MMA rules changes...

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » MMA rules changes...
NatedawgThaM
4/18/10 3:04:40AM
After tonight I feel like their could be a lot of good changes in MMA.

Like for the Mo/Gegard fight. Why can't you upkick a downed opponent? That's ridiculous too me since I think it's more dangerous to throw an upkick while the person and coming down towards him because the impacts clash which makes it more dangerous IMO. Gegard/Jacare, Diaz/Fickett(I think) was more brutal then Gegard's upkicks while Mo was on the ground. I also think they should start allowing knees to the head and downwards elbows. The knees help neutralize the wrestling and they both help with making GNP more offensive and active too. It makes for a more active fight rather then watching somebody hold somebody from the sprawled position or against the cage while their opponents touching the ground, and its better then just watching Mo stand in Gegard's guard, helps the person on their back mount more offense too.

Also in the Aoki fight it bothered me when Aoki grabbed Melendez's wrists, the ref told him to let go because he had ahold of the glove. Well no sh*t the glove is covering the wrist and their's a lot of wrist control with ju-jitsu so that creates a disadvantage. Also it was annoying watching the ref stand them up even if they had ahold of each other. he kept break them apart of standing them up only for Aoki to drop back down anyway so just let them go until Melendez backs up for the stand up.

So...

-Knees to downed opponents
-Downward elbows
-Stupid can grab wrists but not gloves rule(even though wrist covers glove)

I feel would help both the fighters on top and on the ground which would make for a more active fight IMO and make it just a little harder to just neutralize somebody. Not saying Gegard was going to do anything anyways if those upkicks were legal because he looked lost anyway but at least would have given him the extra option. And maybe Hendo would have finished Shields in the first if he could knee him in the face while Shields was on the ground while in the middle of the cage and even against the cage. Even melendez had a chance to knee Aoki a few times when he shot. What do you guys think?
ncordless
4/18/10 3:22:16AM
You do know that there are no elbows in Strikeforce right? I'd start right there if you want to see more inspired GnP.
NatedawgThaM
4/18/10 3:26:24AM
ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!! hahahahah I didn't even notice that. Now that's ridiculous. is their a legit reason why?
spikerman19
4/18/10 3:29:40AM

Posted by NatedawgThaM

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!! hahahahah I didn't even notice that. Now that's ridiculous. is their a legit reason why?



It was advised at the beginning of the broadcast, but did not go into detail.
seanfu
4/18/10 3:30:20AM
Standing headbutts for the win....



I think they are no more dangerous standing than an elbow on the ground, and they should be allowed in baseball too because that sport is boring as fuc king shi t.
ncordless
4/18/10 3:43:45AM

Posted by NatedawgThaM

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!! hahahahah I didn't even notice that. Now that's ridiculous. is their a legit reason why?



Same old anti-elbow argument... they cause cuts.
NatedawgThaM
4/18/10 3:47:54AM
hahaha like tonight in boxing, Kelly Pavlik didn't suffer nasty cuts from punches. Aldo definitely cut Swanson up with a nasty elbow right? hahaha wow thats dumb.
ncordless
4/18/10 4:08:06AM

Posted by NatedawgThaM

hahaha like tonight in boxing, Kelly Pavlik didn't suffer nasty cuts from punches. Aldo definitely cut Swanson up with a nasty elbow right? hahaha wow thats dumb.



Yes it is. There are a lot of dumb rules in MMA. hopefully that will change someday.
BeeR
4/18/10 7:44:59AM
you cant say "you can only kick him in the head when he's down in this situation", it would get way too confusing and there would be so many DQ's, if you allow upkicks to a downed opponent, then you would have be allowed to soccer kick, or face stomp or knee the head of a downed opponent, its all the same because its a downed opponent, thats why the rule is in place,
postman
4/18/10 12:47:16PM

Posted by BeeR

you cant say "you can only kick him in the head when he's down in this situation", it would get way too confusing and there would be so many DQ's, if you allow upkicks to a downed opponent, then you would have be allowed to soccer kick, or face stomp or knee the head of a downed opponent, its all the same because its a downed opponent, thats why the rule is in place,



They are not the same at all if you are stomping you can put all of your weight in a downward motion into the strike. Same with a soccer kicks you can get everything into them but if you are laying on your back throwing up kicks the force is far less then the others.

