Pride FC vs UFC

Kev_2012

Hi guys,

What are your thoughts on modern day UFC in comparison to Pride?

Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.

Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.

The Bored One

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Hi guys,

What are your thoughts on modern day UFC in comparison to Pride?

Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.

Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.

If we're talking about the technical aspects, then the modern UFC is distinctly superior to Pride. The level of technique involved and required in the sport has evolved way beyond what appeared in in the days of Pride.
As for raw strength over technique...that is distinctly not an accurate appraisal over how the sport works.
There is a distinct difference between relying on strength instead of techique and making use of strength while performing technique.

Anyway, so from a technical standpoint, modern UFC is better.
From a showmanship point of view, Pride really had that nailed.

Rob01

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Hi guys,

Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.

Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.

My opinion on this would be, that is one of the most ridiculous comments/posts I have seen on this forum.

dilapidating

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Hi guys,

What are your thoughts on modern day UFC in comparison to Pride?

Personally, I have pretty much given up on watching MMA because it favours raw strength over technique because of the cage and also I find *most* of the UFC fighters to be lacklustre.

Just wanted to see what other peoples opinions on this are.

The raw strength thing is completely wrong in my opinion.
But i do agree with some fighters turning the sport into a 'less showy, let's grind out a victory' which isn't entertaining for the fans.

empacher

head on over to sherdog and you'll find loads of sympathizers. you should probably add in that fedor was the greatest ever somewhere.

Kev_2012

Rob01 wrote: »

My opinion on this would be, that is one of the most ridiculous comments/posts I have seen on this forum.

Why? I trained in jiu Jitsu for many years and watched pride, UFC and K-1, but, from watching over the years, I find that in UFC, wrestlers especially the stronger ones just pin opponents to the cage. I prefer the fight to be reset in the middle of the ring so that technique wins over strength. I don't think pinning someone to a cage shows much if any skill and certainly doesn't merit reward in the form of a victory.

In terms of fighters, I find the UFC fighters to be of lower quality for this reason. There are some quality fighters there alright (GSP, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones etc.) but then you have over hyped average fighters like Michael Bisping etc, who just dont cut the mustard.

Personally, I found Pride to be a superior franchise.

Kev_2012

empacher wrote: »

head on over to sherdog and you'll find loads of sympathizers. you should probably add in that fedor was the greatest ever somewhere.

Well he probably was the greatest fighter ever, but he is well past it now. Fedor in his prime would have beaten anyone that ever fought in the UFC. Only thing that bothered me about him is that he had a tendency to fall into armbars and gave away his back a lot. Used to drive me mad!

dilapidating

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well he probably was the greatest fighter ever, but he is well past it now. Fedor in his prime would have beaten anyone that ever fought in the UFC. Only thing that bothered me about him is that he had a tendency to fall into armbars and gave away his back a lot. Used to drive me mad!

I think Kimbo had superior raw strength.

Kev_2012

dilapidating wrote: »

The raw strength thing is completely wrong in my opinion.
But i do agree with some fighters turning the sport into a 'less showy, let's grind out a victory' which isn't entertaining for the fans.

It's just my opinion from watching it, could be a symptom of having so many wrestlers in the franchise. Just look at Lesnar, Ortiz, Couture etc. They couldn't have used a ring in that method to play to their strengths.

Yes, that is a another point. I feel that the fighters are going for a more brute force type of training as opposed to becoming more skilled as regards striking/ground work.

Kev_2012

dilapidating wrote: »

I think Kimbo had superior raw strength.

Maybe so, but the same could have been said about Kevin Randleman

dilapidating

Kev_2012 wrote: »

It's just my opinion from watching it, could be a symptom of having so many wrestlers in the franchise. Just look at Lesnar, Ortiz, Couture etc. They couldn't have used a ring in that method to play to their strengths.

Yes, that is a another point. I feel that the fighters are going for a more brute force type of training as opposed to becoming more skilled as regards striking/ground work.

