cage forever. When I see a cage I know I'm watching an MMA fight. When I see a ring I can't tell if it's boxing, kickboxing or MMA until I see the gloves, no shoes or the sponsors on the shorts. If it's just a mat I might think it's Wrestling or Judo The cage is an Icon...barbaric or not I love it
actually i have alot more experence than tv...i was an army ranger and spent a good deal of time in the third world "boots on the ground" iraq, saudi, jabouti, kuwait, cuba (getmoe only but im counting it ,haiti, jabuiti, kenya, somolia, korea, thailand, sani, japan, canda, brazil, mexico, germany france and luxemburg are all the countries that i have been to. not all third world, some duty related some, vacations....but needless to say i have seen my fair share of the world, my comment was kinda toung in cheek....and for the most part ...even a spot like somolia most people are not politically active or militarily active...its only the 1 or so percent who affect the outcomes of a country. and for the most part they want to get on with there life. i dont know you that well and many times its hard to read a persons internet tone......but to me it sounds like you are acting a bit like a know it all and a touch condisending. if that is so ...i think you could do some reseach on the third world. its alot more viloent of a place than you may think. in africa alone there were 57 armed conflict in 45 locations from in the 1990s most never even make TV NEWS!!!!!! for every dar fur ...where some douch like bono and angila jollie grab headline and rail agaist there is a unknown one that never gets any media ink....check out this little daisy http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6576&IBLOCK_ID=35 ask a fella from serra leon if he preferres a short sleeve to a long sleeve.....and you will find out he is not talking about fashion...but where they cut his arm of at. Current Conflicts Algeria Insurgency 1992 --> Angola Cabinda 1975 --> Burma Insurgency 1950 --> China Senkaku Islands 1968 --> China Spratly Islands 1988 --> Colombia Insurgencies 1970s--> Congo (Zaire) Congo War 1998--> Georgia Civil War 1991--> India Assam 1985 --> India Kashmir 1970s--> India Naxalite Uprising 1967 --> Indonesia Aceh 1986 --> Indonesia Kalimantan 1983 --> Indonesia Maluku 1999 - Indonesia Papua / West Irian 1963 --> Israel Al-Aqsa Intifada 2000 --> Israel Lebanon 2006 --> Ivory Coast Civil War 2002 --> Korea Korean War 1953 --> Laos Hmong Insurgency 2000 --> Moldova Transdniester 1991--> Namibia Caprivi Strip 1966--> Nepal Maoists 1996 --> Nigeria Civil Disturbances 1997 - Pakistan Baluchistan 2004 - Palestine Civil War 2007--> Peru Shining Path 1970s--> Philippines Moro Uprising 1970s--> Russia Chechen Uprising 1992 --> Somalia Civil War 1991--> Spain Basque Uprising 1970s--> Sri Lanka Tamil Separatists 1983 --> Sudan Darfur 1983 --> Thailand Islamic Rebels 2001 --> Turkey Kurdistan 1984 --> Uganda Civil Conflict 1980 --> United States Afghanistan 1980 --> United States Djibouti 2001 --> United States Iraq 1990 --> United States Philippines 1898 --> Uzbekistan Civil Disturbances 2005 --> Yemen Sheik al-Houti you will see that the third world is disproportionally represented. and im not even including butalizations of the local citezenry
Chill out dude, it was a tongue in cheek rebuttal to your tongue in cheek post. Third world countries wouldn't be third world countries if they didn't have a heap of problems, and I am pretty well researched with regards to conflicts in Africa and South/SE Asia. Plus my parents and I are from a "third world country" - India (oops did I say third world and India in the same sentence?), so I know what it's like. Was just trying to point out it isn't all RPG's and ethnic cleansing. Just like Merka isn't all muggings and gang warfare. Jeez...you army guys are giving me a right roasting today. [/topic drift]
opps sorry.....im really not mad..so no need to chill out......like i said tone is so hard to tell on the internet...im sure if we were face to face we would be smoking and joking.....
im real curious....most peoples sugestions kind of went to a real no holds bar everything legal sort of thing. do any of you guys fight....or are you all just spectators. if you were fighting would you still favor these rules? i compete and i dont like elbows....causes cuts way to easy dont like head butts....favors wrestlers way to much...im a decent wrestler (4 years highschool) but headbutts really make it a wrestlers game. i like a ref who stands the guys up kinda quick...im a better mt guy than a bjj guy. 3- 3 minute rounds is long enough. and forget about groin, eye and fishhooks, you guys can debate there effectivness to the cows come home...i like to do it and i like to see who im doing it too. am kinda in favor of kneeing and kicking a guy on the ground.....make them pay for a failed takedown attempt
I am a happy beer-swillin' money-spendin' spectator that wants to see bloody finishes, brutal submissions, and put-em-to-sleep choke outs. Sure I like a "technical" fight but don't bore me with the hugging, delaying, avoiding the fight and wait for a decision stuff that goes on. FIGHT!!!!!! Heck no! If I am going to "compete in a sports environment" ("fight" as you put it), I'd like to have lots of rules to protect me and my partner and I sure don't want to be bleeding or getting choked out. That's why I do Taekwondo! But, for the guys who want to devote a few years of their life trying to make it the "big leagues of MMA", I say let me see the grit and desire to succeed at the cost of beating your opponent bloody (just like they say in their pre-fight WWE-esque interviews).... show me the blood and chokes, and broken bones!!!!!!
