say for every soccer kick. I said for every KO to come from stomping or kicks to a grounded fighter.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> I was talking about a stomp in the regard yes. And of course you can soccer kick someone if their head is on the mat, please explain how someones head being on the canvas stops their head from being kicked?


There's no way to soccer kick someone's head so that their head is sandwiched between your foot and the mat. So saying that the risk is greater than a headkick because the mat is there makes no sense. A stomp is more dangerous because the mat is there, definitely.



> The opposition isn't less due to the mobility of the fighter on the ground is reduced. Also if the grounded fighter is rocked, soccer kicking him in the head is far more dangerous than punches.
> 
> I didn't say for every soccer kick. I said for every KO to come from stomping or kicks to a grounded fighter.


This is the grasping at straws part. Where's your source for saying that soccer kicks are more dangerous than punches? I'd rather take a soccer kick than the punches Vitor landed on Franklin, for example.

Soccer kicks are slow and can only come upward (therefor no chance hitting the back of the head), vs punches that can hit anywhere and can do so rapidly.

And there's a lot of KOs or stoppages due to elbow strikes. The only thing we hear when a fight ends due to a vicious elbow is that the fight shouldn't have been stopped, not that elbows are too vicious or should be banned.




As for Stomps, some organizations have a rule that you can only use a stomp if an opponent is on the ground a *certain distance* away from the cage. I'm all for this rule.


edit: 

Wanderlei Silva: “I think you should be able to kick in the head, its a fun thing to do."


----------



## Ashurum (Sep 23, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> What are you talking about? You can't soccer kick someone when their head is glued to the mat... are you talking about a stomp? And when you kick someone's head when they're down you're usually kicking their head in a more natural direction vs. a standing headkick, there's LESS opposition to a soccer kick to a grounded opponent than to a standing opponent.
> 
> So you're saying having to time a headkick (soccer kicks take timing too) is why they're legal? That's so absurd... it's clear you're grasping at straws here.
> 
> ...


The difference between standing headkicks and grounded headkicks is the pivot that a person can through them at. Therefore a standing head kick is much less damaging.

They have those stupid machines that rate punching power in bars. I can kick those for around 800 but the ones that are used for soccer don't even go high enough for my kicks as I easily get 999 every single time.

A cut is a cut and elbows in no way look more brutal than a headstomp which leaves nowhere for the opponents head to go and has the full force of the leg muscle and opponents weight or a grounded headkick. You may disagree and think elbows just look horribly painful but I believe that I could kill a person with a well timed headkick if they were downed and couldn't defend or missed the block and I have only trained a few years in karate.

I know people didn't die in Pride from it but it is a risk none the less.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

"i have no data or even real world examples to support my argument but let's keep them illegal anyway"


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Ashurum said:


> The difference between standing headkicks and grounded headkicks is the pivot that a person can through them at. Therefore a standing head kick is much less damaging.
> 
> They have those stupid machines that rate punching power in bars. I can kick those for around 800 but the ones that are used for soccer don't even go high enough for my kicks as I easily get 999 every single time.
> 
> ...


What do you mean the pivot? A proper headkick should cut all the way through (180 degrees) and a soccer kick would do roughly the same. Soccer kicks have only the power of the knee-to-shin extending out, whereas a headkick has the power of the hips pivoting along with the power of the knee-to-shin extending out.


----------



## Ashurum (Sep 23, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> What do you mean the pivot? A proper headkick should cut all the way through (180 degrees) and a soccer kick would do roughly the same. Soccer kicks have only the power of the knee-to-shin extending out, whereas a headkick has the power of the hips pivoting along with the power of the knee-to-shin extending out.


I think I miss explained. Try throwing a kick standing. The muscles of the leg no matter how flexible you are will feel different. The muscles can provide more force because the leg naturally pivots under you where as it doesn't naturally pivot up and around to throw a head kick. The more flexible you are the better you can put power in the head kicks but it will never be as powerful as a soccer kick. Not sure how to explain it better but if you have ever thrown a kick you would understand I think.


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

KryOnicle said:


> I think it's quite proven that a great enough force to a human head can injure someone quite gravely. And with stomps and soccer kicks, especially if someone has already been rocked enough to fall to the ground just escalates this risk. Just because it hasn't happened inside the ring does not mean that it cannot happen eventually.
> 
> *I never said it will never happen, I'm just looking at the fact objectively*
> 
> ...


Reply in bold.


----------



## Xerxes (Aug 14, 2008)

If anything a standing head kick that KOs you can be more damaging to the brain than a soccer kick to the head. 

With the standing head kick that KOs you, you fall and your brain can receive another trauma once you hit the canvas, with the soccer kick, you obviously don't fall.

Now the head stomps, I dunno. But I don't think they are as damaging as people make them out to be. 

Though it's true that soccer kicks and stomps take little skill to execute (at least compared to a proper kick). But so is pulling guard, so this argument is rather irrelevant imo.

Btw, great thread :thumbsup:


----------



## machidaisgod (Aug 14, 2009)

HexRei said:


> stomps, soccer kicks, and knees to the head on the ground should be allowed in the UFC. there is no actual proof that the damage would be a serious problem. All the evidence from orgs where it was allowed (pride being the big one) demonstrates otherwise in fact.


Agree, there is a saying "kick a man when he's down"


----------



## Cptmats (Dec 27, 2009)

I dont think there is anyway a high kick could be anywhere near as damaging as a soccer kick. Look at these 120 lbs. thai fighter that break 2-3 baseball bats at once with a low kick and tell me that same guy could generate that much ppower at head level.

And now for the stomps, i dont see how anyone could argue that there is no evidence to show stomps are more damaging that a high kick or any other kida stike for that matter. We are talking about one man stomping on another man head ! It dosnt take a genius to see how brutal stomps are and why they shouldn be a part of MMA..........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-MQwUP2gmE
If this guy lived he is severly F&%cked up....after two stomps !