Even JDS who is one of the best strikers in the game and keeps his matches standing up has a brown belt in BJJ.
I think all the fighters are getting better in every aspect of their game.

Kev_2012

dilapidating wrote: »

Even JDS who is one of the best strikers in the game and keeps his matches standing up has a brown belt in BJJ.
I think all the fighters are getting better in every aspect of their game.

Well in fairness I don't think that any pro MMA fighter could possibly fighter without having a decent grade of ground based martial arts. Just look at the likes of Cro Cop and any other K1 fighters that made the move the MMA, they generally get destroyed so it is a must really.

Actually, in UFC, you will find that a lot of ground based fighters will stay on the ground to invite the challenge because you can't soccer kick in UFC. I think this can play to certain fighters advantages. UFC doesn't favour the out and out striker IMO.

Rob01

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Why? I trained in jiu Jitsu for many years and watched pride, UFC and K-1, but, from watching over the years, I find that in UFC, wrestlers especially the stronger ones just pin opponents to the cage. I prefer the fight to be reset in the middle of the ring so that technique wins over strength. I don't think pinning someone to a cage shows much if any skill and certainly doesn't merit reward in the form of a victory.

You don't think shooting for a double or single leg, taking your opponent down, then keeping him down, especially if he has a good BJJ ground game requires much if any skill? Well then I don't think you fully understand the skill involved in doing so.

It's mixed martial arts don't forget, and different fighters will always have different styles. It's up to whoever is not of a wrestling background to train on counteracting this!

Kev_2012 wrote: »

In terms of fighters, I find the UFC fighters to be of lower quality for this reason. There are some quality fighters there alright (GSP, Anderson Silva, Jon Jones etc.) but then you have over hyped average fighters like Michael Bisping etc, who just dont cut the mustard.

Bisping is a big draw for the UFC and has only been beaten by the very top level guys but we could talk all day about him because he has so many people that dislike him. But lower quality fightes in general??? Renan Barao, Ben Henderson, Rory McDonald.....the list could go on and on. All young exciting top quality fighters making a name for themselves.

pablohoney87

I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism

Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.

The Bored One

Kev_2012 wrote: »

UFC doesn't favour the out and out striker IMO.

Why should it? If the striker cannot stop himself being taken down, if he cannot of his own ability get back to his feet, why should it be the responsibility of anyone bar himself?

Logical Fallacy

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Actually, in UFC, you will find that a lot of ground based fighters will stay on the ground to invite the challenge because you can't soccer kick in UFC. I think this can play to certain fighters advantages. UFC doesn't favour the out and out striker IMO.

I find in the UFC that a lot of ground based fighters will completely ignore what they are good at and stay on the feet getting punched in the face until they lose.

I think the Top 10 of any division in the UFC are, for the most part, well round guys with some skill in all areas.

Jason McCabe

The cage does suit the wrestlers due to the control it can give

So learn to wrestle


As for strength. Marius P did not fair that well.

Plus strength generally decreases as numbers of rounds goes up

MrStuffins

Came into this thread with high hopes of a good conversation............ then read the OP!

I am disappoint

Rob01

MrStuffins wrote: »

Came into this thread with high hopes of a good conversation............ then read the OP!

I am disappoint

I think the thread must be just a complete wind up and we are after chomping at the bit. So I'm done with it! :cool:

Kev_2012

Rob01 wrote: »

You don't think shooting for a double or single leg, taking your opponent down, then keeping him down, especially if he has a good BJJ ground game requires much if any skill? Well then I don't think you fully understand the skill involved in doing so.

It's mixed martial arts don't forget, and different fighters will always have different styles. It's up to whoever is not of a wrestling background to train on counteracting this!



Bisping is a big draw for the UFC and has only been beaten by the very top level guys but we could talk all day about him because he has so many people that dislike him. But lower quality fightes in general??? Renan Barao, Ben Henderson, Rory McDonald.....the list could go on and on. All young exciting top quality fighters making a name for themselves.

