I'm not sure I'm following your logic...it seems we are discussing the subjective entertainment value not the skill required. Your terminology confuses me as well. Sometimes they are purists and sometimes they are MMA fighters. I don think the MMA rules diminish the skills from pure arts. CroCops kickboxing skills aren't lessened b/c he competes in MMA. Augmented? Sure but he is no less talented b/c of the org he fights in. I pose this question: In the Sean Sherk vs PBF fight that Dana White proposed you have one of the best technically skilled boxers against a good MMA LW but one that is very one dimensional...If Sherk were able to get the fight to the ground and pound out a win or get a sub you'd say it shows he has less skill b/c he couldn't stand with PBF, but if PBF were able to keep the fight standing and stuff all of Sherk's takedowns you'd say it shows boxing superiority. Well which one is it, b/c to me its the same thing. Yes each fighter has a specific skillset that they depend on but the real skill that would matter would be their ability to impose their kind of fight on the other. All of Sherk's ground fighting counts for naught if he can't get PBF to the ground and PBF's awesome boxing skills are meaningless if he is on his back the whole fight.