Heh heh heh - is this directed to my post? If so, please keep in mind that the thread's OP set this up as a thread to "fantasize" over what rules we'd like to see... as a spectator that's what I'd like to see. As a competitor, I like all the protection I can get. So, unless you are advocating for fight fans to only request those rules that they would compete under (or maybe require that spectators actually compete before they can speculate on rules), I'd have to say "Chill out and tell us what you ideal rules as a competitor and/or spectator would be..." From the original post:
Even in a "Real Fight"(TM) I wouldn't recommend biting, fishhooking, clawing, etc unless you're familiar with the blood-borne disease status of the person you're doing it to. Plus it will encourage them to do the same, and they're not even that good for fighting. Win the fight, get put in jail for grievous bodily harm and as a pleasant bonus already have Hep C? sounds like a plan
It's directed at several posts, actually. But yes, your is one of them. If people ain't tough enough to put up in the ring, they need to save their fantasies of bad Jean-Claude Van Damme flicks for the discount DVD aisle. And I already said what my ideal ruleset is. The rules don't need fixing, the scoring, weight classes, and women's MMA need fixing.
That's funny. I don't know (or care) if I am "tough enough to put up in the ring" but I do know what I like as far as competition rules to watch (and I would feel confident enough to offer my opinions on all manners of things from boxing to WWE to car racing to science fiction movies even if I didn't feel "tough enough to put up in" them either.) Since it seems like you must be "tough enough to put up in the ring", I'd love to see what your MMA record is... ? Anyway, thanks for the laughs. Ooooh, thanks for the reminder - for my ideal I'd have to add "less weight classes" (or even none, to make it truly "as real as it gets"). I've never seen women's MMA so I'll have to withhold judgement for now.
addendum to my earlier post: i would also change the cut stoppage rules. cut stoppage first round, no contest. cut stoppage after that, judges' decision.
eh tom....if you are a hippocrite at least you are an honest hippocrite. i think the bulk of the fans are like that. in fact i had a bunch of fans boo me and throw beer cups on the ring in one of my fight. had a real hard hitter BUT i managed to drop him in the first, second, and third......spent the last round running away from him. i wanted the WIN the fans always want carnage....thats the way it is ...since romans freed christians to the lions.....till now. there is some resent ment to that....i also dont like my non fight friends to come to my fights ...thye tend to tease if i lose.....guys its not so easy
problem with open weght classes is that it eliminates alot of small fighters (and most people since most of us fall in the 5 8 to 6 ft 140 to 200lbs).......btw you can compete in any weight class you like a 150 lbs can compete in 175....it just ussally dont work out well for them.
I'd just bring back Pride's ruleset, but get some unbiased judges when it comes to MMA. The ruleset, weight classes, judging/ scoring criteria and sanctions for inactivity just made for really action packed fights for a spectator for the most part In my own competitive realm: I'd make sport sambo matches allow chokes
Yeah... I think there is a big disconnect between fans or spectators and the competitors or fighters. Fighters (I think in general) want to be able to compete in a "fair" environment, i.e. against someone of a similar weight, rank (if applicable), and under rules that allow for fighters to use the widest possible range of techniques and at the same time restrict some of the more dangerous stuff. To be honest, I actualy think UFC does a pretty good job with the rules they have in providing a decent compromise and in protecting the fighters. Spectators want to see the most exciting fights that they can and generally some don't care about weight classes or protecting the fighters... for a sport that shares the same fan demographics (and fans) as Pro-Wrestling I think there is a tendency for fans to want KOs, brutal submissions, chokes, and so on. Note how fans boo with decisions, draws, or so-called inactivity (grappling for position sometimes). As a fan, I think the UFC does a decent job of giving the fans what they want without endangering the fighters too much. I don't see myself as a hypocrite really. I want to see good fights but I don't feel the need to compete in those arenas just so I can appreciate the rules. Just like I enjoy watching hard hitting (American) football, I don't play it but don't feel like a hypocrite for debating the merits of the 'instant replay" or other various rules.
ahh, so you're your ok turning MMA into the WWE. Check. That says a lot about what ytour opinion is worth in the grand scheme of things. Of course, you know what they say about opinions. Sadly it's true in this thread. A) my rules are sane, not out of a bad b-class action film B) when I start my MMA classes later this year, I'll be more than happy to put any fights jup, just like I do with my BJJ vids, even the ones I lose. What disappoints me most about this is that you claim to be so knowledgable about MMA, but come across as an utterly clueless dullard in this case.
