Strikeforce and elbows

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » Strikeforce and elbows
Dragonscale
2/8/09 8:29:32PM

I'm a firm believer that elbows are a part of MMA and have never been a fan of Orgs that dont allow them, its too easy to stall and elbows are a way to bring the domination down upon an opponent. Otherwise there is too much wrist grabbing.

As far as I know, Strikeforce has never allowed elbows (dumb especially with the new unified rules).

Am I right?

Do you think they might now that they are moving the next level into the big time?

Discuss
seanfu
2/8/09 11:36:04PM
Elbows are a big part, but so were headbuts. I'm a supporter of elbow use but they do end fights awkwardly (Bobalu at Strikeforce). And you can argue they make fight less technical.

But I do support elbows. They are a part of the sport. Take away the elbows and then you have to take away the forearms, then after that you realize the spinning back fist is out of the equation as well because a miss can mean a point or DQ.

It can mean a watered down version of mma, likely, no, possible, yes. If you take away elbows then legstrikes to the head should be legal if both guys are downed. You have to make up for it somehow.

My opinion doesn't mean much though since I think standing headbuts and grounded headbuts to the body should be legal as well as standing non clinched rabbit shots. But whatever, I just hope North America adopts elbows and the Dream FC leg strikes on the ground.
postman
2/8/09 11:53:39PM
Babalu just beat Bobby with a elbow.
Franklinfan47
2/9/09 8:40:09AM
As long as there not elbows to the back of the head, im all for it
Dragonscale
2/9/09 9:27:07AM
OMG... oh yea, you're right!

Thats why I love this place... thanks guys.

I swear back when Shamrock fought Chung there were no elbows, perhaps a very recent change after they became part of the official rules.

woot then, go Strikeforce!


(DCRage edit: Don't advertise on these forums without permission, it's against the rules)
ToeZup
2/10/09 1:27:22PM

Posted by Franklinfan47

As long as there not elbows to the back of the head, im all for it



That is how I feel about them. I don't think Strikeforce will change anything but they are OK in my book.
hindsightufuk
2/10/09 2:02:01PM
to be honest im no fan of elbows on the floor, i like elbows as a standing strike, but not for the ground. however i am a big fan of knees to the head of an opponent whilst knees/hands are on the ground, but not when belly/back to the floor. **** it im damned fussy, but elbows just dont tug my tail
Dragonscale
2/10/09 8:08:17PM

Oh I think elbows are a must on the ground, it solidifies a dominant position rather than just having a lot of wrist grabbing.

For the people who say it makes the fight less technical, well, save the technique scores for gymnastics, this is a fight.
bjj1605
2/12/09 2:03:49PM
elbows are a must. I also wish they had knees to the head of kneeling opponents. It makes it a good defense against the shot. The rules should be amended so you can't knee an opponent ON HIS BACK but kneeling, crouching, or shooting opponents are ok. Otherwise wrestlers have an advantage
Dragonscale
2/12/09 4:28:48PM

Posted by bjj1605

elbows are a must. I also wish they had knees to the head of kneeling opponents. It makes it a good defense against the shot. The rules should be amended so you can't knee an opponent ON HIS BACK but kneeling, crouching, or shooting opponents are ok. Otherwise wrestlers have an advantage



I second that :D
bls1919
2/12/09 9:46:30PM
You gotta be able to "THROW THEM BOWS"
Wolfenstein
2/12/09 10:00:09PM
I'm not a big fan of them, as they are the cause of too many fight endings due to cuts. Unless knees to a downed opponent are brought in though, I'd say keep them.
Related Topics