I guess you could technically call MMA "no-holds-barred" since it allows grappling, but it still sets the rules at a certain threshold, and where you place that threshold will always determine the winning flavor of martial art. Gambler's point is that the MMA rules are set at a level heavily biased in favor of BJJ.
If eye-gouging, ear-biting, headbutts, groin-tearing, etc. were allowed, most of BJJ's techniques would be rendered moot, just like allowing grappling obsoletes most of boxing's techniques.
“MMA rules are set at a level heavily biased in favor of BJJ”
Completely not true. In the UFC if a person sits guard the standing practitioner can force the ref to stand the guard player up. (Heavily favors a striking based martial art). If there is a temporary lull in action on the ground the ref has the discretion to stand the fighters back up (also favors strikers)
In the early days of the UFC headbutts were allowed so those didn’t really seem to get in the way (they are allowed and practiced in Sambo as well) and finally try to the gouge the eyes of a BJJ black belt (or blue belt for that matter). Bas Ruten actually answers this rebuttal hilariously in an interview I watched years ago.
I’m confident krav-maga gurus would still get mollywhopped if the UFC completely threw out their rule book.
If eye-gouging, ear-biting, headbutts, groin-tearing, etc. were allowed, most of BJJ's techniques would be rendered moot, just like allowing grappling obsoletes most of boxing's techniques.