MMA rules and regulations - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

goodgirl · 04-17-2006, 02:41 AM

Hello, I'm new to the forum and tried to search for a thread that covers this newbie question, but did not find one.

I started learning Muay Thai 2 months ago and so I heard about K-1, Pride and UFC, but I am not sure what the difference is, what it is all about, whether they are different rules or if these are just different organizations / bodies who promote mixed martial arts fights, etc ..

LuvMyCRX® · 04-17-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goodgirl

Hello, I'm new to the forum and tried to search for a thread that covers this newbie question, but did not find one.

I started learning Muay Thai 2 months ago and so I heard about K-1, Pride and UFC, but I am not sure what the difference is, what it is all about, whether they are different rules or if these are just different organizations / bodies who promote mixed martial arts fights, etc ..

Lots of differences...off the top of my head-

UFC: America based
fought in a octagon cage
no gi or shoes allowed
no soccer kicks or stomps to downed opponent
no tourneys or open weight fights allowed
3 five min rounds or 5 min rounds for title fights

PRIDE: Japan based
fought in a ring
gi and shoes allowed
soccer kicks and stomps allowed
touneys and open weight fights allowed
a more established org with a much bigger emphasis on atmosphere
10 min first round 5 min 2nd and 3rd round
Yellow cards are given to fighters for lack of action, cards cost point with judges and 10% decrease in fighters pay.

K1:Japan based
No grappling allowed, except in Dynamite variation
fought in a ring
open weight fights and tourneys allowed

Im forgetting a lot, but its early in the mornin!

Fist of Fury · 04-19-2006, 10:26 PM

Are elbows legal in Pride and K-1?

[Danny] · 04-19-2006, 10:43 PM

Heros is K-1's MMA show.

K-1 is kickboxing, not MMA. Oh and forearm strikes are allowed in Pride but not the tip of the elbow. They don't want fights to end by cuts.

purevi1 · 05-21-2006, 06:02 PM

what is the testing rules in most MMA

most important steroids?

does anyone know for UFC AND KING OF THE CAGE

AikaImmortal · 05-21-2006, 06:17 PM

NSAC rules mandate drug testing in the UFC, CSAC rules now may mandate in KOTC, previously being unsanctioned and taking place on tribal lands, the athletic commissions of the tribe owning the land were to oversee but who knows about that fact, ya know?

purevi1 · 05-21-2006, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AikaImmortal

NSAC rules mandate drug testing in the UFC, CSAC rules now may mandate in KOTC, previously being unsanctioned and taking place on tribal lands, the athletic commissions of the tribe owning the land were to oversee but who knows about that fact, ya know?

well ****

thanks for the info

Snow Patrol · 08-18-2006, 11:51 PM

So I always thought that in the UFC a fighter wins by KO when he renders his opponent unconscious and a TKO is when the referee stops the fight because a fighter is simply in no state to continue/sustained too much damage (eg a cut). However, I just checked the UFC rules at ufc.com and these are the ways to win:

1. Submission by:
Physical tap out.
Verbal tap out.
2. Technical knockout by the referee stopping the contest.
3. Decision via the scorecards, including:
Unanimous decision.
Split decision.
Majority decision.
Draw, including:
Unanimous draw.
Majority draw.
Split draw.
4. Technical decision.
5. Technical draw.
6. Disqualification.
7. Forfeit.
8. No contest.

So my question is that is it true that a KO is not an official outcome in the UFC? i.e. If an opponent is unconscious, is that a TKO? I know I hear all the time how people win by KO but apparently this is not the case.

Edit: Now that I'm about to enter the predictions contest, I'm even more confused about whether to choose a KO or a TKO

tejas · 08-19-2006, 07:49 AM

thats a good question. i suppose technically they ARE still tkos even when a guy is knocked unconscience because you are suppose to continue attacking him until the ref stops you.
in boxing a tko is when the ref determines that one fighter cant continue and stops the fight or his corner throws in the towel, fighter quits ect. a ko is when the guy cant beat the 10 count. i think thats why you only have tkos in ufc, the fighter doesnt have to get up and probably wouldnt have the chance to even try.

