Jump to content

Broader rules for striking??


MimeOnFire

Recommended Posts

In a recent podcast, Joe Rogan re-stated the opinion that the rules for striking in the UFC be expanded. For example, allowing kicks to the face and head from a defensive ground position, not only when the opponant is standing. Also, Rogan mentioned allowing knees from standing to a downed fighter, effectively reversing the "3 points of contact" rule.

 

It got me thinking: We all want to see MMA (and the UFC in particular) to evolve and grow. Personally, I'd hate to see it become watered-down for the sake of ratings or advertising sponsors. Is it better to make the sport more realistic, more like an actual fight? Should the UFC maintain or even impose more restrictive rules, allowing MMA to gain even more traction in the mainstream?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of bringing in kicks/knees to downed opponent. I don't think it would hurt ratings or sponsors it's just more for the fighters protection. I think certain cases are great that they didn't allow it but other times I'd rather see a quick knee to the face and just end the fight rather than trying to punch through the opponents' guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Rogan - let er all go. Bring back nut shots and fish hooks too. This is supposed to be a fight. So I'm kidding about the nut shots , but in all honesty, I'm down for bringing in stomps, kicks to downed opponent.....12-6 elbows....pretty much everything but nut shots....

 

More rules? Hell no, the last thing the sport needs is more regulation on striking. It's already bad enough as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of bringing in kicks/knees to downed opponent. I don't think it would hurt ratings or sponsors it's just more for the fighters protection. I think certain cases are great that they didn't allow it but other times I'd rather see a quick knee to the face and just end the fight rather than trying to punch through the opponents' guard.

 

Agree!

 

It would make for more dynamic fights, I think. Some of the rulings are just mis-informed. Obviously, I don't want to see fighters seriously injured, but take the "12 to 6" elbow restriction (ala Jones/Hamil): It's just silly! A shoulder/body driven elbow to a prone fighter is way more destructive than a "12 to 6" elbow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Rogan - let er all go. Bring back nut shots and fish hooks too. This is supposed to be a fight. So I'm kidding about the nut shots

 

Man, I'm not sure about the fish hooks... some of these fighters are ugly enough as it is...

 

I just don't want to see it de-evolve into Marquis de Queensbury...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it if someone is on the ground curled up and you are punching the f out of their head it will inflect alot of damage on that person where if the person is on the ground curled up and you give them a clean kick to the head and the fight gets stopped it means less permanent damage was inflicted upon the grounded oponent. Am I just being stupid with this comment and it doesn't work like this or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it if someone is on the ground curled up and you are punching the f out of their head it will inflect alot of damage on that person where if the person is on the ground curled up and you give them a clean kick to the head and the fight gets stopped it means less permanent damage was inflicted upon the grounded oponent. Am I just being stupid with this comment and it doesn't work like this or what?

 

Not at all... it seems to me that you always try to maintain a "feet-first" posture when on your back. A soccer kick to the head, is defensible. A stomp to the head, maybe much less so. Can anyone say if stomps to the head are allowed in Pride? I seem to recall that I've seen it there... So, one big, fight ending strike is better, less punishing, than 20 or 30 strikes into the guard. That's an interesting logic. I'll have to chew that one over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent podcast' date=' Joe Rogan re-stated the opinion that the rules for striking in the UFC be expanded. For example, allowing kicks to the face and head from a defensive ground position, not only when the opponant is standing. Also, Rogan mentioned allowing knees from standing to a downed fighter, effectively reversing the "3 points of contact" rule.

 

It got me thinking: We all want to see MMA (and the UFC in particular) to evolve and grow. Personally, I'd hate to see it become watered-down for the sake of ratings or advertising sponsors. [b']Is it better to make the sport more realistic, more like an actual fight?[/b] Should the UFC maintain or even impose more restrictive rules, allowing MMA to gain even more traction in the mainstream?

 

Yes. I'm tired of seeing boring gameplans be effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if both fighters are "downed" then the knees/kicks rules should not apply. It makes sense for defending from your back, and it makes the north south position appropriately dangerous again.

 

I don't think it should go farther than that though. Standing knees and kicks to a downed opponent's head, in my opinion, can be a bit too dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw a new episode of "Deadliest Warrior" last night featuring Rashad Evans. They had him demonstrate a knee to the head of a downed opponent. This was put together in a very scientific way, mind you. They determined that his knee to the head would have killed a live opponent, and I would have been hard pressed to disagree.

 

These rules are put in place for a reason. The fights are already more entertaining than any other sport out there. I believe that one could reasonably ascertain who the better fighter is when two athletes compete within the established rules, so there is no need to add anything else that increase the possibility of serious injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody knows striking like Joe Rogan.

 

I would totally trust a guy who said Tim Sylvia was the best striker in the world.