Side not: The best thing about pride was the crazt little refs getting right in the fighters faces yeling "GIVE UP, GIVE UP" everytime they got caught in a sub......funny sh1t:thumb02:


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

Another debate about Pride rules I see? Honestly, I say bring Vale Tudo rules in and start allowing for as much full contact as possible. Head butts, elbows, stomps, hell I even say groin strikes should be okay. I'm pretty certain the majority of you will disagree but you'll probably defend your stance with the "danger" involved or prolonging the career of the fighters. If you don't like danger then get out of combat sports. Period. Disallowing attacks to the head of grounded opponents is by far the most absurd rule ever. It essentially nullifies the north south position entirely and typically forces the winner of the striking exchange to risk being subbed by having to lay down in the guard of his opponent. Martial arts(whatever style you choose) is universal in teaching its students to be prepared for anything at all times. You do this by training and drilling yourself constantly and sparring others to find holes in your style. MMA is simply full contact sparring. Nothing more. It allows you to test your mettle against an opponent you are unfamiliar with and who is roughly on the same level as you training wise. This, in turn, allows you to become a more complete martial artist win or lose. You will always learn something new fighting a stranger who is attempting to push you past your limit. If you limit the rules then you limit your ability to grow as a martial artist. Its that simple guys.


----------



## TheAxeMurderer (Oct 27, 2009)

Cptmats said:


> MMA..........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-MQwUP2gmE
> If this guy lived he is severly F&%cked up....after two stomps !
> :


Alot more than two stomps were involved in the beating he recieved, and alot of the damage would have been his head smashing into the rock-hard floor. The mats in mma are designed to be softer for just that reason, so your skull doesnt crack when it slams into it.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

evilappendix said:


> Another debate about Pride rules I see? Honestly, I say bring Vale Tudo rules in and start allowing for as much full contact as possible. Head butts, elbows, stomps, hell I even say groin strikes should be okay. I'm pretty certain the majority of you will disagree but you'll probably defend your stance with the "danger" involved or prolonging the career of the fighters. If you don't like danger then get out of combat sports. Period. Disallowing attacks to the head of grounded opponents is by far the most absurd rule ever. It essentially nullifies the north south position entirely and typically forces the winner of the striking exchange to risk being subbed by having to lay down in the guard of his opponent. Martial arts(whatever style you choose) is universal in teaching its students to be prepared for anything at all times. You do this by training and drilling yourself constantly and sparring others to find holes in your style. MMA is simply full contact sparring. Nothing more. It allows you to test your mettle against an opponent you are unfamiliar with and who is roughly on the same level as you training wise. This, in turn, allows you to become a more complete martial artist win or lose. You will always learn something new fighting a stranger who is attempting to push you past your limit. If you limit the rules then you limit your ability to grow as a martial artist. Its that simple guys.


Yea right :thumbsup: or you don't have the chance to come back to the Ring and show your improvement, because you are sitting in a wheel-chair for the rest of your life!

*The most important thing* in a combat sport is to protect the fighters! Because otherwise there would be no combat sport anymore for us to enjoy, if they would allow every street fight nonsense. 

I hope that your post was crowded with irony!


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

BobbyCooper said:


> Yea right :thumbsup: or you don't have the chance to come back to the Ring and show your improvement, because you are sitting in a wheel-chair for the rest of your life!
> 
> *The most important thing* in a combat sport is to protect the fighters! Because otherwise there would be no combat sport anymore for us to enjoy, if they would allow every street fight nonsense.
> 
> I hope that your post was crowded with irony!


Has anyone ever been crippled from a head stomp in a sanctioned fight? This rational you use is flawed. I was not being ironic about any of it. Cars cripple and kill people every day. Do you ride a bike because of this?


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

evilappendix said:


> Has anyone ever been crippled from a head stomp in a sanctioned fight? This rational you use is flawed. I was not being ironic about any of it. Cars cripple and kill people every day. Do you ride a bike because of this?


I don't go into this debate again, because a lot of members on here did it already on the previous pages. Why do you think aren't 12 to 6 elbows allowed?? 

I will tell you, because you can actually break Ice with them! So what do you think stomps can do to somebodys skull?? Alone the physical law will tell you that these kind of actions are highly dangerous. 

I say it again..

The most important thing is the safety of the fighters!!!


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

KryOnicle said:


> And of course you can soccer kick someone if their head is on the mat, please explain how someones head being on the canvas stops their head from being kicked?


You could, but you'd have a good chance of hurting or breaking your foot. If the person's head is on the ground, the only way a soccer kick is going to land is with the toes and top of the foot. Smashing those bones against the skull is a good way to break them, mess up the kick a little bit and you ain't gonna be walking. It's the same reason why punching someone in the head with bare hands often results in a broken hand.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

If they want to be safe they should take up crochet. You can smash a coconut with a palm strike. That's an actual fact. As in it has been recorded and proven many times over. Are palm strikes illegal? Hardly. Virtually every move that is not allowed in the ufc has been barred because it was perceived as dangerous or barbaric by some bureaucrat who most likely never trained in any form of martial art. I understand your opinion completely and by the looks of things more of the general public agrees with your stance. I still think they should try to incorporate more of the Pride rules into mma though. Certainly the card system. I've come to terms with the fact that I'll have to be content watching head stomps on my computer or dvd player. :sad02: Luckily this forum gives me a venue to vent about my dissatisfaction.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

BobbyCooper said:


> I don't go into this debate again, because a lot of members on here did it already on the previous pages. Why do you think aren't 12 to 6 elbows allowed??
> 
> I will tell you, because you can actually break Ice with them! So what do you think stomps can do to somebodys skull?? Alone the physical law will tell you that these kind of actions are highly dangerous.
> 
> ...


