Mailbag: Banning oblique kicks would be extremely silly

A columnist has pushed back against California Athletic Commission head Andy Foster's proposal to ban oblique kicks from MMA, arguing the move does not meet the threshold for prohibition and represents an overcorrection in sport regulation.

Following UFC 331, Foster suggested banning oblique kicks due to safety concerns, and UFC CEO Dana White agreed with the assessment. However, the columnist contends that while oblique kicks are dangerous, they do not fall into the three legitimate categories that have justified historical MMA rule changes: entertainment value, public perception, or catastrophic safety risk.

The piece notes that MMA rules have evolved to prevent unmarketable fights (untimed bouts), manage public image (groin strikes, biting, hair pulling), and eliminate life-threatening techniques (shots to the back of the head, eye gouging). Oblique kicks, by contrast, risk joint damage similar to leg locks—a legal technique—but do not threaten death or permanent, life-altering injury. The columnist argues that blown-out knees, while serious, represent a standard athletic risk rather than a catastrophic threshold warranting prohibition.

The article also addresses Eddie Hearn's emerging role in MMA management, noting his current deals with Tom Aspinall and Ian Machado Garry cover marketing rather than fight negotiations. While Hearn's involvement likely adds leverage in fighters' discussions with the UFC, the columnist suggests Dana White's known animosity toward Hearn could create friction, since fighters still need to negotiate with a promotion that holds structural power over them.