Bomber · 08-19-2006, 09:48 AM

Great answer Tejas.

subgenius · 08-19-2006, 10:10 AM

I also have seen mixed explanations for KO versus TKO. Some seem to indicate that a TKO is only referee stoppage, which excludes an opponent that is knocked completely out. Ortiz-Shamrock 2 was a TKO. Koscheck-Goulet was a tap out due to strikes. Leben's last two fights were KO's (Leben KO'd by Silva, and then Leben KO'd Santiago). But, I have heard the announcers call a KO a TKO before.

Bomber · 08-19-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by subgenius

Leben's last two fights were KO's (Leben KO'd by Silva, and then Leben KO'd Santiago). But, I have heard the announcers call a KO a TKO before.

I think you're missing the point Sub. Everyone here probably has a pretty good idea of what a knock-out is (ie fighter is unconscious and can't continue) vs a technical knock-out (fighter is conscious but the ref says he can't continue). KO's are commonly referenced in MMA (Sherdog's fight finder for example shows both KO's and TKO's). But Snow Patrol pointed out that the UFC rules do not recognize a KO, and Tejas posted a good explanation as to why. That's the point I think; there really is no such thing as a KO in the UFC, officially.

Crashsti · 08-23-2006, 09:33 AM

seeing how those rules still include draws, which no longer exist in the UFC, i would conclude that they are simply outdated. Obviously the UFC considers the KO a means of beating an opponent. the KO is what everyone looks for in a fight.

Snow Patrol · 08-23-2006, 10:31 AM

So for the purpose of the predictions contest, is there a difference between a TKO and an KO because I put TKO instead of KO every time I was going to choose between the two, because that is what the rules say. Very confusing.

Tinker Bell · 08-23-2006, 12:18 PM

There is a substancial difference between TKO and KO, but it just seems to me that the UFC doesn't have it listed on it's website which is strange. As some have stated a Technical Knockout is when the referee feels that a fighter is unable to continue fighting anymore and stops the match before anymore damage is done to hurt the opponent. Sometime's a TKO can become a technicality because the fighter who lost by TKO felt that the match shouldn't have been stopped and that they could of continued fighting. A perfect example of this would be Ortiz vs Shamrock II. Under New Jersey Unified Rules of MMA (which is the standard rules of MMA in the US), a knockout is defined as a failure to rise from the canvas. So examples of a KO in the UFC would be Anderson Silva vs Chris Leban, Andrei Arlovski vs Paul Buentello, Chuck Liddell vs Vernon White, Rich Franklin vs Nate Quarry, Chuck Liddell vs Babalu and there are many others probably. I believe the main mixup or confusion with TKO and KO within MMA happens because even though you knocked someone to the canvas (Couture vs Liddell 3) and even though they are knocked out or unconscious from the first punch a fighter can follow up with many more punches to seal the deal even though it wasn't needed. Then the ref. would have to jump in and pull them off of the fighter before anymore damage is done which in my opinion makes it look like the match ended in a TKO.

Snow Patrol · 08-23-2006, 01:55 PM

I know a KO vs a TKO I just found it interesting that if you go to a fighter's profile on ufc.com, it will say winner by ko or winner by tko, not just tko. So I guess they do recognize that difference in the official decision, whereas before I would think Joe Rogan saying "leben wins by KO!" was correct but not when it comes to the official decision.

FatCatMC · 10-12-2006, 06:48 AM

A friend and I had a friendly arguement about a rule in the UFC. He was convinced that hair pulling was legal. I simply said what state athletic commission in their right mind would sanction an event that hair pulling was legal in?? I mean come on that's just ridiculous. Well it turns out I was right, and of course it's a foul. I came across another rule that peaked my interest though:

Rule #18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.

Now wouldn't this apply to someone that used a judo throw to dump someone on their head? It seems to me, everytime I see a successful Judo throw, the opponent lands either on his neck or on his head. I thought this would go hand in hand with the Judo in MMA thread that was started yesterday. Any thoughts?

Anti-Sanchez · 10-12-2006, 07:36 AM

Not quite sure but remember Fedor getting slammed on his head in Pride. I think it was Kevin Randleman who slammed him. Wonder if that would've been illegal in UFC? That was the one slam I can remember watching thinking "holy crap, his neck has got to be broken".

Nimmy · 10-12-2006, 08:25 AM

many people use the escape from an armbar by slamming their opponents on their head, its pretty effective.

FatCatMC · 10-12-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimmy

many people use the escape from an armbar by slamming their opponents on their head, its pretty effective.

Exactly, we see it all the time, yet it's never called a foul.