Safety is important, followed very very closely by the integrity of the sport. There's a lot of dangerous aspects of this sport and that's why it's so relevant.



evilappendix said:


> If they want to be safe they should take up crochet. You can smash a coconut with a palm strike. That's an actual fact. As in it has been recorded and proven many times over. Are palm strikes illegal? Hardly. Virtually every move that is not allowed in the ufc has been barred because it was perceived as dangerous or barbaric by some bureaucrat who most likely never trained in any form of martial art. I understand your opinion completely and by the looks of things more of the general public agrees with your stance. I still think they should try to incorporate more of the Pride rules into mma though. Certainly the card system. I've come to terms with the fact that I'll have to be content watching head stomps on my computer or dvd player. :sad02: Luckily this forum gives me a venue to vent about my dissatisfaction.



:thumbsup:


----------



## DJ Syko (Jan 6, 2008)

There is no reason what so ever for people to want Soccer kicks and stomps back in MMA other than they are sick mofo's. Anyone can kick or stomp someone when they are down, there is no skill involed at all, and they could seriously injury or even kill people. People are complete idiots if they want that shit back.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

DJ Syko said:


> There is no reason what so ever for people to want Soccer kicks and stomps back in MMA other than they are sick mofo's. Anyone can kick or stomp someone when they are down, there is no skill involed at all, and they could seriously injury or even kill people. People are complete idiots if they want that shit back.


What a silly judgmental post. You know what, armbars are really dangerous. They can break an elbow and ruin a fighters career. Armbars should be illegal and if you disagree you are SICK, and a COMPLETE IDIOT.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

DJ Syko said:


> There is no reason what so ever for people to want Soccer kicks and stomps back in MMA other than they are sick mofo's. Anyone can kick or stomp someone when they are down, there is no skill involed at all, and they could seriously injury or even kill people. People are complete idiots if they want that shit back.


Dont understand the; "they take no skill argument".If thats the case, then when a professional or world class MMA fighter gets kicked in the head via a skilless soccker kick then what does that make him?

Of course they take skill at such a high level of combat. Like i have said numerous times, timing, accuracy and power are all required to pull off a kick/stomp and there is a great risk of being tangled up into a leg lock/ankle lock. Do elbows from lay and pray tactics take more skill?

Through Pride and MMA again i reiterate there have been ZERO serious injuries sustained from the use of soccer kicks and stomps. People are purley basing ther opnion on them through how brutal they actually look and are trying to incorporate street fighting situations into MMA, this is void for a number of reasons already mentioned in this thread. Why didnt at least one, just one serious injury occur if they are so lethal? Luck, all this time? No.

You dont have to be sick minded to want to enforce kicking a downed opponent as part of the rules. I think it makes the sport much more dynamic and exciting and keeps you on the edge of your seat when ever some one tries to pull guard or if some one gets rocked and falls to the floor.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

khoveraki said:


> What a silly judgmental post. You know what, armbars are really dangerous. They can break an elbow and ruin a fighters career. Armbars should be illegal and if you disagree you are SICK, and a COMPLETE IDIOT.


And people have actually had their arms broken in MMA competition, just ask Tim Sylvia or Mizuto Hirota. Legkicks should be banned too, we wouldn't want to see another Corey Hill leg break now would we?


----------



## dvddanny (Feb 4, 2007)

I dont buy the idea that head stomps and soccer kicks make a fight "more dynamic"

Fighters would be less inclined to pull guard, BJJ fighters would be greatly hindered by stomps.
i think it'd cause MORE lay and pray situations, if you know the guy on top of you can stomp the eff outta your head, you'd be less inclined to go to submissions that could allow the opponent to escape and proceed to stomp the hell out of you. And like others have said, in the octagon it's alot harder to dodge stomps and head kicks if your head happens to get stuck in a corner.

I don't think they have a place in the UFC, it would greatly hinder UFC's goals of acceptance of the sport of MMA across the US as well as the world. Generally, we consider a stomp as something someone does to another person who is completely helpless (think american history X). Not going to say they don't take skill cause that's like saying throwing a punch doesn't take skill.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

The reason the UFC has been so successful is because they have embraced regulation and tried hard to focus on the "sport" aspect of MMA and not the "spectacle". Soccer stomps and kicks may not be more dangerous but they certainly are percieved as such by regulators and casual fans. If we want MMA to grow and continue towards the mainstream we have to make some concessions. I'm willing to make that one. 

I would very much like to see the yellow card system, I see no compelling reason not to. 

Not a fan of the "overall" scoring system. If you think you see some bad decisions in the UFC now, try using that system. It is more open to corruption and personal bias than what we have now.


----------



## Cptmats (Dec 27, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> What a silly judgmental post. You know what, armbars are really dangerous. They can break an elbow and ruin a fighters career. Armbars should be illegal and if you disagree you are SICK, and a COMPLETE IDIOT.


Actually its a very truthfull post camparing arm bars to stomps is a lot more silly if you ask me. When was the last time you herd of some getting brain damage or dying from an arm injury ?:confused02: Cause people die from head trauma everyday....hes right! were tring so hard to improve the sports image and bringing stopms and soccer kicks back would be about ten steps backward IMO.......if you wanna compare stomps to somthing ,throat strike or Elbows to the spine would make more sense.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

HexRei said:


> haha, how could you stomp someone without your feet leaving the ground?  And you are still guessing, because you don't have data. LOL @ cracking skulls and stuff. At least Tito would have a basis for his claims some day right?


You're seriously attacking that?



> "It only takes 33 ft pounds of energy to fracture a skull, or
> approximately 398 inch pounds of energy"
> http://www.eijkhout.net/rad/dance_other/health4.html
> 
> ...


I'm not going to throw around numbers if I don't know what they mean.

