3 reasons why the oblique kick should be banned from the UFC
This weekend’s UFC Fight Night event saw Khalil Rountree Jr. pick up a big win over Modestas Bukauskas, but it didn’t come without controversy.
Khalil Rountree used a brutal oblique kick to the knee to finish his opponent. But should the move now be banned from the UFC?
Leg kicks have been a commonly used weapon in MMA and the UFC for years now, dating back to the likes of Pedro Rizzo in the late 1990’s. The oblique kick, however, is a newer variant that is still quite rare to see in the octagon. Its effects can be devastating.
So, should this move join the likes of the headbutt, groin strike and downward elbow on the UFC’s banned list? There’s definitely a case to suggest so.
With that in mind, here are three reasons why the oblique kick should be banned in the UFC.
#3. It’s got serious potential to injure fighters despite not being all that effective
MMA is naturally one of the world’s most violent sports. Despite having an exemplary record when it comes to safety, UFC fighters still risk serious injury every time they step into the octagon.
For the most part though, UFC stars aren’t attempting to leave their opponents on the shelf, preventing them from fighting and earning money. Ask most MMA fighters, and they’d probably tell you that while they want to finish their opponent, they’d prefer to do it in a way that doesn’t risk serious injury.
And so while knockout punches can lead to serious brain trauma down the line, it’s unlikely that they’d land a fighter on the injured list. The same goes for strikes such as body shots and leg kicks. While they're likely to be felt for a long time after a fight, they rarely cause serious damage.
The oblique kick, however, is different. A push kick variant aimed at the side of the knee, this strike invariably damages the joint of the fighter taking it. It often does enough damage for the victim of the kick to require surgery after the fight. But while this sounds like a move that could stop a fight in a heartbeat, the truth is somewhat different.
Khalil Rountree’s finish of Modestas Bukauskas at this weekend’s UFC Fight Night looked vicious. However, it was the first time an oblique kick had ever been used to stop a fight inside the octagon. The kick is usually used to wear a fighter down.
Is the oblique kick even that effective, then? When it comes to injuring a fighter, it almost certainly is. But Rountree aside, is it effective at ending fights in the UFC? The answer is probably no.
So if the strike is simply being used to injure fighters, but doesn’t usually finish fights, it makes more sense for the UFC to simply get rid of it altogether.
#2. It could end up costing the UFC a lot of money
The UFC is often criticized for treating its fighters badly and leaving them underpaid. But while this is true to an extent, the world’s biggest MMA promotion does give at least some benefits to its fighters.
One such benefit is the existence of health insurance for UFC fighters. Announced back in 2011, the insurance program didn’t garner much attention when it was introduced. However, it has likely helped plenty of fighters over the years.
However, it does come with a caveat. Essentially, the UFC’s health insurance only covers fighters for injuries incurred inside the octagon. And unfortunately, the majority of injuries suffered by fighters actually occur during training.
Of course, a number of fighters still suffer injuries in the octagon. If the oblique kick becomes more common in UFC action, that number may rise substantially. Modestas Bukauskas, for instance, suffered multiple knee injuries following Khalil Rountree’s use of the strike on him this weekend. And previously, the likes of Darren Till and ‘Rampage’ Jackson have headed for surgery after being hit with the strike inside the octagon.
Naturally, if more fighters are forced to make claims using the UFC’s health insurance system, then the costs will go up for the promotion. And particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, the UFC simply isn’t all that enthusiastic about losing money.
With that in mind, the UFC may be tempted to ban the oblique kick based on safety reasons, with a form of cost-cutting also contributing to their decision.
#1. Many UFC fighters believe it should be banned
Perhaps the biggest argument for banning the oblique kick from UFC fights is the fact that a great deal of fighters would be well behind such a decision.
Even before Khalil Rountree’s use of the strike to stop Modestas Bukauskas, a number of fighters had spoken out against the oblique kick. ‘Rampage’ Jackson, for instance, told ESPN back in 2013 that he felt the kick ought to be banned. That came after he’d missed months of action after taking oblique kicks from Jon Jones in their fight.
Stephen Thompson felt the same after taking oblique kicks from Darren Till in their 2018 clash. And in turn, Till stated that he “felt Thompson’s pain” after Robert Whittaker used the same strike to tear Till’s MCL last year.
Following Rountree’s win over Bukauskas, UFC fighters as diverse as Vinc Pichel, Jamahal Hill and Belal Muhammad spoke out against it. They suggested it ought to be banned.
Interestingly, one fighter who had no issue with the kick was Bukauskas himself. Despite the fact he was heading for an MRI scan, the 27-year-old released a statement on social media that defended the move.
It appears, however, that the general consensus amongst UFC fighters is that the oblique kick is simply a questionable and unsportsmanlike strike.
At the end of the day, these fighters are the ones stepping into the octagon. That means their opinion should be taken heavily into account. Given the views shared this past weekend, it seems that would result in the banning of the oblique kick.