I wasn't talking about take downs, I was talking about pinning someone to the cage. Of course take downs require skill.

I didn't find him to be a decent fighter from what I've seen personally.

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism

Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.

1. - Fedor has beaten Arlovski, Sylvia, Noguiera, Coleman Randleman. All former UFC champions. He is past it now. Rampage was quite strong in UFC if I do remember correctly.

2. Not necessarily, many of the fighters had strong stand up and ground games. This happens in all MMA franchises.

3. I'm sorry now but Brock Lesnar is a prime example proving otherwise.

The Bored One wrote: »

Why should it? If the striker cannot stop himself being taken down, if he cannot of his own ability get back to his feet, why should it be the responsibility of anyone bar himself?

You probably misinterpreted what I was saying, I had said that grapplers and fighters with strong ground game have the upperhand compared to strikers because you cant soccer kick and can pin against the cage. In pride this didnt happen.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I find in the UFC that a lot of ground based fighters will completely ignore what they are good at and stay on the feet getting punched in the face until they lose.

I think the Top 10 of any division in the UFC are, for the most part, well round guys with some skill in all areas.

Well thats a downfall of the UFC, it encourages a more slugfest/grind out a win style fight as opposed to a disciplined fight.

Jason McCabe wrote: »

The cage does suit the wrestlers due to the control it can give

So learn to wrestle


As for strength. Marius P did not fair that well.

Plus strength generally decreases as numbers of rounds goes up

That's not my point, my point is that watching someone pinned to a cage for 30 minutes is not entertaining. In a ring they would be reset and the fight could go on.

Pudzian is a bodybuilder, I dont even know why he was put into it. He could never be fit enough for MMA.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Came into this thread with high hopes of a good conversation............ then read the OP!

I am disappoint

Why because I have an opinion on a sport that I used to love to watch and compete in for over 10 years until UFC ruined it?

Rob01 wrote: »

I think the thread must be just a complete wind up and we are after chomping at the bit. So I'm done with it! :cool:

How is it a wind up? I genuinely prefer pride rules to UFC rules and wanted to see what others interested in MMA had to say, but hey, you wanna just leave smart comments then please do as you were and leaving this thread.

MrStuffins

Elements of Pride Rules and Japanese rules would benefit modern day MMA, especially the judging.

But lad, you're living in the past. You're making Pride out to have been this be all and end all of MMA, where every fight was between 2 top guys with amazing technique. Talk about rose tinted glasses.

You do realise that a lot of the early Pride fights were works right?

You do realise that Pride facilitated a ridiculous amount of freakshows on their cards yeah? Butterbean v Zulu? Fedor v Zulu? Takese v Yarborough? Countless more!

Pride were known for sticking good guys in against massively over-matched guys in order to create slick highlight videos for their big names.

I'm not denying Pride had great champions and great matches and was, in turn, great. But you're being very selective here in what you're saying. You're misrepresenting what Pride was, it's as if you've never actually seen a Pride event and you've just read about it in a book somewhere.

pablohoney87

Not even gonna entertain arlovski randlemen and Coleman. Sylvia he did destroy but hardly in his prime.
Nog is a legitimate scalp yes.
Rampage was more interested in partying and getting his dik wet in Japan. His attitude to training changed coming back to America.
Brock is a prime example of someone getting a title shot hedidn't deserve. But sure that never happened in pride

Kev_2012

MrStuffins wrote: »

Elements of Pride Rules and Japanese rules would benefit modern day MMA, especially the judging.

But lad, you're living in the past. You're making Pride out to have been this be all and end all of MMA, where every fight was between 2 top guys with amazing technique. Talk about rose tinted glasses.

You do realise that a lot of the early Pride fights were works right?

You do realise that Pride facilitated a ridiculous amount of freakshows on their cards yeah? Butterbean v Zulu? Fedor v Zulu? Takese v Yarborough? Countless more!

Pride were known for sticking good guys in against massively over-matched guys in order to create slick highlight videos for their big names.

