Should unnecessary ground and pound after KO be penalized?

Mark hunt is a prime example of how it's bullshit when fighters say that unnecessary follow up blows are unstoppable because of "fighter instinct".

giphy.gif


The follow up hammer fist spam after a clear KO always pissed me off. I'm glad to see great sportsmanship from Hunt.

Is it just me or does there seem to be a pattern with guys from striking backgrounds less likely to give needless followup? most obviously Chute Boxe comes to mind dispite there general violence I can't recall too many situations of needless punishment.

If you were being uncharitable you could say that perhaps the US jock wrestling mentality has less responsibility, otherwise perhaps the training environment being more brutal at places like Chute Boxe means fighters tend to be more level headed in the ring/cage? the same way Chite Boxe fighters were always great at making the correct decisions when following up on a hurt opponent for the finish.
 
Mark hunt is a prime example of how it's bullshit when fighters say that unnecessary follow up blows are unstoppable because of "fighter instinct".

giphy.gif


The follow up hammer fist spam after a clear KO always pissed me off. I'm glad to see great sportsmanship from Hunt.
Hunt is afraid of gassing needlessly if he follows his opponent down and then has to stand back up.
 
IMO it is worth walking away after scoring a knockdown. It probably influences the ref to call it rather than to push for more action.
 
I get that, I'm trying to do the same. My point is simply that you can't in any way demand a fighter do anything other than defend themselves and obey the refs.

Dan is not an offender because he stopped the violence once he was told to stop. If you are going to call him an offender then he has to have some say on when the fight is over

I don't necessarily disagree other than I think you can have the equivalent of a 'cheap shot' penalty after the fact.

In Dan's case they would only be able to assess that because he admitted he knew Bisping was out and wanted to give him one extra for being a dick, and if a rule was in place Dan likely would have never admitted that and there would be no way to assess that otherwise. But I do think that the commissions should be able to look at flagrant or cheap shots after the fact and assess additional punishments. That did clean up hockey quite a bit.
 
Let them bang bro.......until the ref stops it. We need more Mario Yamasaki's
 

Now that's a ref.

Guy is flat out a nutter and should have been disqualified after the initial cheap shot. But the ref slapping on the standing rear naked choke to stop his illegal attack later is boss. He went above and beyond to protect that fighter.
 
I don't necessarily disagree other than I think you can have the equivalent of a 'cheap shot' penalty after the fact.

In Dan's case they would only be able to assess that because he admitted he knew Bisping was out and wanted to give him one extra for being a dick, and if a rule was in place Dan likely would have never admitted that and there would be no way to assess that otherwise. But I do think that the commissions should be able to look at flagrant or cheap shots after the fact and assess additional punishments. That did clean up hockey quite a bit.

the problem with that is, rules and penalties aren't there for things we deem obvious. Whether or not Dan knew bisping was out or not, he had every right to attack until told not to.

By giving out penalties you're putting unnecessary things into the fighter's heads and it's going to force them to second guess themselves out of sure finishes and have to think about when or if the ref is gonna stop the fight or what it's going to look like to the commission.

I think the best way to reduce cheap shots is to make sure the refs are competent and in place to make better stoppages. the main function of a ref is safety, asking the fighter to consider anybody's safety but his own will only create problems
 
lol at using Hunt, a KICKBOXER, to debunk ground and pound as fighter instinct. His instinct is literally to walk away for a 10 count.

Also, no, you fight until the ref stops you.
 
Mark hunt is a prime example of how it's bullshit when fighters say that unnecessary follow up blows are unstoppable because of "fighter instinct".

giphy.gif


The follow up hammer fist spam after a clear KO always pissed me off. I'm glad to see great sportsmanship from Hunt.

Give an example of a bad one i cant think of any.
 
I don't necessarily disagree other than I think you can have the equivalent of a 'cheap shot' penalty after the fact.

In Dan's case they would only be able to assess that because he admitted he knew Bisping was out and wanted to give him one extra for being a dick, and if a rule was in place Dan likely would have never admitted that and there would be no way to assess that otherwise. But I do think that the commissions should be able to look at flagrant or cheap shots after the fact and assess additional punishments. That did clean up hockey quite a bit.

It doesn't matter if he threw the punch after Bisping went out though, it did not break any rules.
 
IMO it is worth walking away after scoring a knockdown. It probably influences the ref to call it rather than to push for more action.

