Under EXC rules, Shamrock was disqualified for knee strikes to the back of the head, however under the current fragmented practice that runs through MMA, an organization could surface in which the same knee strikes would be legal, and then you'd have a different fight on your hands.
Would Shamrock win under the new set of rules or would Renzo alter his game plan to compensate?
This type of debate could go on forever and is a major roadblock to MMA's evolution into the premiere sport. Boxing , even in its recent decline, at least operates its bouts under almost identical rules. Whether a bout is held under the WBA, WBC, IBF, or WBO sanctioning body, there are very minor differences in the rules. MMA has major differences in rules.
In Pride the bouts take place in what looks like a boxing ring and fighters can execute soccer style kicks to the head of a downed opponent. The same bout in the UFC would be held inside the Octagon cage and the fallen fighter would not have to worry about being kicked in his head since it is not allowed.
This is only one variation of the rules in MMA. With so many differences between organizations, we are not really witnessing a sport. We are watching individual events within a sport similar to track and field where there are sprints, long distance running, and various other competitions.
MMA will continue to suffer as long as situations like the controversial ending to the Shamrock Gracie bout are permitted to exist. Fighters will be able to say, "I would destroy him in Pride," after a UFC loss. That is preposterous.
One set of rules where any fighter can face another regardless of the organization is sorely needed. Boxing may be on the decline, but it was at the forefront for decades for good reason. MMA needs to sit up and follow the successful blueprint. The sport will only suffer until that happens. And the real losers are the fans.
Register and discuss in the forum.
|