As for Knees and elbows if the where to allow them it would create much better fights. Throwing elbows from mount helps to create more striking opportunitys giving more chances to end the fight they also make the attacker more vulnarable to being reversed as balance can be lost during the strike.
Caesarrrr
4/18/10 3:26:02PM

Posted by NatedawgThaM

After tonight I feel like their could be a lot of good changes in MMA.

Like for the Mo/Gegard fight. Why can't you upkick a downed opponent? That's ridiculous too me since I think it's more dangerous to throw an upkick while the person and coming down towards him because the impacts clash which makes it more dangerous IMO. Gegard/Jacare, Diaz/Fickett(I think) was more brutal then Gegard's upkicks while Mo was on the ground. I also think they should start allowing knees to the head and downwards elbows. The knees help neutralize the wrestling and they both help with making GNP more offensive and active too. It makes for a more active fight rather then watching somebody hold somebody from the sprawled position or against the cage while their opponents touching the ground, and its better then just watching Mo stand in Gegard's guard, helps the person on their back mount more offense too.

Also in the Aoki fight it bothered me when Aoki grabbed Melendez's wrists, the ref told him to let go because he had ahold of the glove. Well no sh*t the glove is covering the wrist and their's a lot of wrist control with ju-jitsu so that creates a disadvantage. Also it was annoying watching the ref stand them up even if they had ahold of each other. he kept break them apart of standing them up only for Aoki to drop back down anyway so just let them go until Melendez backs up for the stand up.

So...

-Knees to downed opponents
-Downward elbows
-Stupid can grab wrists but not gloves rule(even though wrist covers glove)

I feel would help both the fighters on top and on the ground which would make for a more active fight IMO and make it just a little harder to just neutralize somebody. Not saying Gegard was going to do anything anyways if those upkicks were legal because he looked lost anyway but at least would have given him the extra option. And maybe Hendo would have finished Shields in the first if he could knee him in the face while Shields was on the ground while in the middle of the cage and even against the cage. Even melendez had a chance to knee Aoki a few times when he shot. What do you guys think?



I think that if you allow knees to the head when you're on the ground, you don't neutralize wrestling, you make it a stronger base. All it takes is a North/south position, or side control, and you can KO someone with a few knees. The 12:6 elbow should be allowed. I think upkicking a downed opponent is a horrible idea. Sure, you might get a few more exciting finishes, but the sport isn't about exciting finishes, its about fighting in the safest way possible.
postman
4/18/10 7:57:21PM

Posted by Caesarrrr
Sure, you might get a few more exciting finishes, but the sport isn't about exciting finishes, its about fighting in the safest way possible.



You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth

Old post

What is so dangerous about a up kick? Do you think a up kick is more devestating then punches from mount?
State_Champ
4/18/10 8:09:53PM
I had to edit this post.

Anyway.....


I think the rules for actual combat in the UFC are my favorite since they seem to satisfy ACs and casual fans but they sacrifice as little as possible IMO.
The things I have a problem with tend to be the more subjective reffing rules such as when to stand up fighters on the ground (imo never. not unless a fighter is stalling and then there need to be point deduction or at least a warning followed by a point deduction if the rule is violated again)

so, yeah, i think up kicks to a grounded opponent should be illegal.

i hope this post made some kind of sense because i don't feel like re-reading to check for errors now.

Caesarrrr
4/18/10 9:45:30PM

Posted by postman


Posted by Caesarrrr
Sure, you might get a few more exciting finishes, but the sport isn't about exciting finishes, its about fighting in the safest way possible.



You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth

Old post

What is so dangerous about a up kick? Do you think a up kick is more devestating then punches from mount?



there is a complete difference between me saying the sport isn't about exciting finishes, and me being disappointed in a fighter who clearly could have and should have finished failing to do so. That's like you saying you love seeing baseball home runs, and you were disappointed in a batter who appeared to give it half power, yet understanding that the sport isn't about getting homers.
postman
4/19/10 12:05:40AM

Posted by Caesarrrr


Posted by postman


Posted by Caesarrrr
Sure, you might get a few more exciting finishes, but the sport isn't about exciting finishes, its about fighting in the safest way possible.



