It's all to do with people's general understanding of the format. If someone asks me what Glory is, and what their rules are, my first answer would be that it's similar to K-1 and k-1 rules. Then most people get the general gist of it... the term Kickboxing is also used too far widely - i used to love watching 'kickboxing' on Eurosport as i knew it was either full contact or low kicks, but when i tuned in once i seen some poxy mat sport tip-tap stuff that even then commentator was wondering what the hell was going on.

'International Rules' - wasn't that one of the early names for low-kicks rules? Along with Freestyle and possibly japanese? It's a mess unless you actively follow the various disciplines.



Back to the point though, i do think that as the term 'k-1' is now recognised as a rules set, and not just as the name of a promotion, that promoters need to be more clear with their branding - ie WKA British Champion - K1 Rules, etc.

The UFC have done very well in promoting itself as Mixed Martial Arts, so much so that it's caught on with the public enough for the majority to know that not every local fighter is a UFC champion, and are in fact some version of an MMA title holder.
K-1/Glory, etc, do well to label themselves Kickboxing so the mainstream public also know what to expect when they see it in the TV listings. However, even within combat sports circles there's petty bickering from certain groups that dispute K-1/Glory, etc, as Kickboxing, as they have a blinkered perception of what they see kickboxing should be - ie full contact. So if people in the industry cannot even agree, then how do we expect it to catch on with the public?