News California Trying To Be First State with MASSIVE Change to Kneeing Grounded Opponent and REMOVING 12-6 Elbow Rules in UFC

[WoozyFailGuy]

I'm a fan of soccer kicks as well and don't thi k they are particularly more dangerous than any other fight. IMO it might actually prevent people from taking more shots since soccer kicks are normally landed on someone that just got rocked or dropped and from all the studies I have read CTE is more from volume of head trauma rather than the impact so something finishing someone with less strikes might actually be better for the fighters long term.

It 100% is better in the long term, which is why the CTE boxers get is on a whole other level compared to the CTE MMA fighters have developed, but we really only have the first generation of MMA fighters to go on. The 8 count and allowing an already concussed fighter to get back in there is the reason sanctioned boxing has multiple deaths while sanctioned MMA has never had one.
There is no actual difference between a standing head kick and a soccer kick beside the ease of landing and in fact the soccer kick will probably have less momentum at least half the time.

 

[WoozyFailGuy]

If 12-6 elbows are legalized then JJ's "loss" to Hamill should be turned to a NC.

Nah, that would be the equivalent of redoing chess games before en passant was introduced, theoretical. You broke the rules then, you take the loss then. Real hardcores know without the 12-6 elbows, Matt was right about to hit Jones with a hip buck escape into butterfly guard into a gogoplata anyway, so Jon wasn't winning that fight regardless...

I want

I'm on board with making north south a feared position again

 

[SuperNerd]

I'm on board with making north south a feared position again

There are too many safe positions in MMA grappling.

Ground fighting with and without knees, is like watching Boxing compared to Lethwei

 

[AmonTobin]

I don't like grounded knees, I think it would change too much the dynamics of MMA, but i'm ok with 12-6 elbows

I love grounded knees because I think it makes wrestling fighters accountable and better approximates an MMA fight with reality. ie: If you run the risk of a knee to the face shooting in on a TD, why shouldn't you run the same risk backing out from a failed one? I wonder about the dynamic myself, but at the same time feel like it's a step in the right direction in how mma continues to evolve.

 

[cheachea]

 

[arcadeperfect]

Lol @ martials arts.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

It 100% is better in the long term, which is why the CTE boxers get is on a whole other level compared to the CTE MMA fighters have developed, but we really only have the first generation of MMA fighters to go on. The 8 count and allowing an already concussed fighter to get back in there is the reason sanctioned boxing has multiple deaths while sanctioned MMA has never had one.
There is no actual difference between a standing head kick and a soccer kick beside the ease of landing and in fact the soccer kick will probably have less momentum at least half the time.

I think it's just one of those cases of, the perception of safety is more important than safety. Although, I should add that a soccer kick is going to be stronger than standing head kick most of the time. You have an easier arc and more room for follow through.

What is california going to do, claim that knees and elbows identify as legal?

It's a bit funny how, in contrast, Texas has maybe the worst athletic commission in the world. On top of being one of the states who hasn't adopted the new rules (hand down= grounded and old judging criteria), with a big corruption problem and one of the worst rates of bad judging anywhere, one of the methods of victory in there is, and I quote, "by being down on the map for a ten count"

Other fun rules for Texas:
-You can wear a gi or singlet
-Women must wear a pelvic guard
-(In a ring) You can grab the ropes once, but the second time counts as a submission.
-Leaving the fighting area entirely counts as a rope call

 

[AMAZINGUFC]

And are they going to continue banning upkicks?

 

[Dionysian]

Good change but still doesn't go far enough. There should be no limits to knees in any position.

So the CA ruling would make it so you CAN knee a guy with his hands down but NOT a guy with his knees down? (ie: you sprawled on a failed TD and can now knee them to the front of the head) If so, yeah, that is stupid. Legalize all knee positions.

 

[Thawing Mammoth]

No drug testing
No unified rules
Open weight will rise again

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

And are they going to continue banning upkicks?

Who banned upkicks?

 

[stronghulk]

As it should be.

 

[Gamer2k4]

Only if we can retroactively take points for every blatant foul.

That would be none, because Jones's pokes were incidental, not intentional. But even if you did take points away for his eye pokes, which fights would it change the outcomes of?

 

[Buffmeister]

COLORADO should be giving them a great example...just allow knees everywhere....as it was seen on ONEs US debut!

Technically...we could have MMA all bareknuckle with knees on the ground included...

 

[Skarsgard]

That would be none, because Jones's pokes were incidental, not intentional. But even if you did take points away for his eye pokes, which fights would it change the outcomes of?

Riiiiiiight. They were accidents. In every fight. Against every fighter.

You can argue that it changed the outcome of every fight. He maintains his range and is able to pick people apart because of the threat of the eye pokes. His jab is meh at best and a solid teep only goes so far. DC had a lot of success in the clinch with his dirty boxing. There's nothing to suggest that another fighter couldn't have done it if they managed to get past his scissor-hands.

 

[Gamer2k4]

Riiiiiiight. They were accidents. In every fight. Against every fighter.

You can argue that it changed the outcome of every fight. He maintains his range and is able to pick people apart because of the threat of the eye pokes. His jab is meh at best and a solid teep only goes so far. DC had a lot of success in the clinch with his dirty boxing. There's nothing to suggest that another fighter couldn't have done it if they managed to get past his scissor-hands.

You were talking about retroactively taking points away, and I responded regarding how it would have affected the scoring. Now you've left that behind and are arguing something different.

 

[JustBleed69]

I really don't understand how you could be against this change, this is only positive in every way.

 

[Skarsgard]

You were talking about retroactively taking points away, and I responded regarding how it would have affected the scoring. Now you've left that behind and are arguing something different.

Misunderstood your argument. My bad. It's hard to say how much it would have affected the scoring. The Glover fight alone he could have lost several points.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

You were talking about retroactively taking points away, and I responded regarding how it would have affected the scoring. Now you've left that behind and are arguing something different.

I think you changed the argument when you took his use of "blatant" and confused that with "intentional" in terms of the foul itself, instead of him throwing the fouls

They created a specific rule about extending an open hand just for him to reduce the chance of fouling and he would still break that.

Ignorance isn't an excuse on the 500th time. Even not "intentional," it's still guilt by negligence. It's just like the time he tried to fraud USADA. You can't make an argument for innocence when you deliberately avoid innocence

 

[Gamer2k4]

I think you changed the argument when you took his use of "blatant" and confused that with "intentional" in terms of the foul itself, instead of him throwing the fouls

They created a specific rule about extending an open hand just for him to reduce the chance of fouling and he would still break that.

Ignorance isn't an excuse on the 500th time. Even not "intentional," it's still guilt by negligence. It's just like the time he tried to fraud USADA. You can't make an argument for innocence when you deliberately avoid innocence

Still on another topic. He suggested retroactively taking points away. I said that wouldn't change the fight outcomes. That was the discussion, and a conclusion was reached. Now you're onto something new.