Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST
  MMA Playground 4.0 is live!     Returning members: check out the patch notes     New members: visit our getting started guide, read the FAQ's and start playing!

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

Print  
Posted By Message

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
24
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,128
Career:2,690-1,487
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,478
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

_______________________________________

Post #1   1/29/13 1:33:53PM   

State_Champ

MMA Sensei

State_Champ Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,076
Career:1,426-852
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Evil Empire
Chips:
425
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."

Post #2   1/29/13 2:18:52PM   

Manfred

MMA Sensei

Manfred Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,836
Career:596-351
Joined:Feb 2007
Chips:
440

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.

Last edited 1/29/13 3:15PM server time by Manfred
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #3   1/29/13 3:03:53PM   

Svartorm

Hammer of the Gods

Svartorm Avatar
9
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,146
Career:2,077-1,253
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
845
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.

_______________________________________
All brave men with hearts of war, ride the path of mighty Thor.

DREAM 1 - 2nd in Pts
Cage Rage 23 - 6th in Pts
Secondary League Season 3 - 12th in Pts
Secondary League Season 7 - 16th in Wagers
Primary League Season 7 - 26th in Wagers
Secondary League Season 6 - 30th in Pts
Secondary League Season 1 - 31st in Pts
Primary League Season 6 - 39th in Wagers
Secondary League Season 7 - 41st in Pts

Post #4   1/29/13 3:29:31PM   

State_Champ

MMA Sensei

State_Champ Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,076
Career:1,426-852
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Evil Empire
Chips:
425

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.

Post #5   1/29/13 3:51:24PM   

airkerma

KE Released in MAtter

airkerma Avatar
7
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,677
Career:1,007-579
Joined:Jan 2010
Camp: Project Mayhem
Chips:
1,077
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.

_______________________________________

Post #6   1/29/13 3:57:24PM   

Travesty145

MMA Regular

Travesty145 Avatar
3


 
 
 


 
 
Posts:188
Career:675-411
Joined:Sep 2011
Chips:
29
it aint broke

Post #7   1/29/13 4:11:48PM   

tcunningham

Combat Sport and Fitness

tcunningham Avatar
1
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,255
Career:508-351
Joined:Sep 2009
Chips:
636
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.

_______________________________________

Post #8   1/29/13 8:18:07PM