I find it hard to believe that there is only one person in the whole internet that disagrees with an IKF policy. It sounds like to me that the only people that post here are those that sing the same Choral as the ikf rule book. Please list all your gripes and complaints and disagreements here. ( in a respectful way ).

Dan,
It's not that we "sing the Choral as the IKF rule book" but in our minds "if it aint broke, don't fix it". Oh, you are posting here too.

Dan. Give us some examples on what you do not agree with?

Dan,
I am with Curtis. List some of the things you think are wrong with the IKF and its rule book. I find the IKF to be the best around. With concerns in fighter safety as well as good guidelines for promoters and fighters alike.
Come on let us hear what you are really unhappy about?
"Wolfeman"

I disagree with mandatory headgear, kick counts for FC. I posted mainly out of inquisitivness regarding who is willing to post on here and argue their points. Those who disagree probably dont spend much time here. So it might appear that because a handful of people agree with the ikf on the internet that no one disagrees with them at all. I think the IKF should be inclusive of people who believe in optional headgear. hey wolfeman, do I know you ?

Dan,

There may very well be others who feel the same way as you regarding the headgear, and either are not members of this forum, or are but do not wish to post, for their own reasons. Please understand that just because all that have replied to you thus far, have not done so because they bow down to the IKF or are just followers. All of us have given you our opinion as you originally asked. And the majority of us have gone without headgear in amatuer fights earlier in our careers, and still agree with the "mandatory" policy. It would not matter if it was the IKF, PKC, WKA, KICK, ISKA, PKL...or any other sanctioning body. This is just the way we feel.

Regarding the KICK conters for the FCR. I agree with having a minimum # of kicks. This ensures the fighters are indeed "kickboxing" and not just boxing. What I do not agree with is that in IR and MT, there is no minimum kick rule. It is this way because in Thailand there is no point to it, they will kick, kick, and kick some more simply because it is effective and "that is what they do". But, as far as events here in the states...I have seen IR fights (not so much with MT) where one guy didn't kick one single time. He may as well get into boxing. I saw it at the NAC too (if he did kick, it was only a couple times and happened when I blinked..lol). I think there has to be some way to ensure every "kickboxing" bout (whether it is FC, IR, or MT) has kicks within every round. There has to be rules and structure to separate the various types and rules divisions, or we may as well fight all tough man contests.

__________________
RESPECT ALL, FEAR NONE,
ALL ABOUT ATTITUDE!!!!!
Pete Peterson
Team RoundKick
Progressive Self Defense Academy
Carroll, Iowa

I may be the most unqualified person to post in this area but I have a small bit of confusion concerning the rules. I asked the incomperable Mr. T why nobody ever threw a backfist. I was told that a normal backfist is not allowed, yet a Spinning Backfist IS allowed? Those 2 ideas would seem to be in direct contridiction to the unlearned.
For what it's worth I could hardly agree MORE with mandatory headgear for Am's.
War, Ross Jones

Hey dan...........I think there should be choice for fighters to wear headgear for more 'experienced' fighters tho. The thing I disagree with is if this decision takes place 10min before a fight as it did to me in NY. I think it should be discussed during match-making and should be agreed to by BOTH fighters/trainers.

While were on the subject, I'd also like to be the first to say that men must fight with no shirts, so the same should be had for our women fighters. Equal rights for equal sexes. I'd be willing to waiver to a thin white shirt if excessive water bottles are used in between rounds LOL.

who would want to throw a karate backfist in a kickboxing bout anyway?

Haven't ISKA and WKA allowed AM's to fight without headgear? of course they have, and still do. Did that catapult either of them into primetime network TV or regular PPV's? No it didn't. They are still in "the backwaters." You can make an argument that the failure to have cogent, consistent rules (i.e., some AM's in headgear, some without) would be a reason why.

Dan, as such, your entire position breaks down when confronted by the evidence. The facts actually support the opposite conclusion from the one you post.

Further evidence of this breakdown is the fact that with AM's wearing headgear IKF is bigger and more productive than both ISKA and WKA together. If you were right this could not be the case.

As far as telling people what is right for them, IKF and ISCF are responsible for safety and credibility. Neither of these would be achieved by allowing amateurs, who, by virtue of their status require more direction and controls, to "chose" between wearing headgear or not.

It sounds like you have a problem with IKF and ISCF taking their responsibilities more seriously than they do rants and whines of the special interests or misguided priorities of a few. In that regard, maybe you ought to read this:

http://www.ikfkickboxing.com/Opinion-Freedom.htm