I'm not denying Pride had great champions and great matches and was, in turn, great. But you're being very selective here in what you're saying. You're misrepresenting what Pride was, it's as if you've never actually seen a Pride event and you've just read about it in a book somewhere.

Well no its mainly the rules of Pride that I much prefer.

I know there was matches like that, mainly because of the open weight class, they were pretty sh1te.

No you are wrong there, I used follow Pride religiously!

pablohoney87 wrote: »

Not even gonna entertain arlovski randlemen and Coleman. Sylvia he did destroy but hardly in his prime.
Nog is a legitimate scalp yes.
Rampage was more interested in partying and getting his dik wet in Japan. His attitude to training changed coming back to America.
Brock is a prime example of someone getting a title shot hedidn't deserve. But sure that never happened in pride

Well I'm just making the point that they were UFC champions. Sylvia was always a terrible fighter!

This crap goes on in a lot of fight sports but as I said, its the pride rules and use of the ring instead of cage that would benefit UFC immensely, but the cage is the commercial product synonymous with MMA now

pablohoney87

cage is safer. Simple as. I know i wouldn't fight in the ring

Kev_2012

Why not? In case you're thrown out? That's a foul in pride rules.

pablohoney87

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Why not? In case you're thrown out? That's a foul in pride rules.

so if I'm fighting i have to hold back on my drive in case i a. Hurt myself or b. Cause a foul?
not a chance
the ring is a thing of the past and is only still in Japan for nostalgia

MrStuffins

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Why not? In case you're thrown out? That's a foul in pride rules.

DO you honestly need to ask "Why not?" when told a cage is safer? I thought you used to compete for 10 years in MMA?

Also, what do you mean you competed in MMA for 10 years "before UFC ruined it"? Were you competing for 10 years before UFC was around? I'm confused.

Spideog Rua

Pride was awesome...in it's day. Modern days UFC has amazingly skilled fighters like Aldo, Ben Henderson and GSP who would succeed under any mma ruleset.

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism

Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.

"Its hard for an opinion to be wrong, but yours is" That's a dickheaded thing to say.

1. The aforementioned Pride stars were in their prime at the time of pride. By the time they moved to the UFC, the game has changed and passed them by for the most part. it doesnt mean they were bad fighters or in any way over-rated, it just means they got old or stale. Rampage did okay, Henderson and Shogun did great, Anderson Silva is dominant, etc
2. I dont entirely agree. When compared to modern MMA, everything looked one dimensional back then whether it's UFc or Pride. Don't fool yourself that there weren't any well rounded fighters in Pride.
3. I'm not sure what that means.

MrStuffins

Spideog Rua wrote: »

3. I'm not sure what that means.

I thnk what he's trying to say is you can't win a fight with strength alone. You have to mix it with athleticism, technique, skill, speed etc.

I have no doubt that Mariusz P is stronger than JDS. But you put those 2 lads into a fight and Mariusz isn't having a very fun night!

pablohoney87

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Pride was awesome...in it's day. Modern days UFC has amazingly skilled fighters like Aldo, Ben Henderson and GSP who would succeed under any mma ruleset.

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I really really don't know where to start with this.
1. pride had superstars built up due to a lack of challengers. Silva gomi and fedor mainly. How'd they get on after pride? None are top ten in their division
2. Pride was of the day where fighters were one dimensional. Very easy to look skillful for a bjj black belt against a guy with no ground game.
if it was still goin they probably would have evolved too.
3. Strength isnt winning fights. Its a mix of technique and athleticism

Its hard for an opinion to be wrong.
but yours is.

"Its hard for an opinion to be wrong, but yours is" That's a dickheaded thing to say.

1. The aforementioned Pride stars were in their prime at the time of pride. By the time they moved to the UFC, the game has changed and passed them by for the most part. it doesnt mean they were bad fighters or in any way over-rated, it just means they got old or stale. Rampage did okay, Henderson and Shogun did great, Anderson Silva is dominant, etc
2. I dont entirely agree. When compared to modern MMA, everything looked one dimensional back then whether it's UFc or Pride. Don't fool yourself that there weren't any well rounded fighters in Pride.
3. I'm not sure what that means.