I meant "both feet leaving the ground," I'm not sure if you honestly didn't get that or you're just being dense for the sake of trying to argue something that there's obviously evidence against. It's honestly not rocket science to figure out that a 155 lb man jumping ~3ft in the air and landing with his heel on the side of a skull could land with enough force to break it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

TraMaI said:


> You're seriously attacking that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those numbers dont actually mean much on their own, you need the context of how much damage strikes do in the same terms. Not to mention they contradict ten years of Pride Fighting Championships?


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

PRIDE wasn't in a cage and fighter ALWAYS had the option of being able to move out of the way of them with relative ease due to there being no solid boundary. The UFC is not the same. Also, I'm willing to bet that nothing else hits with that much force on that much of a concentrated point on logic alone because no other strike that is thrown has the fighters entire body weight coming down on it with the exception of falling punches into guards which not as effective due to both the fact that they're wearing gloves and the human anatomy of the arm.Stomps in PRIDE and the UFC are two totally different things due to the environment. The only way a stomp could do massive damage in PRIDE is if a fighter could move in some fashion, for example having their head pinned against a ring post, which I have never seen happen. The ring posts in PRIDE took up, what 2 feet of space total? The solid boundary in the UFC encompasses the entire edge of the arena.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

khoveraki said:


> What a silly judgmental post. You know what, armbars are really dangerous. They can break an elbow and ruin a fighters career. Armbars should be illegal and if you disagree you are SICK, and a COMPLETE IDIOT.


There is control in how much pressure you put on an arm bar, and the option to tap before it gets to 'breaking point'. When someones jumped up into the air aiming to land with all their force on someones head, there is no 'tap' option to save yourself from further injury. If you can't move out of the way either, you're screwed. That's more than likely fight over, and a huge risk of injury.

The people that want stomps and soccer kicks back will never agree with the people that don't, and vice versa.


----------



## DJ Syko (Jan 6, 2008)

khoveraki said:


> What a silly judgmental post. You know what, armbars are really dangerous. They can break an elbow and ruin a fighters career. Armbars should be illegal and if you disagree you are SICK, and a COMPLETE IDIOT.


Dont be such an idiot please, Armbars cause zero damage if you tap and if you dont then its your own fault basicly. there is no getting out of a stomp or a kick until its too late, come back with a better argument plaese.



Mckeever said:


> Dont understand the; "they take no skill argument".If thats the case, then when a professional or world class MMA fighter gets kicked in the head via a skilless soccker kick then what does that make him?
> 
> Of course they take skill at such a high level of combat. Like i have said numerous times, timing, accuracy and power are all required to pull off a kick/stomp and there is a great risk of being tangled up into a leg lock/ankle lock. Do elbows from lay and pray tactics take more skill?
> 
> ...


how do they require timing and accuracy? you are kicking a man while he is on floor, he is not that hard to miss and its very hard for him to move out the way of them. And of course Elbows from LnP take more skill, you actually have to grapple with the guy while trying to hit him. I hate the "they have never caused a serious injury" argument too, you cant denie that its lethal/vicious move and it would be only a matter of time before there was a serious injury or death. So would you rather wait for that to happen first before they are banned? because you would be pretty sick if you did.


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

TraMaI said:


> PRIDE wasn't in a cage and fighter ALWAYS had the option of being able to move out of the way of them with relative ease due to there being no solid boundary. The UFC is not the same. Also, I'm willing to bet that nothing else hits with that much force on that much of a concentrated point on logic alone because no other strike that is thrown has the fighters entire body weight coming down on it with the exception of falling punches into guards which not as effective due to both the fact that they're wearing gloves and the human anatomy of the arm.Stomps in PRIDE and the UFC are two totally different things due to the environment. The only way a stomp could do massive damage in PRIDE is if a fighter could move in some fashion, for example having their head pinned against a ring post, which I have never seen happen. The ring posts in PRIDE took up, what 2 feet of space total? The solid boundary in the UFC encompasses the entire edge of the arena.


The best way of getting around this would be to disallow the headkick/stomp when the opponent is next to the cage and doesn't have a way to get out. Thus the only avenue for said strikes being permitted being in the center of the cage. 

This is what I prefer myself, as a stomp landing when your opponent is stuck in the edge of the cage uses the cage/mat/cage bindings as a indirect "weapon". What would you think about this? probably difficult to enforce but worth consideration.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

I want stomps, soccer kicks and knees to the head of grounded fighters back. It is fighting they should allow that, if they allowed stomps it would stop guys like Thales from dropping to the ground and creating one of the most boring title fights ever. Imagine if Silva could stomp in that fight........

They need to bring back yellow cards too. Where if a fighter was LnPing and stalling they would stand them up and the fighter would lose 10% of the purse. I love the ground game, but I hate watching men just laying on top of men, you need to be trying to end the fight or at least improving your position, none of this lay down for the fight and win 30-27.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

DJ Syko said:


> Dont be such an idiot please, Armbars cause zero damage if you tap and if you dont then its your own fault basicly. there is no getting out of a stomp or a kick until its too late, come back with a better argument plaese.
> 
> 
> 
> how do they require timing and accuracy? you are kicking a man while he is on floor, he is not that hard to miss and its very hard for him to move out the way of them. And of course Elbows from LnP take more skill, you actually have to grapple with the guy while trying to hit him. I hate the "they have never caused a serious injury" argument too, you cant denie that its lethal/vicious move and it would be only a matter of time before there was a serious injury or death. So would you rather wait for that to happen first before they are banned? because you would be pretty sick if you did.


You seem very naive on the subject. Pride was running for 10 years and never once was there any worrying injuries sustained from these attacks. Like I said that isnt luck. Other mma organisations also incorporate stomps/kicks into the rules and there havnt been any problems, never once. You cant just assume and guess some thing will happen because of how brutal you think it looks. The facts are there.

How do they not require timing and accuracy? Especially if a guy pulls guard on the floor. This requires great timing, accuracy and power, look at some of shoguns pride fights. Also if executed incorrectly, you risk breaking your foot. Again if a professional mma fighter is kicked in the head via a kick or stomp then what does that make him? If it is so skill less?