 

Okay... so you're down as + 1 for the rules remaining the same?

 

"Best striker in the world" is kinda like the weather in New England; wait a minute and it'll change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah change the rules... Prides rules were better than ufcs imo.....

 

It would ad excitement to the fights, have you ever thought why wandarlei were so effective in pride, but not in ufc? He used to stop people who laid on the ground. New rules would generate more exciting tactics and maybe even gsp could finish a guy on the ground then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw a new episode of "Deadliest Warrior" last night featuring Rashad Evans. They had him demonstrate a knee to the head of a downed opponent. This was put together in a very scientific way' date=' mind you. They determined that his knee to the head would have killed a live opponent, and I would have been hard pressed to disagree.

 

These rules are put in place for a reason. The fights are already more entertaining than any other sport out there. I believe that one could reasonably ascertain who the better fighter is when two athletes compete within the established rules, so there is no need to add anything else that increase the possibility of serious injury.[/quote']

 

Pride allowed knees to the head of a downed opponent and I don't recall anyone coming close to death.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw a new episode of "Deadliest Warrior" last night featuring Rashad Evans. They had him demonstrate a knee to the head of a downed opponent. This was put together in a very scientific way' date=' mind you. They determined that his knee to the head would have killed a live opponent, and I would have been hard pressed to disagree.

 

These rules are put in place for a reason. The fights are already more entertaining than any other sport out there. I believe that one could reasonably ascertain who the better fighter is when two athletes compete within the established rules, so there is no need to add anything else that increase the possibility of serious injury.[/quote']

 

Interesting... Did they happen to contrast those findings with a knee to the head in a standing opponant, or from within a clinch? I find it hard to accept the impact would be so much more violent to a standing opponant, who was doubled over versus one kneeling or in a similar 3-point posture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting... Did they happen to contrast those findings with a knee to the head in a standing opponant' date=' or from within a clinch? I find it hard to accept the impact would be so much more violent to a standing opponant, who was doubled over versus one kneeling or in a similar 3-point posture.[/quote']

 

The thing on the show last night the test body was on its back. Rashad was in a north south position and drove his knee into the top of the head. He cracked its skull and broke its neck.

 

The stomps to the head are very brutal and un-needed. An allowable soccer kick to the head would be so much worse in the octagon than a ring like pride. With the guys head pushed up against the cage with no where to go a soccer kick could end his career.

 

Make a case FOR needing these. The case against is very easy. Fighter safety. Look at some of the Pride Stars like Wandi and Big Nog. Old and done at 33 years old due to the damage from some of the Pride rules.

 

The only case for it that I have seen in this thread is "we want more blood and vicious stoppages" who cares about the well being of the fighters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if both fighters are "downed" then the knees/kicks rules should not apply. It makes sense for defending from your back' date=' and it makes the north south position appropriately dangerous again.

 

I don't think it should go farther than that though. Standing knees and kicks to a downed opponent's head, in my opinion, can be a bit too dangerous.[/quote']

 

This imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing on the show last night the test body was on its back. Rashad was in a north south position and drove his knee into the top of the head. He cracked its skull and broke its neck.

 

The stomps to the head are very brutal and un-needed. An allowable soccer kick to the head would be so much worse in the octagon than a ring like pride. With the guys head pushed up against the cage with no where to go a soccer kick could end his career.

 

Make a case FOR needing these. The case against is very easy. Fighter safety. Look at some of the Pride Stars like Wandi and Big Nog. Old and done at 33 years old due to the damage from some of the Pride rules.

 

The only case for it that I have seen in this thread is "we want more blood and vicious stoppages" who cares about the well being of the fighters.

 

Very valid points.

 

Of course, I'm not in favor of stomps to the head. I find them impossible to reasonably defend, other than not being there. Soccer kicks less so, as the position to accomplish such a kick to the head is more difficult to achieve and easier to defend. I agree it may be too dangerous. The kicks I cited in the OP, however, specifically, kicks from a defensive prone posture has more validity.

 

Not allowing kicks to an attacking opponant, who has gained a full or half guard position, takes away a major ( and, let's face it, natural) defensive tool. Also, there's considerable risk in using the tactic, which would make grounded fights more interesting. Furthermore, I can't find a substantial case for not allowing 12 to 6 elbows.

 

Obviously I'm not in favor of re-writing the rules towards the end of causing career ending injury. It's not for the sake of blood-lust that I ask; it's for preserving some of the intial spirit of MMA fighting as a sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very valid points.

 

Of course' date=' I'm not in favor of stomps to the head. I find them impossible to reasonably defend, other than not being there. Soccer kicks less so, as the position to accomplish such a kick to the head is more difficult to achieve and easier to defend. I agree it may be too dangerous. The kicks I cited in the OP, however, specifically, kicks from a defensive prone posture has more validity.