I sounded that way because i am one

I think you missed my point.
Anderson was hardly a pride big name. Just an up and comer
Hendo was ducked by wandy for a long time cuz of his status. Shogun never got his shot bein silvas partner.
My point is the competition might have been there but was rarely put to the superstars.
the strength thing was referring to the op

Kev_2012

pablohoney87 wrote: »

so if I'm fighting i have to hold back on my drive in case i a. Hurt myself or b. Cause a foul?
not a chance
the ring is a thing of the past and is only still in Japan for nostalgia

I disagree and prefer the ring for fights. This is my opinion.

MrStuffins wrote: »

DO you honestly need to ask "Why not?" when told a cage is safer? I thought you used to compete for 10 years in MMA?

Also, what do you mean you competed in MMA for 10 years "before UFC ruined it"? Were you competing for 10 years before UFC was around? I'm confused.

No. I never said I competed for 10 years. I said I watched it for about 10 years and did train in Jiu Jitsu and also Judo for a little bit. I don't think a cage being safer makes for a better fight.

Spideog Rua

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I disagree and prefer the ring for fights. This is my opinion.
No. I never said I competed for 10 years. I said I watched it for about 10 years and did train in Jiu Jitsu and also Judo for a little bit. I don't think a cage being safer makes for a better fight.

Why do you think a ring is safer?

Kev_2012

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Why do you think a ring is safer?

I never said the ring was safer?

Spideog Rua

pablohoney87 wrote: »

I sounded that way because i am one

I think you missed my point.
Anderson was hardly a pride big name. Just an up and comer
Hendo was ducked by wandy for a long time cuz of his status. Shogun never got his shot bein silvas partner.
My point is the competition might have been there but was rarely put to the superstars.
the strength thing was referring to the op

Gotcha. Modern day UFC is obviously far more competitive and has a deeper talent pool, but i dont think you'll see team-mates fighting each other.

You can't really compare MMA as it is now to what it was then. It's eveolved into a different animal.

MrStuffins

Kev_2012 wrote: »

No. I never said I competed for 10 years.

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Why because I have an opinion on a sport that I used to love to watch and compete in for over 10 years until UFC ruined it?

pablohoney87

Spideog Rua wrote: »

You can't really compare MMA as it is now to what it was then. It's eveolved into a different animal.

Agreed yet here we are doing it.

MrStuffins

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Gotcha. Modern day UFC is obviously far more competitive and has a deeper talent pool, but i dont think you'll see team-mates fighting each other.

The Bored One

Kev_2012 wrote: »

I disagree and prefer the ring for fights. This is my opinion.



No. I never said I competed for 10 years. I said I watched it for about 10 years and did train in Jiu Jitsu and also Judo for a little bit. I don't think a cage being safer makes for a better fight.

Well the major problem with the ring for me is the way it interrupts grappling. The fighters have to be repeatedly reset and moved away from the ropes when the fight hits the ground. That distinctly counts against it because it interrupts the flow and the fight itself.
You also said that you don't like fighters being pinned against the cage, but the exact same thing happens with fighters being pinned in the corners of the ring.

Kev_2012

MrStuffins wrote: »

apologies. I meant watched for over 10 years, but also competed in

Kev_2012

The Bored One wrote: »

Well the major problem with the ring for me is the way it interrupts grappling. The fighters have to be repeatedly reset and moved away from the ropes when the fight hits the ground. That distinctly counts against it because it interrupts the flow and the fight itself.
You also said that you don't like fighters being pinned against the cage, but the exact same thing happens with fighters being pinned in the corners of the ring.

