Face stomps FTW!

Each one of those uppercuts at 0:54 would probably kill me.

And yeah, the "rules" to "ultimate fighting" kind of get old but Silva's the man. He proves that you can get around them.

Yea I'm not too sure if I like that head stomping. I'm even ok with the face kicking. Just the head stomps seem too brutal and unnecessary.

UFC has put a stop to things like cheap shotting the guy after referee stoppage. Or say ignoring the referee. UFC is better from a sporting standpoint, so it will not only last longer but have fighters willing to stick around in it. This video was mostly showcasing professionally sanctioned thuggery.

[redacted]

@LarsaruS
So you don't like the ufc.. because you can't paralyze people? ..?!?!?

It's supposed to be sport fighting. Not televised manslaughter.
There are rules in place to protect people's lives and careers.

Perfect example. Mark Coleman Vs. Allan Goes at min 1:55
Throwing knees to Goes' head while he's already in a choke on the ground.

Goes' brain is starved of oxygen while it's being bounced around his skull.
His neck is cranked and being compressed even more with each blow.

Goes was knocked out thankfully. If not:

1- His skull would've been busted open
2- His neck would've been snapped
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second.

Saying that disallowing knees or stomps to a downed opponent benefits fighters "dumb enough" to "lie down in a fight"..

Is like saying disallowing eye gouges or arm breaks benefit fighters "dumb enough" to "leave their eyes or ligaments unguarded in a fight"

Please realize how crude your statement sounds. You may wanna cut back on the horror movies a bit. =/ =]

Couldn't agree more with GenjiKilpatrick. I don't comment often (if at all), but I felt compelled to speak up regarding this. Original poster needs to rephrase his statement or seek help. What. The. Fuck. I am aghast. Please don't attempt to legitimize this by arguing that these people voluntarily engage in this kind of activity. If they do so, it's because are afflicted by a lack of empathy along with foolish pride, recklessness and sadism. That is all.

I think the posters comments may have been an attempt at trolling

I don't know why you guys are freaking out over this, Pride was around for 11 years. To say their rules are sadistic is coming from ignorance of the nature of their fights. Imo, the more you limit the fighters the more repetitive and narrow the fights become.

From the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_Fighting_Championships#Match_conduct

Differences from the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts

Some states' athletic commissions require mixed martial arts events to modify rules to match the Mixed Martial Arts Unified Rules of Combat, as introduced by the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board, and adopted by the Nevada State Athletic Commission in order to receive state sanctioning.[19][20]

Pride's rules differed from the Unified Rules of Combat in the following ways:

* Pride allows kicking and kneeing the head of a downed opponent. This is considered a foul in the Unified Rules, which only allows kicks and knees to the head of a standing opponent.
* Pride allows a fighter to stomp the head of a downed opponent. This is considered a foul in the Unified Rules.
* Pride allows a fighter to spike (piledriver) an opponent onto the canvas on his head or neck. This is considered a foul in the Unified Rules.
* Pride does not allow elbow strikes to the head of an opponent. The Unified rules allows elbows provided they are not striking directly down with the point of the elbow.
* Pride's matches include a ten minute first round, with two minute rest periods. The Unified rules allow rounds no longer than five minutes, with rest periods not exceeding one minute.
* Pride's matches are not judged on the ten point must system, rather judges score the whole fight. The Unified rules call for all matches to be judged using the ten point must system.

At the announcement on March 27, 2007 that the Fertittas are purchasing Pride, it was stated that all future Pride events (after Pride 34) would be held under Unified Rules, eliminating 10 minute opening rounds, ground knees, stomps and more, though there were no more Pride events held to use these rules.[21]

From a spectator standpoint Pride fights are more intense to watch. Due to the lack of ruling against head kicks while the opponent is on the ground, the grappling stalemates common in the UFC are fewer.

Here's Joe Rogan's opinion on the matter. It's not too absolute, but he points out benefits of both: http://blog.joerogan.net/archives/1772

@GenjiKilpatrick No I don't like the UFC because they have so many rules which benefits ground fighters. As I stated. Please don't put words in my mouth. If I disliked them because I felt that people should be allowed to paralyse each other I would have written that, as in "I don't like the UFC because they don't allow fighters to paralyse each other.", I did not. (Well, until I wrote that example.)

Although the fights would be a lot shorter if they did (People doing the guillotine would go for snap and not tap.)

Also broken bones happen from time to time when you fight whether it is allowed or not. The latest I can recall is the fight between Lidell and Franklin where a standing kick broke Franklin's arm but he kept on fighting anyway. Another example would be a former club mate (not former due to events described here) of mine who broke his arm in the first round of a WTF Taekwondo fight from blocking a kick and he fought the rest of the match with a broken arm.

@ghark Nope, no trolls here. I even checked under the sofa

@ToKeyMonsTeR Thank you. The problem is that MMA has become a style so every single fighter fights exactly the same way, using the same 10 techniques that everybody else does. This goes against the intent of MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) IMO as no one is mixing anything anymore. Heck there are gyms who teach the style MMA which is ridiculous.

@Ryjkyj Thanks and see comment to ToKeyMonsTer

@Contrarianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership either you agree to it or you don't.

@rottenseed Thanks for the link! It was an interesting read and he makes some valid points in there.

To all a good night/morning/midday/whatever it might be at your location!

I neither found the video entertaining or your arguments sufficiently valid.

Downvote.

>> ^Seric:

I neither found the video entertaining or your arguments sufficiently valid.
Downvote.


I don't find your argument to be sufficiently valid.

>> ^ToKeyMonsTeR:

>> ^Seric:
I neither found the video entertaining or your arguments sufficiently valid.
Downvote.