You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth

Old post

What is so dangerous about a up kick? Do you think a up kick is more devestating then punches from mount?



there is a complete difference between me saying the sport isn't about exciting finishes, and me being disappointed in a fighter who clearly could have and should have finished failing to do so. That's like you saying you love seeing baseball home runs, and you were disappointed in a batter who appeared to give it half power, yet understanding that the sport isn't about getting homers.



I'm from Pittsburgh whats a Home Run lol. No I get what you mean just seems silly to complain on one hand that a guy didn't finish but on the other be willing to take weapons away from a fighter making it harder to finish.
Caesarrrr
4/19/10 11:48:24AM

Posted by postman


Posted by Caesarrrr


Posted by postman


Posted by Caesarrrr
Sure, you might get a few more exciting finishes, but the sport isn't about exciting finishes, its about fighting in the safest way possible.



You like to talk out of both sides of your mouth

Old post

What is so dangerous about a up kick? Do you think a up kick is more devestating then punches from mount?



there is a complete difference between me saying the sport isn't about exciting finishes, and me being disappointed in a fighter who clearly could have and should have finished failing to do so. That's like you saying you love seeing baseball home runs, and you were disappointed in a batter who appeared to give it half power, yet understanding that the sport isn't about getting homers.



I'm from Pittsburgh whats a Home Run lol. No I get what you mean just seems silly to complain on one hand that a guy didn't finish but on the other be willing to take weapons away from a fighter making it harder to finish.



I wasn't complaining in my comment about Demian maia and Anderson Silva, in that post I was simply making a note that on top of being disrespectful and childish, he didn't finish. I feel like it compouds his disrespect. Whereas here, I feel like the safest thing is to ban upkicks and knees to a downed opponent. Things would certainly be more devastating, take a look at pride. Shogun/Wanderlei were great at it. However I feel like the ground game is safer and more technical when you can't simply knee someone in the head until they're out.
ncordless
4/19/10 2:04:18PM

I feel like the safest thing is to ban upkicks and knees to a downed opponent. Things would certainly be more devastating, take a look at pride. Shogun/Wanderlei were great at it.


Actually, Shogun and Wand did a lot more stomping and soccer kicking. And why do you think that it would be safer if it was banned and then bring up an example (PRIDE) in which no injuries occured that were greater than those sustained by fighters under the unified rules.

tepid55
4/19/10 2:11:43PM
I think knees to the head of a grounded opponent should be allowed, I think the fight should be scored as a complete fight, not round-by-round, and I think that a fighters' cornerman should be able to throw in the towel whenever he thinks his fighter is in trouble.
Caesarrrr
4/19/10 7:11:34PM

Posted by ncordless


I feel like the safest thing is to ban upkicks and knees to a downed opponent. Things would certainly be more devastating, take a look at pride. Shogun/Wanderlei were great at it.


Actually, Shogun and Wand did a lot more stomping and soccer kicking. And why do you think that it would be safer if it was banned and then bring up an example (PRIDE) in which no injuries occured that were greater than those sustained by fighters under the unified rules.




No major injuries have occurred, but you can hardly dispute the fact that getting kneed to the head while you're on the ground would cause a lot more damage than almost anything else you could do, and that these would cause long-term damage. If done properly, a Knee is the strongest strike you can throw. How could you not see that as potentially unsafe? Have you ever been kneed to the head while you're on the ground? It probably was a bad example to use Wanderlei and Shogun, but they were the fighters that i've seen who used knees to the head of a grounded opponent most, especially Wandy. You might not agree with my choice of example, but I can and will find statistics to prove this would be far more dangerous than not.
postman
4/19/10 9:45:32PM
I only have a problem with knees from north south compressing the head into the spine
ncordless
4/19/10 9:55:39PM

Posted by Caesarrrr


Posted by ncordless


I feel like the safest thing is to ban upkicks and knees to a downed opponent. Things would certainly be more devastating, take a look at pride. Shogun/Wanderlei were great at it.


Actually, Shogun and Wand did a lot more stomping and soccer kicking. And why do you think that it would be safer if it was banned and then bring up an example (PRIDE) in which no injuries occured that were greater than those sustained by fighters under the unified rules.




