New rules - same as old rules?
Published by Charles Jay on November 30th, 2008 in Operation Cleanup

 Print |  Email |  RSS

Commentary on MMA history….as it’s happening

WILL MMA CHANGE ITS RULES?

Nick Lembo, the attorney for the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board who is also the chairman of the MMA committee for the Association of Boxing Commissions, is digesting much of the material he has received from concerned persons throughout the MMA industry. and will be undertaking the process of additional deliberation, then polishing and firming up the proposal of any adjustments to the current set of unified rules that will be presented to the membership of the ABC at the organization’s annual convention, which will take place starting July 30 next year at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in New Orleans.

Lembo say he is very pleased that he received over 100 comments from people encompassing all areas of the MMA business, from fighters and promoters to members of the media, even fans.

All of this activity is in response to what was the original proposal, presented earlier this year in Montreal, which added, among other things, new weight divisions that created a scenario that somewhat resembled boxing. There was sufficient outcry about these proposed rules, including the fact that many of the movers and shakers in the MMA regulatory world, were not consulted, that they now carry nothing more than the weight of a “recommendation” and hopefully there will be something more concrete that will be agreed - guidelines for all states to follow - which will include considerable input from people who have actually regulated MMA events.

There is no question that there are more and more states who have become interested in mixed martial arts, if for no other reason than that there is a recognition of the revenue it can produce. And let’s face it - without revenue, many state athletic commissions could become extinct. Due to the efforts of Lembo, his former colleague Larry Hazzard, and private organizations such as the UFC, the vast majority of states now have provisions for mixed martial arts competition, whether it be on the professional or amateur level. The looming problem is that many of these jurisdiction have little or no real experience in actually regulating these events, so there may be a tendency for some of them to want to put their “stamp” on it; to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, which may result in a variation from that which might be prudent.

“For certain things outside the diehard medical concerns,” says Lembo, “things shouldn’t change just for the sake of changing.”

Though we certainly support the idea of “state powers” in these situations, particularly since there is nothing on a federal level addressing any of it (and in relation to the Constitution, perhaps there shouldn’t be), it really doesn’t hurt for there to be some rationale behind straying from that which has proven to be successful. As has been pointed out by fighters and trainers who have issued responses to Lembo’s request for input, it is extremely difficult and impractical for competitors to have to alter their styles and/or game plans in the spirit of adjusting to rules differences that may wind up existing between states.

“It’s good that the ABC is looking at mixed martial arts and employing the unified rules,” says Lembo. “It’s silly to go to different states and encounter different rules sets. In boxing, when you have a championship fight, everybody knows what is allowed and what isn’t.”

The ABC may want to consider finding someone to construct model legislation that could conceivably be introduced as a “turnkey” measure in each state that would have MMA under consideration. This way a solid, uniform set of rules could be presented, and handed over to the respective legislatures, who would not commonly have much working knowledge of MMA, for deliberation, then a vote. It may work in a much cleaner fashion.

As it is, there has been a slowdown in certain states like Pennsylvania and Michigan when it comes to finalizing a set of rules and regulations to allow for professional fights to take place.

The big challenge, as I see it, may be cutting across organizational lines. In boxing, for example, everything is in a ring. In mixed martial arts, you’ve got rings, cages, pits, hexagons, octagons, etc., according to what the particular promotional organization uses. You’ve got to account for all that.

“The sport’s maybe best suited for a cage. It’s a little more fan-friendly in a ring,” says Lembo. “But it wouldn’t be fair to just limit it. You can’t demand any one kind of setting, That wouldn’t be right. As long as it’s approved for safety purposes, then we’re fine with it.”

Lembo acknowledges that the additional weight classes are superfluous, and somewhat irrelevant, from his own standpoint as a commission official. He understand that the defining of weight divisions might often be best left to the discretion of promoters, and that the only real concern of the regulatory world might be whether a fight, regardless of what kind of label it carries with it, vis-a-vis weight classes, fits within the parameters that are laid out by the commission’s standards of safety.

Another hurdle which might have to be cleared involves the politics of the ABC. Not that too much power should reside in the hands of one person or group, but we hope the same situation doesn’t develop as has existed with regard to the ABC’s dealings in boxing, where there are a lot states who don’t have much boxing at all that have the ability to override the votes of those states who have much more of a stake in the matter. In other words, this doesn’t work like the Electoral College. Proportionately, there is a much greater disparity that exists with mixed martial arts, and because there are more regulators who are neophytes when it comes to MMA, that presents a potential problem.