This is actually the reason I prefer the ring! I liked when they reset the fight because I couldn't stand fighters being pinned. I just don't like it, not interesting to watching imo.

pablohoney87

Kev_2012 wrote: »

The Bored One wrote: »

Well the major problem with the ring for me is the way it interrupts grappling. The fighters have to be repeatedly reset and moved away from the ropes when the fight hits the ground. That distinctly counts against it because it interrupts the flow and the fight itself.
You also said that you don't like fighters being pinned against the cage, but the exact same thing happens with fighters being pinned in the corners of the ring.

This is actually the reason I prefer the ring! I liked when they reset the fight because I couldn't stand fighters being pinned. I just don't like it, not interesting to watching imo.

then go watch muay Thai

Spideog Rua

MrStuffins wrote: »

They aint team-mates

The Bored One

Kev_2012 wrote: »

This is actually the reason I prefer the ring! I liked when they reset the fight because I couldn't stand fighters being pinned. I just don't like it, not interesting to watching imo.

Thats the thing, they'd have to be stopped and moved to another part of the ring, then continue grappling. That's seperate from what you're speaking about though.
You seem to be talking about them being stood up whenever one fighter is pinning the other without any advance being made.
But....that happens in the UFC too. In fact it happens with much greater frequency and faster than it did in alot of Pride events.
It also happens when ever fighters stall by pinning against the cage, if it goes on too long without advancing position, the fighters are reset.

MrStuffins

Spideog Rua wrote: »

MrStuffins wrote: »

They aint team-mates

They were when originally slated to fight each other. That's WHY they're not team mates.

Also, GSP will most likely fight Carlos Condit next (injuries permitting). They are yeam mates.

The Bored One

MrStuffins wrote: »

They were when originally slated to fight each other. That's WHY they're not team mates.

Also, GSP will most likely fight Carlos Condit next (injuries permitting). They are yeam mates.

Well I'm scarred for life now. GSP and Condit...yeaming together.

Jason McCabe

Why would learning how to pin someone against a cage be seen as a lesser skill than learning to pin them on the ground???


Both valid and equally important nowadays.

Mellor

Kev_2012 wrote: »

3. I'm sorry now but Brock Lesnar is a prime example proving otherwise.

Brock as an elite level wrestler who was also very big/strong. Saying that he was strength without technique is pretty stupid.

Pudzian is a bodybuilder, I dont even know why he was put into it. He could never be fit enough for MMA.

No he wasn't a bodybuilder.
Another example falls apart.

Pudz is the very definitino of strong without technique.

scudzilla

People are, IMO, WAYYYYY too nostalgic over Pride, sure it was good and had SOME great match ups but UFC pisses all over it.

Pride was more corrupt than Charlie Haughey and Bertie combined!!

Pride Fighter

I have seen over 50 Pride's and about 90% of the last 60 UFC's. Pride was more interesting because of the clash of styles, someone like Sakuraba was a top grappler, both at wrestling and submissions, but was not a well rounded fighter, he had awful stand up. So when Wanderlei fought him first Wand won, but when they fought again, Saku was winning before he was injured and had to quit. There is no longer style versus style in MMA, you have to be good at everything, or you lose.

In saying that, UFC is better, cause the fighters are now better, in MMA you either evolve or become extinct, everyone does everything now. But some of the UFC matches can be a bit like the 2003 Champions league final between AC Milan and Juve. Because both fighters are so good, they can nullify each other and the fight can be boring. Not all the time though, and UFC kicks ass, as does any MMA generally.

DeadlyByDesign

Hate to be "that guy", but the only reason I did not like pride was the soccer kicking to the head. IN no way shape or form is that safe for fighters and it just looked "dirty" to me.

Plastikman_eire

DeadlyByDesign wrote: »

Hate to be "that guy", but the only reason I did not like pride was the soccer kicking to the head. IN no way shape or form is that safe for fighters and it just looked "dirty" to me.

IMO that's the one aspect missing from the NSAC rule set. Let the wrestlers have the advantage of the cage, but I'd like to see the playing field levelled a bit for strikers by allowing 4 point strikes.

From a fighter safety standpoint; Id bet the force generated from a soccer kick, is far less than that which is generated from a round house to the head standing.