Signal to Noise: UFC on FOX 6's best and worst

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Signal to Noise: UFC on FOX 6's best and worst
grappler0000
1/29/13 1:33:53PM
In Chicago, Illinois on Saturday evening, the mixed martial arts world enjoyed the very first flyweight main event at a UFC on FOX show, a rising lightweight contender showed off his incredible striking, another commission judged botched another decision and so much more.

Let's separate the best from the worst from UFC on FOX 6, the winners from the losers and the signal from the noise...

Full Story
State_Champ
1/29/13 2:18:52PM
I liked this part in particular:

"Rule Most in Need of Amendment: Knees to the Head of Downed Opponent

Let's say you're a fighter. You're caught in a front head lock. You're bent over at the waist. If you touch the ground with one hand, you can't be kneed in the head. If you don't, it's open season on that vulnerable target. Does this distinction in the rule really make sense? Positively not.

We aren't protecting fighters from that position. If a fighter doesn't touch the ground, that position from the front head lock is still good for kneeing. How on earth does that make sense? If we're banning strikes in certain positions, it's because they offer an untenable amount of risk. Soccer kicks? Too dangerous because of the lack of defense relative to the power of the offense. Stomps? Absurdly risky and unnecessary as the head has nowhere to recoil when struck.

Who are we really protecting by dictating all one needs to do to avoid knees in a particular instance is to touch the ground? Either strikes from that position are damaging or they aren't.

The entire thing creates an unfair advantage and invents a stall position without any real tip of the hat to the actual enforcement of safety. It's the consequence of improperly defined rules and needs changing. Immediately."

Manfred
1/29/13 3:03:53PM

Posted by State_Champ

I liked this part in particular:

"Rule Most in Need of Amendment: Knees to the Head of Downed Opponent

Let's say you're a fighter. You're caught in a front head lock. You're bent over at the waist. If you touch the ground with one hand, you can't be kneed in the head. If you don't, it's open season on that vulnerable target. Does this distinction in the rule really make sense? Positively not.

We aren't protecting fighters from that position. If a fighter doesn't touch the ground, that position from the front head lock is still good for kneeing. How on earth does that make sense? If we're banning strikes in certain positions, it's because they offer an untenable amount of risk. Soccer kicks? Too dangerous because of the lack of defense relative to the power of the offense. Stomps? Absurdly risky and unnecessary as the head has nowhere to recoil when struck.

Who are we really protecting by dictating all one needs to do to avoid knees in a particular instance is to touch the ground? Either strikes from that position are damaging or they aren't.

The entire thing creates an unfair advantage and invents a stall position without any real tip of the hat to the actual enforcement of safety. It's the consequence of improperly defined rules and needs changing. Immediately."






Well said , I'd add that the downed opponent rule shouldn't apply if you are downed as well. Upkicks from guard are a legit technique and should be allowed. it would change the whole dynamic of the ground game.
Svartorm
1/29/13 3:29:31PM
Removing that rule is an absolute game changer too. Fighters would HAVE to avoid that position because you'd either a) catch knees to the face non-stop or b) have to drop to a knee which actually opens you up for transitions and subs.
State_Champ
1/29/13 3:51:24PM

Posted by Svartorm

Removing that rule is an absolute game changer too. Fighters would HAVE to avoid that position because you'd either a) catch knees to the face non-stop or b) have to drop to a knee which actually opens you up for transitions and subs.



Both options seem more exciting than waiting for one fighter the bait the other and then having the ref call off the fight or deduct points and restart.
airkerma
1/29/13 3:57:24PM
It certainly gives advantage to the person in the worse position. They can fight the tie up until they're about to get kneed, then drop their hand to either deter the strike or get a warning on the guy. After that moment they could return to fighting the tie/hold.
Travesty145
1/29/13 4:11:48PM
it aint broke
tcunningham
1/29/13 8:18:07PM
this article hit a bunch of great points, i cant say i disagree with any of them. i agree with the majority of you guys about the knees to the head, that rule needs to addressed. i do think that knees to the top of the head like in Pride are to dangerous and needs to taken in to account when addressing that rule.