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Look guys, fighters are smart people and they adapt as the rules adapt. The reality is the safety record in Japan was pretty much the same as in the U.S., so these techniques do not constitute any great threat to fighter safety if you have competent referees.

Many in Japan think that its barbaric that we allow elbows because of the cuts they cause, but for the most part they are no great risk to the fighters. 

That said, I think its far more important to get New York and Ontario on board with MMA first. Then we can debate making changes to the rules and adding kicks to downed opponents.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Cptmats said:


> Actually its a very truthfull post camparing arm bars to stomps is a lot more silly if you ask me. When was the last time you herd of some getting brain damage or dying from an arm injury ?:confused02: Cause people die from head trauma everyday....hes right! were tring so hard to improve the sports image and bringing stopms and soccer kicks back would be about ten steps backward IMO.......if you wanna compare stomps to somthing ,throat strike or Elbows to the spine would make more sense.





KryOnicle said:


> There is control in how much pressure you put on an arm bar, and the option to tap before it gets to 'breaking point'. When someones jumped up into the air aiming to land with all their force on someones head, there is no 'tap' option to save yourself from further injury. If you can't move out of the way either, you're screwed. That's more than likely fight over, and a huge risk of injury.
> 
> The people that want stomps and soccer kicks back will never agree with the people that don't, and vice versa.





DJ Syko said:


> Dont be such an idiot please, Armbars cause zero damage if you tap and if you dont then its your own fault basicly. there is no getting out of a stomp or a kick until its too late, come back with a better argument plaese.
> 
> 
> 
> how do they require timing and accuracy? you are kicking a man while he is on floor, he is not that hard to miss and its very hard for him to move out the way of them. And of course Elbows from LnP take more skill, you actually have to grapple with the guy while trying to hit him. I hate the "they have never caused a serious injury" argument too, you cant denie that its lethal/vicious move and it would be only a matter of time before there was a serious injury or death. So would you rather wait for that to happen first before they are banned? because you would be pretty sick if you did.





Hey good stories you guys except one fact. Armbars have BROKEN many arms in the UFC, and stomps never injured a single person in Pride.


As for the cage being different than the ring, that's why the distance rule would be there. You can't stomp if they're 1.) within a certain distance of the cage OR 2.) you can only stomp in a direction towards the center of the ring.



And everyone needs to relax about images. Is everyone forgetting that we can do heel stomps to a grounded opponent? You don't see a call for an MMA ban when Anderson Silva tries to heel stomp someone's face. It's pretty clear you guys are hiding behind the "it's bad for MMA publicity" angle so you don't have to defend how YOU personally dislike them for no backed up reason.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

Armbars have broken arms due to people not wanting to tap. There is an option. There isn't with a stomp. I said that in my post but apparently you ignored it.

The distance rule would be there? Says who? You? Rule or no rule they're dangerous. If you can't see how stomping on a guys head when he is on the ground is potentially more dangerous than other moves used in MMA then it's beyond me. 

I'm pretty sure there are lots of backed up reasons to why we dislike them above. Why do you personally want them back? Because it's a fight right? How many decent people would, in a street fight stamp and soccer kick someone? It's disgusting.

The only valid reason to have them back, is to stop people flopping and pulling guard continuously which happens so rarely it really isn't a problem, and there are other, less brutal ways to solve that such as the yellow card rule.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

KryOnicle said:


> Armbars have broken arms due to people not wanting to tap. There is an option. There isn't with a stomp. I said that in my post but apparently you ignored it.
> 
> The distance rule would be there? Says who? You? Rule or no rule they're dangerous. If you can't see how stomping on a guys head when he is on the ground is potentially more dangerous than other moves used in MMA then it's beyond me.
> 
> ...




I don't think you understand a lot of critical things.


You can't always tap before an armbar breaks your arm. Dynamic armbars land in a position that forces the arm to break. On other occasions, the difference between "armbar not quite set in" to "armbar breaking arm" is a millisecond, see Mir vs Sylvia.

Things like heelstomps are ALREADY LEGAL in the UFC. So are foot stomps. How often do you see them? Almost never, not only are they hard to pull off (like a stomp), but if you miss you can really hurt your foot and impair your ability to move for the rest of the fight.

Stomps need to be trained hard to get them right and even if you train hard, if you miss, you're going to lose a ton of mobility in that foot. They weren't even used that much in Pride for this reason. Infact, the only people I remember using them in more than one or two fights was Shogun and Wanderlei. 


You have to keep in mind things like soccer kicks and stomps are there for a reason. 

If they're not in the sport, you don't learn to defend against them. If you don't train to defend them, you won't be able to defend them in real situations. 

And isn't that what this sport is about? How can this sport keep it's integrity if we just pick and choose what is allowed with no evidence to back up its risk?

With this mind set, it'll only be a matter of time before all head kicks are banned. Or we can go back to Pancrase rules where you can't strike close-fisted to the head.


----------



## Cptmats (Dec 27, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> Hey good stories you guys except one fact. Armbars have BROKEN many arms in the UFC, and stomps never injured a single person in Pride.
> 
> Is everyone forgetting that we can do heel stomps to a grounded opponent? You don't see a call for an MMA ban when Anderson Silva tries to heel stomp someone's face. It's pretty clear you guys are hiding behind the "it's bad for MMA publicity" angle so you don't have to defend how YOU personally dislike them for no backed up reason.


Hey good stories except one fact. 
#1Broken arms HEAL brain damage dosnt! DUH:sarcastic12:

UFC dosnt allow stomps of any kind , head or body ! 
Check the rules.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

I will always remember when I first invited my dad to this Sport (and keep in mind he is a big Boxing and K1 fan). When he first saw a fight I can't remember wich one it was, but he was shocked on how brutal this (UFC) sport is and why the referee doesn't stop the beating this guy took on the ground.