 

Not allowing kicks to an attacking opponant, who has gained a full or half guard position, takes away a major ( and, let's face it, natural) defensive tool. Also, there's considerable risk in using the tactic, which would make grounded fights more interesting. Furthermore, I can't find a substantial case for not allowing 12 to 6 elbows.

 

Obviously I'm not in favor of re-writing the rules towards the end of causing career ending injury. It's not for the sake of blood-lust that I ask; it's for preserving some of the intial spirit of MMA fighting as a sport.[/quote']

 

I don't recall anyone in Pride having career-ending injuries from stomps, soccer kicks or knees to the head while being down......I'm not sure what all these safety fanatics are on about. Not you in particular, just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very valid points.

 

Not allowing kicks to an attacking opponant' date=' who has gained a full or half guard position, takes away a major ( and, let's face it, natural) defensive tool. Also, there's considerable risk in using the tactic, which would make grounded fights more interesting. Furthermore, I can't find a substantial case for not allowing 12 to 6 elbows.[/quote']

 

I would agree with a rule change that allowed an up kick to a guy in guard. There is a massive difference in leverage and power from a up kick compared to a stomp or soccer kick,

 

They allow 12-6 elbows from the bottom position so I as well don't understand why the aren't allowed form the top. After seeing what Bones did with a side elbow I don't see how it would be that much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some rules should be relaxed, heres my personal list.

 

Pretty much any elbow strike being illegal is rediculous, this is a fight. If were gonna bar anything that can break your nose we have to bar punches too and have em all go in there and have a slap fight.

 

Stomps to the body should be allowed, including to the groin. Damn floppers need to be taught why no one would do that in a real fight.

 

Head buts should be brought back. You can do a lot of damage with those but its not going to kill anyone and it would end the lay and pray style that came about after they were banned.

 

Kicks from your back should be allowed. I cant even think of any bad reason to have banned them, much less a good one.

 

Maybe this is just me but i think the small digit manipulation rule should be done away with too. It would be interesting to see how BJJ actually stands up to real martial arts when they can stomp his flopping **** or rip his thumbs off in a submission.

 

I may have a bias against BJJ influencing some of these decisions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent podcast' date=' Joe Rogan re-stated the opinion that the rules for striking in the UFC be expanded. For example, allowing kicks to the face and head from a defensive ground position, not only when the opponant is standing. Also, Rogan mentioned allowing knees from standing to a downed fighter, effectively reversing the "3 points of contact" rule.

 

It got me thinking: We all want to see MMA (and the UFC in particular) to evolve and grow. Personally, I'd hate to see it become watered-down for the sake of ratings or advertising sponsors. Is it better to make the sport more realistic, more like an actual fight? Should the UFC maintain or even impose more restrictive rules, allowing MMA to gain even more traction in the mainstream?[/quote']

 

Highly unlikely that state athletic commissions would sanction these rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting... Did they happen to contrast those findings with a knee to the head in a standing opponant' date=' or from within a clinch? I find it hard to accept the impact would be so much more violent to a standing opponant, who was doubled over versus one kneeling or in a similar 3-point posture.[/quote']

 

i think knees to a downed opponents would be good to see, i wouldnt want to see stomps to the head tho..thats going a bit far. it's one thing when you can have the head whip back and transfer the energy of the blow but to squash someones head against the matt would just..well i wouldnt want to see someone the size of lesnar stomp on say randy's head. The one knee on the ground rule is daft tho..like you said. Personally i cant see the difference in it. I think if it was down to the ufc it'd have been done a long time ago...but as it's not and health and safety being what it is i feel it'll be a long time..if ever before they allow it....gutted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some rules should be relaxed' date=' heres my personal list.

 

Pretty much any elbow strike being illegal is rediculous, this is a fight. If were gonna bar anything that can break your nose we have to bar punches too and have em all go in there and have a slap fight.

 

Stomps to the body should be allowed, including to the groin. Damn floppers need to be taught why no one would do that in a real fight.

 

Head buts should be brought back. You can do a lot of damage with those but its not going to kill anyone and it would end the lay and pray style that came about after they were banned.

 

Kicks from your back should be allowed. I cant even think of any bad reason to have banned them, much less a good one.

 

Maybe this is just me but i think the small digit manipulation rule should be done away with too. It would be interesting to see how BJJ actually stands up to real martial arts when they can stomp his flopping **** or rip his thumbs off in a submission.

 

I may have a bias against BJJ influencing some of these decisions[/quote']

 

i agree with that...except the stomping on the nuts lol...if anything that would just be too painfull to watch, plus it would end fights too quick. Headbutts...ahhh a british delicacy lol, i'd def love to see that. Tito would win everytime with that bloomin bonce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...