No major injuries have occurred, but you can hardly dispute the fact that getting kneed to the head while you're on the ground would cause a lot more damage than almost anything else you could do, and that these would cause long-term damage. If done properly, a Knee is the strongest strike you can throw. How could you not see that as potentially unsafe? Have you ever been kneed to the head while you're on the ground? It probably was a bad example to use Wanderlei and Shogun, but they were the fighters that i've seen who used knees to the head of a grounded opponent most, especially Wandy. You might not agree with my choice of example, but I can and will find statistics to prove this would be far more dangerous than not.


Alright, show me the statistics. Show me the statistic that shows that a knee to the head of a downed opponent is more dangerous than a knee to the head from the clinch. You will not be able to because that stat does not exist.

I understand that the knee, being the biggest joint in the body, allows for a lot of blunt force, and that since it is bone on bone there is more of chance for a superficial injury like a cut. But knees to the head of a downed opponent aren't really any more dangerous than knees from the clinch or more high velocity strikes thrown with smaller appendages like a head kick or spinning backfist. In fact I'd bet you that a head kick KO like Rashad v. Salmon or a classic Mirko LHK generates way more force on the brain than a knee to the head of a downed opponent.

Knees to the head of a downed opponent were not made illegal strikes because of any evidence that they were more dangerous than any other legal strike. The reason they are illegal is because back when they were trying to get the unfied rules created and passed in New Jersey and Nevada, someone saw a fight where a fighter got trapped in north/south and was being kneed (the perfect foil for the power double that everyone is complaining is ruining mma I might add) and thought it was too brutal-looking and decided to not allow them so that the sport could gain more acceptance. The reason they are illegal is not based on facts, or expert opinion, but because some guy who knew almost nothing of the sport decided that he didn't like them.
Jackelope
4/19/10 10:06:11PM
I'm with Postman on this one. Knees from north/south that can compress the head into the spine and/or penetrate the soft portion of the head or damage the back of the head are dangerous. Those should be outlawed. But every other knee should be allowed.

Even if statistical figures don't back up the danger certain angles of knees to the head can present the possibility of danger should not be ignored. That's like saying just because you somehow managed to jump off a building without injury 10 times it's perfectly ok to do it the 11th time. It's still not smart.

Statistical figures of spinal compression injuries can be pulled from other sources besides the fight game to back up the danger of a north/south knee that compresses the spine as well.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that In the end you could have 500 successful fights with no injury, but that 501st when somebody breaks their neck will be all that matters.

In saying all of this I also realize that this logic could be applied to all other techniques and an argument could be made for banning the sport as a whole- but I think if you were to take the number of serious spinal compression injuries and compare them alongside other forms of trauma you'd see the point. Also- there is the matter of public perception and I think we can all agree that the governing bodies (who do matter) can't argue with the psychological effect seeing a person getting kicked in the face while on the ground or kneed in the head on the ground will have on the average person's psyche.
ncordless
4/19/10 10:32:17PM

Posted by Jackelope

I'm with Postman on this one. Knees from north/south that can compress the head into the spine and/or penetrate the soft portion of the head or damage the back of the head are dangerous. Those should be outlawed. But every other knee should be allowed.

Even if statistical figures don't back up the danger certain angles of knees to the head can present the possibility of danger should not be ignored. That's like saying just because you somehow managed to jump off a building without injury 10 times it's perfectly ok to do it the 11th time. It's still not smart.

Statistical figures of spinal compression injuries can be pulled from other sources besides the fight game to back up the danger of a north/south knee that compresses the spine as well.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that In the end you could have 500 successful fights with no injury, but that 501st when somebody breaks their neck will be all that matters.

In saying all of this I also realize that this logic could be applied to all other techniques and an argument could be made for banning the sport as a whole- but I think if you were to take the number of serious spinal compression injuries and compare them alongside other forms of trauma you'd see the point. Also- there is the matter of public perception and I think we can all agree that the governing bodies (who do matter) can't argue with the psychological effect seeing a person getting kicked in the face while on the ground or kneed in the head on the ground will have on the average person's psyche.



To my knowledge, no spinal injury has ever resulted from knees from north/south. If you or anyone knows of this happening, I would be interested in hearing it.

You concede that your "500 safe doesn't mean 501st will be" could apply to anything, but I want to follow it for just a second. I know a kid who suffered a major brain injury from an overhand right at a party. They had to drill a hole in his head to relieve the swelling. But if you banned punches because they could be dangerous and have proven to be potentially fatal, well you can see where I am going. There is a risk of spinal injuries every time a tackle or a block is made in football, but they don't ban tackling.