We already feel comfortable with this kind of brutality, but many many others don't and won't if we make it even more brutal! 

This is by far the most exciting sport out there, there is no need to change anything!


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Cptmats said:


> Hey good stories except one fact.
> #1Broken arms HEAL brain damage dosnt! DUH:sarcastic12:
> 
> UFC dosnt allow stomps of any kind , head or body !
> Check the rules.


Cool bro, please cite one example of a stomp causing brain damage in MMA?


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

khoveraki said:


> Cool bro, please cite one example of a stomp causing brain damage in MMA?


Everyone seems to be missing that fact that if you get stomped on cleanly a couple times, the fight is over and the ref will stop it. If you get stomped enough times to cause brain damage the ref was not doing his job.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> Also, I'm willing to bet that nothing else hits with that much force on that much of a concentrated point on logic alone because no other strike that is thrown has the fighters entire body weight coming down on it with the exception of falling punches into guards which not as effective due to both the fact that they're wearing gloves and the human anatomy of the arm.


And you'd lose that bet unless the stomp is done with the leg straight and the knee locked out. Which never happens because if someone did a stomp like that they'd trash their knees. When the knee is bent it absorbs and takes away a lot of the impact from the stomp so it's not as bad as it looks.

In terms of doing the most concentrated damage, that would either be knees from the clinch or knees dropped into the back of the head as done by Wanderlei Silva in his first fight against Sakuraba. The first has more power since you can step into the knee which generates a ton of speed and power while pulling down on the opponent's head. The head does have somewhere to go after impact which lessens the damage a bit. When dropping a knee down on someone there's nowhere for the head to go, and while there's more weight behind the knee there's not as much speed & power since the mechanics aren't as good.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

I see people keep arguing that head stomps cause brain damage. Where's the proof guys? Oh you don't have any? You all have theories on the matter and zero concrete evidence. Good job not backing up your arguments with anything other than your misinformed opinions. Didn't Rampage Jackson's right hook generate somewhere around 1800 ft lbs of force on sports science? That's well beyond the force required to crack a skull. Should he be barred from throwing punches?


----------



## rogi (Aug 26, 2007)

evilappendix said:


> I see people keep arguing that head stomps cause brain damage. Where's the proof guys? Oh you don't have any? You all have theories on the matter and zero concrete evidence. Good job not backing up your arguments with anything other than your misinformed opinions. Didn't Rampage Jackson's right hook generate somewhere around 1800 ft lbs of force on sports science? That's well beyond the force required to crack a skull. Should he be barred from throwing punches?


There was no proof that repeated concussions cause brain damage also, but 30-40 years later those NFL players are dying now with really fucked up brains. There was no proof smoking is bad either, until you look further down the road. 

don't be an idiot and say stupid things. absence of proof isn't proof of absence.


----------



## Johnni G (Dec 2, 2009)

Great read


----------



## Johnni G (Dec 2, 2009)

And that Rampage powerbomb was SICK.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

aerius said:


> And you'd lose that bet unless the stomp is done with the leg straight and the knee locked out. Which never happens because if someone did a stomp like that they'd trash their knees. When the knee is bent it absorbs and takes away a lot of the impact from the stomp so it's not as bad as it looks.


The correct technique in a stomp is to extend the leg just before it connect, exactly like a straight punch then land on the other foot so as not to cause severe damage to the knee or foot. This does take practice to master as it involves very precise timing so it results in many fighters doing it incorrectly most of the time. The key there is "Most," meaning that there is an ever present danger of a fighter getting it completely correct and actually causing severe and possibly irreparable damage.



> In terms of doing the most concentrated damage, that would either be knees from the clinch or knees dropped into the back of the head as done by Wanderlei Silva in his first fight against Sakuraba. The first has more power since you can step into the knee which generates a ton of speed and power while pulling down on the opponent's head. The head does have somewhere to go after impact which lessens the damage a bit. When dropping a knee down on someone there's nowhere for the head to go, and while there's more weight behind the knee there's not as much speed & power since the mechanics aren't as good.


A) *Knees to the head of a grounded opponent are illegal* for this exact reason and that is to say nothing of striking the BACK of an opponents head. Also, 99% of the grounded knees in PRIDE were done from a north/south position or side mount, both allow the natural flexibility of the next to absorb some of the damage in it's recoil.

B) Two objects moving forward is both a two party technique, giving room for defense on the side of the person on the receiving end and canceling out a lot of the damage due to the fighter being able to move post strike as you said. Also, moving forward into a knee does not put your entire body weight into the knee and gravity is still a force fighting against it while a stomp would have both all of the fighters weight and gravity working WITH it adding a considerable amount of force.




> Many in Japan think that its barbaric that we allow elbows because of the cuts they cause, but for the most part they are no great risk to the fighters.


No, the Japanese did not want fights ended due to cuts, not because they were seen as barbaric. Otherwise why would they allow knees which land with considerably more force and even knees to grounded opponents?


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

rogi said:


> There was no proof that repeated concussions cause brain damage also, but 30-40 years later those NFL players are dying now with really fucked up brains. There was no proof smoking is bad either, until you look further down the road.
> 
> don't be an idiot and say stupid things. absence of proof isn't proof of absence.


Dying from really fucked up brains?

A stomp causes just as much damage as a powerful hook, the difference, a stomp is far less likely to land completely clean, where as a hook lands all the time. Combat sports in general cause brain damage, no matter what it is, punches, kicks or knees, repeated blows to the head cause brain damage.


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

Life B Ez said:


> Dying from really fucked up brains?
> 
> A stomp causes just as much damage as a powerful hook, the difference, a stomp is far less likely to land completely clean, where as a hook lands all the time. Combat sports in general cause brain damage, no matter what it is, punches, kicks or knees, repeated blows to the head cause brain damage.


