IF you actually believe that utterly garbage comparision you made and MOST of the points you made…you’re exactly what this sport doesnt need.

UNEDUCATED fear mongering in order to lord your views over that of others who have numbers and facts on their sides. By using logic like your’s – it should be illegal to cross the street b/c you *might* be struck by a bus.

The arguments against such rules are petty, biased and completely unfounded. Trying to compare biting and eye gouging to actual skilled striking is fucking insanely stupid.

Well, sure, but we were talking about reasons that would prevent the sale from taking place. A police investigation into the owners of DSE has nothing to do with selling PRIDE. What happens to Microsoft of Bill Gates turns out to be in the mafia? Nothing.

Case in point: Silva vs. Hendo II.

Hendo went in for a shot in the 3rd round when he’d taken some solid shots. It was a lazy shoot and Silva caught him with a great sprawl. He then had him in perfect position to deliver some vicious knees from the clinch. But since Henderson was in the 4-point stance…he couldnt do anything. And the worst part was Henderson took advantage of the rule even more by purposely maintaining the 4-point stance. Why bother trying to stand back up? You’re safer there. In a PRIDE fight, under PRIDE rules I’d say that could very well have effected the outcome of the fight.

The “Unified Rules” penalize strikers and are skewed to grapplers/wrestlers. If you got for a takedown here’s what happens: (a) you get him down are on top – adv. grappler; (b) you shoot and don’t get the takedown – AT WORST – its a neutral position as he cannot kick and knee you. So you’re free to flail on the ground hoping to trip them up.

There should be something in place that penalizes the grappler for making a lazy shoot. He shouldnt be able to go for a move that puts him in (a) advantageous position or (b) neutral position – there needs to be that (c) disadvantaged position…otherwise why wouldnt you continually attempt something that in no way hurts your position?

I realize im generalizing it to the extreme – but I feel the point still holds significant weight.

If Japanese authorities use the cash to trace back to Yakuza, that means the sale would have already taken place. ”

It depends on how the purchase goes through. If it is an asset purchase then it is no different than buying physical property and it is no big deal. However if Zuffa buys Pride as a company (in other words becomes a DSE shareholder) then with Pride comes any liabilities associated with it.

I think stomps/soccer kicks to the head of a downed opponent does have the potential to make a fight more exciting and definitely gives the fighters more options. That said, I could do without them. Having them there does detract from the “sporting” element to MMA. As someone noted earlier, it’s not a street fight.

One thing that always disturbed me about this rule was the double knee drop Hunt attempted on Nishijima. Can you imagine the carnage that would have been done to Nishijima’s face had Hunt actually connected?

Really? So having stomps would make people enjoy watching someone work from the bottom more? How exactly does that work? Boy, that crowd sure hated watching Couture and Monson lay on Sylvia, or when Penn work rubber guard against Hughes. If you listen closely enough, those absolutely molten cheers are really jeers directed at Penn’s effort towards an omoplata.

I still don’t see how investigating the possibly-soon-to-be-former owners of PRIDE can have any bearing on a legitimate business transaction, unless they’re breaking laws in the process of the transaction.

If Japanese authorities use the cash to trace back to Yakuza, that means the sale would have already taken place.

Are you serious? Well for one, Sakuraba jumping over the guard would’ve never been legal. Cro Cop has finished dudes by booting them in the head a handfull of times. Baroni/Minowa 1 comes to mind as a recent fight that was finished decisively due to stomps. There are a ton.