The most popular sports in the US are not safe. Nascar has seen its most beloved competitor die mid-competition and still goes on. MMA by its very nature is not safe. That's ok. The average person who watches sports doesn't really care. This is the same country that watches "World's Wildest Car Crashes", Jerry Springer, and Cops. People watch real and simulated violence all the time on TV, and a knee to the head of a downed opponent in mma pales in comparision to some of the things people see.
Jackelope
4/20/10 1:27:43AM

Posted by ncordless

To my knowledge, no spinal injury has ever resulted from knees from north/south. If you or anyone knows of this happening, I would be interested in hearing it.

You concede that your "500 safe doesn't mean 501st will be" could apply to anything, but I want to follow it for just a second. I know a kid who suffered a major brain injury from an overhand right at a party. They had to drill a hole in his head to relieve the swelling. But if you banned punches because they could be dangerous and have proven to be potentially fatal, well you can see where I am going. There is a risk of spinal injuries every time a tackle or a block is made in football, but they don't ban tackling.

The most popular sports in the US are not safe. Nascar has seen its most beloved competitor die mid-competition and still goes on. MMA by its very nature is not safe. That's ok. The average person who watches sports doesn't really care. This is the same country that watches "World's Wildest Car Crashes", Jerry Springer, and Cops. People watch real and simulated violence all the time on TV, and a knee to the head of a downed opponent in mma pales in comparision to some of the things people see.



To my knowledge no spinal injury has ever resulted as a consequence of knees from north/south either. However, knowing what I know about trauma (and I speak from experience as an EMS professional here) any kind of force applied in that manner to the spine can be devastating. Knees from the north/south fit the bill perfectly. I don't know the exact figures, nor would I bet anyone does, but suffice it to say 99.99% of EMS professionals and doctors would agree that spinal compression injuries are extremely dangerous and nothing to be fooled with. (That's accounting for the .01% who are complete idiots btw )

Again, though- yes, I am well aware of the fact that any type of trauma presented in an MMA environment CAN be dangerous. I know a guy who got punched in the face by his twin brother and ended up in a coma.

I'm a logical person... and you know that... so I appreciate you presenting a logical argument here. I absolutely can see your side. I'm just trying to bring some realism into the argument.

You might not like what I'm about to say and I'm not condescending you at all by saying this because I know you're smart and I know you know these things- but here are a couple "Facts of the matter"

MMA is still not generally accepted as mainstream. I know there are arguments to the case, but it's true. It's not. It is well on its way, but it still isn't. It isn't even legal in some states still. Equating the NFL, NBA, NHL, or Nascar to MMA does not and will not work at the moment. Someone dying in Nascar is a tragedy no doubt, but it's less personal. It's not a result of violence. It's a result of a car slamming into something. Like it or not, agree with it or not- there is a massive difference between someone becoming the victim of a fatal accident vs. someone becoming a victim as a result of violence. You're logical enough to see that.

Last point- not quite sure how to word this, but here goes. All punches/kicks/takedowns/submissions are inherently dangerous. However, some are inherently more dangerous than others. Knees to the head via north/south position fall into this category. I personally feel that heel hooks fall into this category as well. Now whether 1/100 is likely to involve serious injury or 1/1000 or even 1/5000 I don't know. Whether 1/100 or 1/1000 or 1/5000 punches or kicks is likely to cause serious injury- again... I don't know. What I do know is that certain portions of the body are more prone to injury than others based on the MOI (Mechanism of Injury) When you're talking broken legs and ligaments there is no question that rotational force is absolutely the most devastating version of limb trauma. That's why I'm against heel hooks. I also know that any attack which focuses directly on the cervical spine is likely to have devastating results. Any EMS professional will tell you that if you found any victim unconscious anywhere for whatever reason no matter what the first thing you have to do is capture C-Spine stabilization. If you damage the spine there is virtually nothing any medical professional can do to save you. If only for the sake of that 1 out of 10,000 guys I am perfectly ok with no knees to the head from north/south just because of how devastating they can be.
vistol
4/28/10 4:29:20AM
there were a few time that shinya grabbed on the inside of his gloves. nothing wrong with that call
Related Topics