Your logic is completely skewed there. A hook would land with no where NEAR as much force as someone jumping and stomping on someone's head.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

TraMaI said:


> Your logic is completely skewed there. A hook would land with no where NEAR as much force as someone jumping and stomping on someone's head.


It's really not though, please look something up before you say that. Think about knees in the clinch, or flying knees, do you really think those don't generate the same if not more force than stomps? Granted not all hooks land with the same amount of force as a stomp, but not all stomps are going to land with the same force as some hooks. Look at when Henderson KO'd Bisping, do you think that had less force than a stomp?

Stomps and Soccer kicks aren't allowed in the UFC because it's inside a cage and fighters could be pinned with no place to move, while being stomped on. It has nothing to do with the damage it causes fighters.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

rogi said:


> There was no proof that repeated concussions cause brain damage also, but 30-40 years later those NFL players are dying now with really fucked up brains. *There was no proof smoking is bad either, until you look further down the road. *
> 
> don't be an idiot and say stupid things. absence of proof isn't proof of absence.


lol what?


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

TraMaI said:


> The correct technique in a stomp is to extend the leg just before it connect, exactly like a straight punch then land on the other foot so as not to cause severe damage to the knee or foot. This does take practice to master as it involves very precise timing so it results in many fighters doing it incorrectly most of the time. The key there is "Most," meaning that there is an ever present danger of a fighter getting it completely correct and actually causing severe and possibly irreparable damage.


That is next to physically impossible unless you're bigfoot. Get a stack of phonebooks that's about the height of a head and stand on it with your extended stomping leg. Unless you have big feet you won't be able to reach the ground with your other leg to absorb the impact and keep your knee from breaking. Even if you could reach the ground your foot can't absorb enough energy to keep your knee from being severely screwed up.

This is why Shogun _always_ has his leg bent when he's doing a flying stomp.




> B) Two objects moving forward is both a two party technique, giving room for defense on the side of the person on the receiving end and canceling out a lot of the damage due to the fighter being able to move post strike as you said. Also, moving forward into a knee does not put your entire body weight into the knee and gravity is still a force fighting against it while a stomp would have both all of the fighters weight and gravity working WITH it adding a considerable amount of force.


It's not the bodyweight, it's the mechanics behind the strike. When you're dropping a knee down on someone, there's only a limited distance over which gravity is assisting with the motion, there's maybe 12-18 inches at most. That's a very limited distance for building speed & power, there's a lot of weight behind it but not much speed.

With a standing knee there's a good 4-5 feet for accelerating the knee into the target, there's not as much weight behind it but there's a heck of a lot more speed. Recall from high school physics that kinetic energy is given by mass x velocity squared; double the speed and there's 4 times as much energy, triple the speed and you get 9 times as much. A standing knee won't have as much weight behind it but the speed more than makes up for that.

Or to put it another way, it's the difference between getting hit by a Hummer at 30mph or a Honda Civic at 60mph. Either way, you're probably gonna die.


----------



## Cptmats (Dec 27, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> Cool bro, please cite one example of a stomp causing brain damage in MMA?


Pointless, You need an example to see why stomping on someones head is dangerous ? Thats funny, you dont even need a brain to see why its dangerous....what a joke!



TraMaI said:


> The correct technique in a stomp is to extend the leg just before it connect, exactly like a straight punch then land on the other foot so as not to cause severe damage to the knee or foot. This does take practice to master as it involves very precise timing so it results in many fighters doing it incorrectly most of the time. The key there is "Most," meaning that there is an ever present danger of a fighter getting it completely correct and actually causing severe and possibly irreparable damage.


LOL did you attend stomp school?



TraMaI said:


> Your logic is completely skewed there. A hook would land with no where NEAR as much force as someone jumping and stomping on someone's head.


Agreed for two reasons, First you cant put every ounce of your body weight behind a standing strike, and second when you hit someone the're head is not braced against somthing unless your on the mat in which case you would be gereating even less power than standing.............did none of you stompers watch the video?


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

rogi said:


> There was no proof that repeated concussions cause brain damage also, but 30-40 years later those NFL players are dying now with really fucked up brains. There was no proof smoking is bad either, until you look further down the road.
> 
> don't be an idiot and say stupid things. absence of proof isn't proof of absence.



Don't call me an idiot. I've been very respectful of everyone's opinions no matter how misguided I feel they are. Have we banned football or smoking or any other activity consenting adults participate in willingly knowing full well what the potential consequences are down the road? You argue that repeated concussions cause long term brain damage. Does this mean you feel all fight sports should be banned? Fighters get concussions all the time. It comes with the job. They will most likely have a plethora of issues that stem from the career they've chosen when they get old. These are grown men(and women) that rake in money the majority of us will never see in our lifetimes doing what they love. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for them when they spend their golden years being spoon fed and shot up on pain killers while someone wipes their ass for them. I should be so lucky. 

What baffles me is how so many of you assume that a handful of banned moves will somehow cause cases of permanent brain damage or paralysis to appear overnight if said moves were permitted. Not one of you has fielded a valid argument to support these claims. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against you on this. Yet I'm an idiot according to your sagely wisdom.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Cptmats said:


> LOL did you attend stomp school?


:thumb02: good one^^

but he is our top notch Mixed Martial Artist in here, he knows what he is talking about!


----------



## TraMaI (Dec 10, 2007)

> It's really not though, please look something up before you say that. Think about knees in the clinch, or flying knees, do you really think those don't generate the same if not more force than stomps? Granted not all hooks land with the same amount of force as a stomp, but not all stomps are going to land with the same force as some hooks. Look at when Henderson KO'd Bisping, do you think that had less force than a stomp?
> 
> Stomps and Soccer kicks aren't allowed in the UFC because it's inside a cage and fighters could be pinned with no place to move, while being stomped on. It has nothing to do with the damage it causes fighters.