You could argue it does make it easier for the ref to see whether someone is really out of it or not, if your ontop throwing GnP his view is going to be more obscured.

Palhares comes to mind as an example of a fight were this doesn't get a stoppage though so I tend to think Hunt just has very good judgement of when he's landed a killer blow, Hansen was the same with plum knees.
 
Mark Hunt could have lost that fight if Mir somehow recovered quickly, the former just don't give a shit.

So to answer your question: No, the ref stops the fight.
 
Hunt is afraid of gassing needlessly if he follows his opponent down and then has to stand back up.

Actually, if Hunt hits the mat he CAN'T stand back up. He's like a reverse weeble.
 
the problem with that is, rules and penalties aren't there for things we deem obvious. Whether or not Dan knew bisping was out or not, he had every right to attack until told not to.
Under current rules you are correct.

With a simple change of the rules (similar to cheap shot rules in hockey) you would be incorrect.

Again Dan admitted he knew Bisping was out cold and done and he just gave him one more for good measure because Bisping was a Dick. That admission could get Dan fined after the fact and I'd be fine with that.

But again if the rule is in place I think Dan never admits it and therefore they cannot prove, in that case he knew that.



By giving out penalties you're putting unnecessary things into the fighter's heads and it's going to force them to second guess themselves out of sure finishes and have to think about when or if the ref is gonna stop the fight or what it's going to look like to the commission.
I don't agree.

I am not suggesting massive levels of grey here that would create doubt for fighters. Even in a case like Hendo/Bisping where it was clear to us that Bisping was out, I would say without Dan's confession he could not be blamed. Adrenaline, being 'in the moment' and the way things can register after the fact can all contribute to a fighter not being able to make that instant assessment that might seem so clear to us in hindsight while watching it on a TV screen.

But if a case is clear or the fighter admits it like Dan did, then I think they should get penalized.



I think the best way to reduce cheap shots is to make sure the refs are competent and in place to make better stoppages. the main function of a ref is safety, asking the fighter to consider anybody's safety but his own will only create problems
I agree. Ref's will still be the main enforcers of it even if a poor sportsman penalty comes into effect.
 
It doesn't matter if he threw the punch after Bisping went out though, it did not break any rules.
Rules change in sport all the time. In the history of pro sports I doubt there is a single one where rules did not change or evolve. I am suggesting a change in the rules to allow for a 'cheap shot penalty' where cases are clear cut or admitted, and if that happens then YES in fact it would break the rules but you are correct that under the current rules it does not which I was never suggesting it did.
 
Absolutely not. It's the referees' job to get in there.

A fighter's job is to go in for the kill. A fighter shouldn't have to worry that they might land an extra unnecessary blow and get penalised. Go until the ref stops you, that's always been the unwritten rule.
 
Rather than penalize a fighter for not doing the ref's job, they could reward fighters with some kind of sportsmanship bonus if they recognize that their opponent is done and stop before the ref intervenes.

They still get the style points either way.
 
Rules change in sport all the time. In the history of pro sports I doubt there is a single one where rules did not change or evolve. I am suggesting a change in the rules to allow for a 'cheap shot penalty' where cases are clear cut or admitted, and if that happens then YES in fact it would break the rules but you are correct that under the current rules it does not which I was never suggesting it did.

I'm sorry, I'm not a hockey fan so you're missing me on the comparisons. one thing I know is that in hockey the objective is you get the puck into a net. I do know the game involves collisions, but at the end of the day, it's puck in net, you can correct me if I'm wrong because I don't watch.

in MMA the violence isn't a side factor, the guys are there to attack each other. asking them to stop attacking is like asking to stop scoring goals because they're up by too much.
 
I'm sorry, I'm not a hockey fan so you're missing me on the comparisons. one thing I know is that in hockey the objective is you get the puck into a net. I do know the game involves collisions, but at the end of the day, it's puck in net, you can correct me if I'm wrong because I don't watch.

in MMA the violence isn't a side factor, the guys are there to attack each other. asking them to stop attacking is like asking to stop scoring goals because they're up by too much.
Hockey used to have an enforcer role. Guys who were just paid to fight and fights were part of pretty much every game. There used to be lots more cheap shots before they put in rules like the 'Instigator penalties' which assessed additional punishment for guys who started shit.
 
Back
Top