There are the obvious differences every fan knows. PRIDE used a ring and UFC uses a cage, the former slightly favoring stand-up fighters over ground fighters. PRIDE rules also favored strikers, with stomps, kicks to the head of a downed opponent allowed, as well as knees to a downed opponent, all banned in UFC. UFC allowed elbow strikes on the ground, a move banned in PRIDE, a move that generally favors wrestlers, giving them another weapon as they control their opponent on the ground.
Other than the basic idea that when two good fighters meet anyone can win I didnt think that article was very good at all personally. Meltzer has become very popularist in recent years and that reads like a very thiney vailed atempt to promote the UFC's legitimancey at the expense of Pride's. The fact is that while Pride may have had a few more freakshow bouts they were largely a sideshow with the legitimate fighters facing each other more often than not. Heck the UFC just promoted a card based around a former pro wrestler having his second MMA fight.The "real" UFC vs Pride arguement(I.E not the one argued by childish fanboys) was always about which org had the higher level of competition. We knew the top guys from both were quality fighters but those who preffered Pride such as myself argued that there was simpley more strenght in depth there. While you can't proove that given that most Pride fighters are not in the UFC it is noticeble that since the UFC started to introduce alot of new talent(in 2006) things have chanegd quite a bit with the same names unable to dominate the way they once did.
smart move not to allow stomps and kicks to the head.
wouldnt look good in the eyes of the public. ufc should probably break up a few fights that were too bloody as well.
who cares??