You're severely misreading what I say now. I just said the exact thing you did. Stomps were okay in PRIDE because of the ring and fighter mobility and shouldn't be allowed in because when a stomp is landed on a a PINNED TARGET it will have a much more devastating force than any other strike.

As for the second part of this, I already said it and my reasoning behind them not being allowed in a CAGE. Knees may hit with more force overall, but much of that is dissipated by bodies being able to move from the force of it (Getting kneed in the guy and your body going backwards helps dampen the blow, for example). And I'm not saying a stomp CAN'T land softer than a hook, what I'm saying is that it has the potential to be utterly devastating and possibly life threatening. When you look at things like this you need to look at the potential risk of fighters, not at what has happened but what CAN.



> That is next to physically impossible unless you're bigfoot. Get a stack of phonebooks that's about the height of a head and stand on it with your extended stomping leg. Unless you have big feet you won't be able to reach the ground with your other leg to absorb the impact and keep your knee from breaking. Even if you could reach the ground your foot can't absorb enough energy to keep your knee from being severely screwed up.
> 
> This is why Shogun always has his leg bent when he's doing a flying stomp.


Incorrect. Stand on one foot, move the other out to an angle. Also, you can use your foot. The stomping foot should have the toes angled up and thus landing on the heel, the other foot can then have the toes angled down to land on the tip toes or pad of the foot. I've done it before many times in practice, it's not that hard. Have two straight lines does not mean both lines cannot be on differing planes of altitude, but one must be angled.



> It's not the bodyweight, it's the mechanics behind the strike. When you're dropping a knee down on someone, there's only a limited distance over which gravity is assisting with the motion, there's maybe 12-18 inches at most. That's a very limited distance for building speed & power, there's a lot of weight behind it but not much speed.
> 
> With a standing knee there's a good 4-5 feet for accelerating the knee into the target, there's not as much weight behind it but there's a heck of a lot more speed. Recall from high school physics that kinetic energy is given by mass x velocity squared; double the speed and there's 4 times as much energy, triple the speed and you get 9 times as much. A standing knee won't have as much weight behind it but the speed more than makes up for that.
> 
> Or to put it another way, it's the difference between getting hit by a Hummer at 30mph or a Honda Civic at 60mph. Either way, you're probably gonna die.


A) like I said, dropping knees is illegal and I won't touch on it anyways unless you're talking about jumping and pointing a knee straight down into someones stomach which will likely cause huge amounts of damage as well because the tissue is soft. 

B) The "Knee vs Stomp" is a good argument, but you're forgetting a couple things. Stomps are not stagnant attacks. You don't just jump into the air and straighten your leg and land on them with it, you use your muscle to force the foot down at the same time. Also, I realize that a standing knee could travel quite a bit faster and have more energy behind it, but it also lacks two things that the stomps I'm talking about have which are inertia and a solid mass behind the object with little room for deflection or recoil to soften the blow. A stomp will have MUCH more inertia behind it and thus come down with more force than a knee would. The knee takes less force to stop and therefore it's energy dissipates at a much mroe rapid speed. Also, there are other things that protect against the force of the knee. If it's to the head, the natural recoil of the neck and arms of the clincher help to dampen the blow. If it's to the body, which is soft tissue and a much larger surface area, the elasticity of the human body and the "ripple effect" helps dissipate it. 



> LOL did you attend stomp school?


Not quite, but I've studied around 14 different martial arts including some that use stomps. I've been training in MMA for about 4 years and I graduated high school so I understand the science and anatomy behind what's going on. I've always had a keen interest in science and anatomy throughout school so it's helped me a lot in my martial arts endeavors, especially in Muay Thai and BJJ.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

headstomps should be legal, for sure. soccer kicks too, for sure.


----------



## ZeroPRIDE (Apr 12, 2006)

KillerShark1985 said:


> I'm with KryOnicle 100% with the head kicks, it comes down to weather you want to watch a brawl for show or skilled sport, rules like this are needed to progress the show into a sport.
> 
> as for the scoring system I just had a flash idea whats more than likely very stupid, when I first has this idea 5 mins ago I thought it was stupid but now I think more about it, I'm starting to think it would be quite good.
> 
> ...


ok.lets say s fighter dominated for 2 rounds and by the 3rd he is gassed and gets picked apart(this happens often mind you). Still thing he should lose?


----------



## michelangelo (Feb 1, 2009)

One thing I've noticed about Pride fights, are the primitive striking techniques and almost complete lack of defense against strikes. 

This can make for comic hilarity *(Don Frye vs. Yoshihiro Takayama) *or crazy KO's *(Mirko vs. anybody)*, but by today's standards, these fights look more like local yokle 'tough man' contests than legitimate competition between premier athletes.

But, I still love watching Pride fights, UFC fights, and even Strikeforce fights. Even EliteXC had some awesome fights. MMA is where it's at, period.


----------



## _JB_ (May 30, 2007)

That was a great read thanks for finding that. I only got into Pride properly after it had finished how i would have loved to have watched an event live.


----------



## underover (Nov 19, 2009)

Pride and the IVC, and the early UFC's, were without doubt the more entertaining, and definately the better depiction of a true one to one fight. That being said, for this sport to progress, all the new rules enforced, be it less exciting. Are deemed necessary in todays world politic's.
I still dont personally agree with the scoring system in use, and a tweak of the rules, here and there, could make things better?


----------



## nathan.keith (Feb 2, 2010)

I like the ten minute first round. It increases the chance of keeping the fight out of the judges hands. If it were up to me I'd get rid of the judges. I have a hard time calling any judged event a sport yet mma remains my favorite sport. There should be a clear winner. If you want to know the reason for my distaste for judges think about the bisping vs hamill. That was sickening. I think it should start with a 10 min round followed by as many 5 min rounds as it takes for someone to win. Sure there will be many fights end out of pure exaustion but is that any worse than it ending with a bell?


----------

