Issue 021

January 2007

By Grant Waterman 

Look back at some of your favourite fights over the past few years. There have been so many fantastic displays of courage, skill, strength, speed and controlled aggression that’s it’s difficult to single any out. Some of mine would have to include, Mark Weir v Alex Reid 2, Cyborg v Melvin Manhoef and the epic tear up between Chris Lytle and Robbie Lawler at UFC 45.

If you haven’t seen any of these, you really must get a copy. Ok, I know it looks like I just enjoy stand up slugfests, but that’s not the case. I really do enjoy all the different aspects of MMA. Otherwise I’d be off refereeing that old out of date sport known as, oh what was it again? That’s it, boxing (only joking, boxing fans).

Now, the point of this article is to see if your favourite fights would have been much different if they were under another organisations rules. Maybe a PRIDE fight under UFC rules or in the UK, an Angrrr Management fight under Cage Rage rules. For example, if Cyborg and Melvin Manhoef would have fought under UFC rules instead of Cage Rage rules, do you think that that particular fight would have had a different outcome, or would either fighter have fought in a different way? I don’t think they would have. If you try hard I’m sure you can find an example of a fight that ended due to a technique only allowed by that event but this is a general look at the big picture of MMA. I am also fully aware that certain fighters will use specific techniques to win a fight and train to fight in one particular organisation.

There are a lot of debates going on all the time about rules. Should elbows be allowed? Should kicks to the head of a downed opponent be allowed? But is it as big an issue as some people make out? I understand that different organisations want to maintain there own identity and that may be by having slight variations in their rules may set them apart from rival promotions, however I think that one set of rules that were globally recognised would help push MMA towards being recognised as a genuine serious sport with a single identity. .

PRIDE FC recently held its first show in America. The Nevada State Athletic Commission (who govern MMA and boxing) allowed the show to go ahead under the condition that techniques including stomps, kicks and knees to the head of a downed fighter were made illegal. (PRIDE decided to maintain their policy of no elbow strikes to the head). This, you may think, would be a huge restriction for fighters who had previously fought under PRIDE rules. Never the less, the show produced some outstanding fights and was highly entertaining. Did anyone in attendance actually notice the rule changes?

MMA purists may argue that the sport has been diluted somewhat over the years, from its roots back in Brazil or the very early UFC’s, and some still say that there are too many rules and we should go back to the ‘anything goes’ days. Come on guys, let’s be sensible. MMA is still evolving and I don’t think the powers that be are finished with fine-tuning the rules. The rules need to have a balance between maximum fighter safety and maximum entertainment value, and I think the big guns such as UFC and PRIDE are pretty much there. We just need to get that conformity across the board. 

Politics between rival organisations may mean that establishing a globally recognised set of MMA rules is a long way off, however I truly believe that all the major promoters of this sport are not just trying to make money out of it. They are actually genuine fans of MMA and have the fighters safety as a top priority as well as putting on highly entertaining productions. I’m not sure I could say that about other popular combat sports.

We are quite lucky with MMA because we still have the flexibility to manipulate our rules without sacrificing the basics of the sport, in a nutshell, striking in all ranges and grappling both standing or on the ground. Take a sport like boxing and they are in a Catch-22 situation. The main cause of long-term injury in boxing is punching to the head. How could boxing organisations change their rules to cut down on the number of injuries? Would they be able to have matches where the fighters punch to the body only, or perhaps each fighter could wear a padded head guard? No way, it wouldn’t work would it?

Interestingly enough, of all the fighters I speak to about rules, and its usually about which techniques you can and can not use in a fight, some seem to have a differing opinion to the spectators. If you ask members of a live audience at a show if they would mind if elbow strikes were made illegal, not many seem to mind. The general consensus I get is that it is not very good from a spectator’s point of view to watch two guys on the ground with the one on top throwing short elbow strikes. It seems they’d rather see him posture up a bit and throw some big punches, which is much more visual. Fighters seem split in this debate. Some use elbow strikes very effectively as part of their arsenal of techniques, and would like them to stay, while others are indifferent.  Some have had their fights stopped by a cut from an elbow though, so wouldn’t mind them being taken out. Of course some of the rules used by PRIDE are quite dramatic, like allowing one fighter to soccer kick another while he is on all fours. This too is highly visual, but I’m unsure how this would be accepted in Europe or the UK. 

Please don’t read into this that I am for or against taking away or adding techniques to one or other organisations rules. I am a fan of MMA as well as being lucky enough to work within the industry. If I stopped refereeing tomorrow I’d still go to the shows and buy the pay per views. Whether it’s UFC rules or PRIDE rules or whatever, as a spectator I enjoy them all.