I'm not being sarcastic, and I don't like seeing blood shed or even death. By nature I enjoy watching amazing displays of Jiu Jitsu, but at the same time I thoroughly appreciate that well placed strike to the jaw, which always results in LIGHTS OUT. In the UFC, for some reason, fighters are not allowed to kick to the head of someone whose knees are on the ground. Why? Every highlight reel the UFC ever runs involves the time a fighter delivered a knock-out via head kick (liddel vs. sobral, evans vs. salmon, gonzaga vs. cro-cop, etc.). But to a downed opponent it's different? Same amount of damage is being delivered to the brain, if anything, the biggest difference is that a downed opponent is going to be expecting it. I'm not nieve -- I realize that this rule is probably out of the hands of the UFC. What state would want to sanction this kind of activity (I understand that)? I guess my point is -- why not?
In an earlier post on the subject of rule changes, the poster didn't challenge this rule, didn't oppose this rule, and didn't support this rule. It really just seems to be something relegated to those crazy Japanese. Us Americans would never allow that, and, at the same time, never even talk about it. I ask -- Why not?
What are the benefits to changing the rules? I believe that the current United States rules are very restrictive and don't represent a "no-holds barred fight", which, by the way, was the original conception of the UFC (not to mention the idea behind all MMA competitions). Instead, American MMA seems to want to provide employment to ex-collegiate wrestlers.
Why would this rule change be a disadvantage to collegiate wrestlers? Because they live and die by the SHOT. A stuffed shot, nowadays, is common place, where as a couple years ago, you rarely saw it. After that shot gets stuffed, the logical offense is a knee or kick to the head. I guarantee that the Ice Man hopes they change this rule by September.