'Downed' - A Story of Semantics [Nerds Only]

Siver!

Siver!

Sedriques Dumbass Belt
Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
26,099
Reaction score
53,152
1705858147459.png

If something is 'downed' it means it has been subject to or is undergoing an active process.

In fighting, a 'downed' opponent would normally refer to someone who has been knocked down, or who is being held down, or who is unable to get up.

It would be fair to say "you can't knee a downed opponent in the head".

But someone who is choosing to put their hand on the mat isn't "downed", they aren't being "downed", they haven't been "downed".

I'd suggest the athletic commissions misinterpreted the term a long time ago, perhaps it would be better if you could knee an opponent that is choosing to be on the floor - ie, someone butt-scooting, or putting their hand down, or resisting being lifted up?

You guys think that would be possible, or is it just too difficult for a referee to interpret when a fighter is "downed" or just choosing to be down?
 
People keep squabbling over whether the knees were legal or not, when the real story is that Allen won that fight regardless of the dumb ass rule that needs to go.

He won rounds 1 and 3, Evloev getting takedowns and being unable to keep Allen down whatsoever are not supposed to be racking up any points for him whatsoever.
 
I wish they would allow all strikes to the ground and have always felt this way. I get that the optics of seeing someone get kneed in the face or soccer kicked are pretty brutal for the average person though.

I feel like a fair compromise would be using the torso to define a grounded opponent. If any part of the torso is on the ground, then no knees. Butt-scooting? Knee to the face brah. Messed up a TD and have your fingertips on the ground? Knee to the face brah. Just caught an overhand right and fell on your back? Maybe we can show mercy here and just allow punches and elbows.
 
Kryptt said:
It is under your and the given definition but under the Unified Rules they have their own extrapolations/definitions. Here that's simply semantics.

Do I agree with it? Obviously not, I hate that limitation and it's exploitations.

<KhabibBS>
Click to expand...

For sure. I think their definition needs changing to an actively downed or grounded fighter!
 
Logically elbow, knee, shoulder or hip ... should be grounded/downed

The hand rule is too confusing for professional human beaters.

Then again, decisions are not wins
and judges should be watching the fight on multi-cams
with the speed at 83% ... so ...
at the start of the next round, they continue viewing without a break.
Using a real-time frame-marker for moments of review at end of the fight, or foul stoppages.
 
Last edited:
OldBoy91 said:
People keep squabbling over whether the knees were legal or not, when the real story is that Allen won that fight regardless of the dumb ass rule that needs to go.

He won rounds 1 and 3, Evloev getting takedowns and being unable to keep Allen down whatsoever are not supposed to be racking up any points for him whatsoever.
Click to expand...
2 was a clear Evloev round, 3 was a clear Allen round imo.

R1 i can see the argument that Allen won but he just didn't do enough. The first 4 minutes of striking were pretty even, then Allen spent the last minute getting ragdolled. I agree that Evloev wasn't able to generate sub attempts or ground strikes off the wrestling, but he did force a lot of position changes and when by far the most dominant portion of the round is you getting outgrappled for a significant duration it's gonna be tough for you to win the round. Allen was maybe ahead by 1 or 2 strikes after the first 4 minutes.
 
man, the whole idea of the rule is pretty dumb. depending on the commission, its either one hand or 2. what if you are down, with one (or 2 hands) and u see someone winding up for a big knee to the head. you can either try to block and means your not grounded anymore; or you take it flush and maybe get the dq win or a point deduction. its so stupid.
 
Sticko said:
2 was a clear Evloev round, 3 was a clear Allen round imo.

R1 i can see the argument that Allen won but he just didn't do enough. The first 4 minutes of striking were pretty even, then Allen spent the last minute getting ragdolled. I agree that Evloev wasn't able to generate sub attempts or ground strikes off the wrestling, but he did force a lot of position changes and when by far the most dominant portion of the round is you getting outgrappled for a significant duration it's gonna be tough for you to win the round. Allen was maybe ahead by 1 or 2 strikes after the first 4 minutes.
Click to expand...
It was a close round I agree.

I've watched the fight through twice and I will watch it again no doubt, and yeah. Round 2 is clear of Movsar, round 3 clear for Allen.

Round 1 I've watched through a bunch and I keep coming to the same conclusion. Allen was landing the better, harder, more damaging shots. All of Evloev's strikes on the feet in that round were jabs, Allen was landing jabs, overhand lefts and a nice sweeping left hook to the body.

As for the "ragdolling", I don't really agree. It was neutral if anything. Movsar wanted the takedown badly, Allen wanted to stand, Movsar kept taking him down and Allen kept standing back up almost immediately. It was anything but dominant. Allen couldn't get Evloev off of him but Evloev couldn't get him to the ground for any significant amount of time or do anything at all with the takedowns.

So I have to revert back to who did more damage in the round and that was undoubtedly Allen.
 
I don't care if they change it, but maybe putting your hand down strictly to limit an opponent's engagement should be counted as a timidity foul.

It is rarely an issue. I am more concerned about growing the sport (in North America and abroad), and if the rule helps, then I am for it.
 
I think I can fully understand how shit like this originally got written. In the early days, someone gets asked to define "down," so you just write something simple, not imagining how people will game it. "'On your feet means standing, being not on your feet or on anything besides your feet means you're not.' There, we did it guys!"

It's not as simple as up or down though when you can shift degrees of your weight or "load" from any points of contact, whether it's feet or not, so that's gonna become a big problem to define. The rule could just be (but shouldn't for obvious reasons): "Definition of a downed fighter: Why are you asking what a downed fighter is? You surely must grapple. We all know what a downed fighter is. The referee will know what downed means, and if you're not "downed," then everything goes. Don't make the ref make the decision."

But the thing I continually have to push back on is the whole "This is confusing" thing, at least when it comes to the fighters. I know why we're all confused, that makes sense. Why the fuck the commentators are confused too is a fucking travesty. But fighters SHOULDN'T be confused. I'm sure there's going to be people chiming in and going "But they fight everywhere" or "What do you expect from people who get punched in the head?" but EVERY place you fight at, the commission explicitly tells you what the rules are there. So if you get warned backstage, then go out and do it, sorry, get fucked, that's a foul.

 
Knees, soccer kicks and stomps please.

It would make North South position actually matter
 
You know, this is why we need ONE to both survive and continue putting on shows in the States. They didn't need to even work with Colorado to try and coax them into accepting their ruleset, they did it anyway, bc they're educated and understand the game.

They've now talked Georgia into accepting their ruleset, as well, and will be hosting a card in Atlanta this year. Commissions seem to be understanding that the only difference between the Western orgs and ONE, is that, rather than have a rule to use almost as a weapon, preventing contact and making a game out of it, ONE cuts that bullshit out of the equation and no controversy.


The more that ONE can continue finding success in the West, and at least persuade state commissions into allowing their ruleset, the more likelihood that the commissions in the West will cave and remove the stupid "downed" rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,112
Messages
55,468,095
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top