I don't find your argument to be sufficiently valid.


I don't find your FACE sufficiently valid!

*ahem*

sorry Torquay, I didn't mean that...what I meant to say was:

Well Door Key, thank god we have a democratic style system here whereby voting determines the success of a video rather than the ideas of an individual.

Thoughts can be freely exchanged whilst being moderated by an overall majority, that way everyone can agree or disagree with an argument (or in this case, statement T__T ) without (again, in this case) affecting the majority vote of a video.

What I'm trying to say Palm Tree, is that a voting system allows me to have an opinion - and if that opinion is attempted to be quashed by a nonsensical one-liner. I will write a long, useless and utterly pointless post in response.

The part where the guy got body slammed?

He never took a judo class. If you are about to get picked up, you release the grip of your legs this way the guy picking you up has all your weight.

He basically assisted in his own body slam, buy holding on.

^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/LarsaruS" title="member since December 27th, 2009" class="profilelink">LarsaruS
So you don't like the ufc.. because you can't paralyze people? ..?!?!?
It's supposed to be sport fighting. Not televised manslaughter.
There are rules in place to protect people's lives and careers.
Perfect example. Mark Coleman Vs. Allan Goes at min 1:55
Throwing knees to Goes' head while he's already in a choke on the ground.
Goes' brain is starved of oxygen while it's being bounced around his skull.
His neck is cranked and being compressed even more with each blow.
Goes was knocked out thankfully. If not:
1- His skull would've been busted open
2- His neck would've been snapped



Coleman was not choking or neckcranking Goes. It is physically impossible for you to effectively choke someone close to your body and land knees at the same time, especially since a large portion of the power in a knee strike comes from your core. Knee strikes from this position should be perfectly legal, to reduce the amount of stalling and stalemates that you frequently see in the UFC. What the ufc has done is neutralize what was previously an extremely disadvantageous position for guy on the bottom.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

The part where the guy got body slammed?
He never took a judo class. If you are about to get picked up, you release the grip of your legs this way the guy picking you up has all your weight.
He basically assisted in his own body slam, buy holding on.


The problem with your theory is that you're not fighting Rampage. The strength and speed with which Rampage slammed Arona gives you very little time to react and untangle your legs from the triangle.

@Seric I respect your opinion. Also, that was a wonderful comeback. Good on Ya! It was also a great explanation of democracy and what voting (up or down) means :-D

@mentality Thank you.

>> ^Seric:

>> ^ToKeyMonsTeR:
>> ^Seric:
I neither found the video entertaining or your arguments sufficiently valid.
Downvote.

I don't find your argument to be sufficiently valid.

I don't find your FACE sufficiently valid!
ahem
sorry Torquay, I didn't mean that...what I meant to say was:
Well Door Key, thank god we have a democratic style system here whereby voting determines the success of a video rather than the ideas of an individual.
Thoughts can be freely exchanged whilst being moderated by an overall majority, that way everyone can agree or disagree with an argument (or in this case, statement T__T ) without (again, in this case) affecting the majority vote of a video.
What I'm trying to say Palm Tree, is that a voting system allows me to have an opinion - and if that opinion is attempted to be quashed by a nonsensical one-liner. I will write a long, useless and utterly pointless post in response.


What I like about the "democratic" system here is the ability to *quality this as I see fit, maybe even shoot it a promote when I get another power point. Each side has valid arguments, and I'll tend to agree with both sides (interestingly enough).

The only problem I have is with the following argument:
Please don't attempt to legitimize this by arguing that these people voluntarily engage in this kind of activity. If they do so, it's because are afflicted by a lack of empathy along with foolish pride, recklessness and sadism.

How can you not legitimize what they do because they do it voluntarily? They absolutely know the risks of stepping in that ring, and do so willingly. I just wanted to make it clear that these guys know exactly what they're getting into. Why they do it, is for their own reasons, not for YOU to decide, but for them. (I wouldn't call them sadists, I have a friend who fights MMA and is certainly not one.)

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tymbrwulf.

I'm so sick of hearing 'Bodies' in every MMA video.

But to the topic at hand... It's important to remember this is a 'highlight reel'. You didn't have this kind of brutality from start to finish in a Pride event.

I would like the unified rules to be a little more open just to keep the fighters moving, but not so much that there's a huge risk of serious injury. I like the fighters to keep coming back, not end up in a wheelchair.

The 12-6 elbow is obviously a really stupid rule. Elbows are fine as-is in unified rules aside from that.

Knees to the head of a grounded opponent are fine with me, so long as it's not to the top of the head (compressing the spine), likewise with soccer kicks.

Piledrivers and strikes to the base of the neck should remain illegal.

I'm not sure about headbutting. I don't know of a good reason for it to be illegal off the top of my head.

Whether or not they can grab the cage seems like a wash to me. I both like and dislike things about either approach.

One thing I really can't stand in Pride is the ring/ropes. Every time the fighters get near them a dozen people start grabbing at the fighters and pushing them away from the ropes. To me that's like allowing people on the sidelines of a basketball game to grab the players if they get close enough. Resetting the match in the middle of the ring doesn't make me any happier.

Yes, it's frustrating to see people get trapped against the cage in UFC sometimes, but the octagon is pretty damn big. You probably fucked up pretty badly to get yourself stuck there.

Also, remember that the UFC doesn't make the rules, the SACs do. UFC has been campaigning for rules changes for at least a few years now.

@xxovercastxx

Can't agree more with you on the Bodies issue... but I find it in ~95% of all full contact Martial Art clips...

I did not know about the SAC - UFC issue. Thanks for enlightening me.