someone explain elbows

this may seem like a silly question but i cant for the life of me understand what constitutes an illegal downward elbow. i hear people talk about them but im not sure. is it possible to throw one from the bottom? it seems that what kenny florian throws in all of his fights are legal but from what i thought the rule was it seems they should not be. anderson silva against lutter threw some that looked close and joe and randy talked about it and basically neither of them seemed to fully understand the rule.

so, any explanation is appreciated, and if someone has an example of an elbow that was deemed illegal and a fighter was dq'd or had a point subtracted id be interested to know what fight it was in so i could check it out.

thx

The rule says the angle of the down ward thrust of the tip of your elbow can't be 90degrees. Basically just that you can't elbow someone straight down on top of the head. This could be extremely dangerous, and i think might've caused a bad ko one time... hard to remember, it usually doesn't come into play. Ever since ASilva's fight pretty much said they'll let anyting go that isn't really down, cuz that's where you generate the insane power/angle to the spine.

You can strike with your elbow --- this way or / this way but not | this way . You can try and strike upwards with your elbow when you're on your back but you might end up kissing it lol

---

Posted by JimiMak

The rule says the angle of the down ward thrust of the tip of your elbow can't be 90degrees. Basically just that you can't elbow someone straight down on top of the head. This could be extremely dangerous, and i think might've caused a bad ko one time... hard to remember, it usually doesn't come into play. Ever since ASilva's fight pretty much said they'll let anyting go that isn't really down, cuz that's where you generate the insane power/angle to the spine.

---

Where does it say that? The UFC rules only stated that you cannot strike with an elbow in a downward motion (last time I checked). Yup, here it is

---

10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.

---

I asked this question earlier and got no answer and have not see any consistency with officiating regarding it.

My question was: Does the downward motion describe the direction with respect to gravity or with respect to the (user's) body. I have seen the latter motion used in the UFC many times and sometimes a warning is issued and sometimes it isn't (even in the same fight).

When I first read this rule I immediately thought that it applied to not being able to elbow a guy on the head or back when he was down (ala downward in the direction of gravity). This makes total sense.

I then wondered if the downward was with respect to the body. i.e. can you get a guy in the crucifix and using one arm hold your opponent's arm and throw "downward" elbow strikes to the body or head. Could you sit in a guy's guard and fake a head punch and elbow a guy in the sternum (one my my classic moves)?

if you watch alot of the old ufc fights where everything was pretty much legal like headbutts and no gloves you will see the difference in elbow blows from now compared to than they were alot more vicious before.

I always thought it was just what it said you can't strike using the point of the elbow as the lead point of impact. Its hard to describe and I could be wrong...

---

Posted by Rush

---

Posted by JimiMak

The rule says the angle of the down ward thrust of the tip of your elbow can't be 90degrees. Basically just that you can't elbow someone straight down on top of the head. This could be extremely dangerous, and i think might've caused a bad ko one time... hard to remember, it usually doesn't come into play. Ever since ASilva's fight pretty much said they'll let anyting go that isn't really down, cuz that's where you generate the insane power/angle to the spine.

---

Where does it say that? The UFC rules only stated that you cannot strike with an elbow in a downward motion (last time I checked). Yup, here it is

---

10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.

---

I asked this question earlier and got no answer and have not see any consistency with officiating regarding it.

My question was: Does the downward motion describe the direction with respect to gravity or with respect to the (user's) body.

---

I said exactly what they do but explained it better. Downward = 90 angle to the mat. Driving tip of elbow from the lights to the floor str8. I can't keep answering the same q if you use it as a q to my answer.

But hypothetically, could you strike with your elbow at a 30 degree angle sideways and then at the last moment rotate your elbow to 90 degrees, that way you didn't strike downwards but more of an upside down L?

---

Posted by JimiMak

I said exactly what they do but explained it better. Downward = 90 angle to the mat. Driving tip of elbow from the lights to the floor str8. I can't keep answering the same q if you use it as a q to my answer.

---

So you are saying that it's downward with respect to gravity? I'm glad you can figure that out from an explanation that is so vague as rule 10.


I guarantee that I can do just as much damage with elbow strikes to the head, in a crucifix, when my forearm is parallel with the mat.

---

Posted by Rush

---

Posted by JimiMak

I said exactly what they do but explained it better. Downward = 90 angle to the mat. Driving tip of elbow from the lights to the floor str8. I can't keep answering the same q if you use it as a q to my answer.

---

So you are saying that it's downward with respect to gravity? I'm glad you can figure that out from an explanation that is so vague as rule 10.


I guarantee that I can do just as much damage with elbow strikes to the head, in a crucifix, when my forearm is parallel with the mat.

---

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm taking the rule and the way it has consistently been applied. Along w/ the fact of all the arguments about the Silva lutter fight the q's came up and they said it is exactly what is says "downward" if you are on your back and doing an elbow parrallel to the ground like AS or KenFlo do, supposedly aren't generating the same power/angle to spine. I think the angle to spine is the biggest worry, but am only guessing. But precedent is hwo you have to go and they've been pretty consistent. Ref'ing is always subjective tho.

I'll also play the devil's advocate. Matt Hughes was never called for elbows that were arguably "downward" jsut not driving w/ the tip.....

---

Posted by JimiMak

The rule says the angle of the down ward thrust of the tip of your elbow can't be 90degrees. Basically just that you can't elbow someone straight down on top of the head. This could be extremely dangerous, and i think might've caused a bad ko one time... hard to remember, it usually doesn't come into play. Ever since ASilva's fight pretty much said they'll let anyting go that isn't really down, cuz that's where you generate the insane power/angle to the spine.

---

I always thought the point of the rule was to avoid cuts that could end the fight prematurely.

I would think if cutting was the point they wouldn't have elbows. I have always heard they didn't want repeats of (i think it was pat smith mounted a guy and buried the tip of his elbow in his face til it was stopped) the more dangerous endings they've had.

---

Posted by JimiMak

I would think if cutting was the point they wouldn't have elbows. I have always heard they didn't want repeats of (i think it was pat smith mounted a guy and buried the tip of his elbow in his face til it was stopped) the more dangerous endings they've had.

---

Actually after Smith mounted Scott Morris, all elbows thrown would in fact be legal by today's standards.

There may have been (I can't remember) downward elbow strikes delivered to the back of Morris' head/neck, but the bulk of the damage was from the mounted attack, which consisted of 100% legal strikes (by today's standards)

All in all I can only think of two early UFC fights that had downward elbows to the head.

Pat Smith vs Scott Morris
Paul Varelans vs Cal Worsham

the elbows that remco pardue threw were also pretty viscious but i suppose they would be legal by what is being said.