If a fighter gets slammed hard on the canvas, they should lose a point for the round

kflo said:
and your contention is all of those point throws are really fight ending throws that are survivable only because of a soft landing?
Click to expand...
No, my contention is that it is objective that they could cause at least a four-times increase (to be honest it's going to be more in the ~12x range) in the force and kinetic energy that is imparted on the body when you're slammed onto a hard surface like concrete or asphalt or a wooden floor or the dirt in the park or basically anywhere that isn't a government regulated arena where they test for the softness to make sure that it doesn't cause damage to the participants.
This is good because we don't actually want fighters to have their necks broken and their skulls split open and their internal organs ruptured when they're thrown onto the ground, but this is what actually happens when they are thrown in places that aren't the government regulated canvas. So, in the same way we make up for the deadlyness of a rear naked choke or we stop the fight when a fighter is knocked out, we make up for the artificial reduction by making the ruleset more appropriate for the situation.
 
the fights should be groin strikes and biting only, all other techniques banned because it's more realistic
 
Draxton said:
Spot on.
Click to expand...
Except, of course, there is literally nothing about it that is dumb and none of you actually have come up with any valid counter arguments to what I'm saying (because there aren't any).
 
Regal Boy said:
I've made threads similar to this, but I was arguing that they should lose the fight outright by TKO if they get dumped on their head or slammed on their back/neck.

The reason that the octagon canvas and other wrestling mats and the mats of combat sports are soft is because we all know that if it were hard like concrete or a hardwood floor or even just dry dirt in the park, then falling and getting slammed could actually kill the fighter if not cause serious damage to them. This is why there are things like G-Max scales and HIC in sports which regulates the softness of sport grounds.

The rules of the sport makes up for the difference for most other techniques, but for some reason the soft ground and the artificial reduction of the effectiveness of judo throws and slams are not considered. It should be in the ruleset that if you slam your opponent on their back (NOT on their ass) then they lose a point for the round. Slamming then becomes more than just a way into ground fighting and we can make up for the difference in the reduction of the damage dealt with such techniques that the sport has to mitigate for the safety of the fighters.

If the octagon canvas were made of concrete, then we all know how hard takedowns would play out.
Click to expand...
It's too subjective. Look on YouTube, there are street fights where guys get slammed on concrete and get back up. How do you determine whether the slam would have done significant damage that would end the fight?
 
Regal Boy said:
Except, of course, there is literally nothing about it that is dumb and none of you actually have come up with any valid counter arguments to what I'm saying (because there aren't any).
Click to expand...
Lol nice subtle trolling.

Whenever a fighter is losing, his corner can jump in and sucker punch the other guy. Thats what happens in real life. And then the othee guy runs backstage/to his car and grabs a gun. Real life bruh.

guys should be allowed to punch while the referee gives instructions as most real life fights do no have a referee telling u to stop or go.
 
Regal Boy said:
No, my contention is that it is objective that they could cause at least a four-times increase (to be honest it's going to be more in the ~12x range) in the force and kinetic energy that is imparted on the body when you're slammed onto a hard surface like concrete or asphalt or a wooden floor or the dirt in the park or basically anywhere that isn't a government regulated arena where they test for the softness to make sure that it doesn't cause damage to the participants.
Click to expand...
No.
 
ShakatheG said:
It's too subjective. Look on YouTube, there are street fights where guys get slammed on concrete and get back up. How do you determine whether the slam would have done significant damage that would end the fight?
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be a fight ending throw, the point is that unless the fighters are forced to fight on concrete (which is ridiculous) then the rules need to make up for the difference in the softness of the mat. It doesn't have to be a fight ending blow for it to still be more force and kinetic energy.

If what I'm saying is wrong, then none of you have the right to say that fighters shouldn't fight on concrete.
 
Well concrete is not a common natural surface.

Eliminating artificial surfaces like concrete, and given the geographical distribution of humans, "real" fights are more likely to happen on a softer surface like beach sand, prairie grass or mud than hard rock. So your thread is invalid.
 
Bearknuckle said:
Lol nice subtle trolling.

Whenever a fighter is losing, his corner can jump in and sucker punch the other guy. Thats what happens in real life. And then the othee guy runs backstage/to his car and grabs a gun. Real life bruh.

guys should be allowed to punch while the referee gives instructions as most real life fights do no have a referee telling u to stop or go.
Click to expand...
This isn't trolling. Do you all seriously have no idea how to argue or how we define context?

If you disagree, then you must be fine with the canvas being made from concrete.
 
The Bard said:
Well concrete is not a common natural surface.

Eliminating artificial surfaces like concrete, and given the geographical distribution of humans, "real" fights are more likely to happen on a soft surface like beach sand, prairie grass or mud than hard rock. So your thread is invalid.
Click to expand...
All of those have a higher GMAX than the UFC octagon floor, and cause significantly more force and kinetic energy to be imparted into your body than the UFC canvas.

Being thrown onto any of them would cause more damage to you, and we'd still have to make up the difference with the ruleset.
 
Medulla Omoplata said:
if a fighter gets choked out they should kill him cause that's what would happen in a real fight
Click to expand...

people need to understand that mma is not a real fight...it's a sporting event, like any other sport, it has rules...
 
Regal Boy said:
This isn't trolling. Do you all seriously have no idea how to argue or how we define context?

If you disagree, then you must be fine with the canvas being made from concrete.
Click to expand...
MMA was founded as being modeled on BJJ fights. BJJ fights took place on the beaches of Brazil. Beaches are sandy and soft, like mats.

If anything, strikers should be forced to walk on tippy toes though to reflect the natural presence of sea shells.
 
Regal Boy said:
All of those have a higher GMAX than the UFC octagon floor, and cause significantly more force and kinetic energy to be imparted into your body than the UFC canvas.

Being thrown onto any of them would cause more damage to you, and we'd still have to make up the difference with the ruleset.
Click to expand...
Dudes aren't dying by being slammed into mud.

Concrete is not the default fighting surface. You seem to be refusing to understand that.

In the course of mankind, more fights have happened in water than on concrete. Fill up the octagon!
 
Regal Boy said:
I've made threads similar to this, but I was arguing that they should lose the fight outright by TKO if they get dumped on their head or slammed on their back/neck.

The reason that the octagon canvas and other wrestling mats and the mats of combat sports are soft is because we all know that if it were hard like concrete or a hardwood floor or even just dry dirt in the park, then falling and getting slammed could actually kill the fighter if not cause serious damage to them. This is why there are things like G-Max scales and HIC in sports which regulates the softness of sport grounds.

The rules of the sport makes up for the difference for most other techniques, but for some reason the soft ground and the artificial reduction of the effectiveness of judo throws and slams are not considered. It should be in the ruleset that if you slam your opponent on their back (NOT on their ass) then they lose a point for the round. Slamming then becomes more than just a way into ground fighting and we can make up for the difference in the reduction of the damage dealt with such techniques that the sport has to mitigate for the safety of the fighters.

If the octagon canvas were made of concrete, then we all know how hard takedowns would play out.
Click to expand...

If the octagons were made of concrete then wrestlers like Khabib would hardly ever win a fight. Diving for a single leg on concrete? LOL good luck with that. Theres a reason every street fight stays standing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dimbis
Should a fighter pick the opponent’s punishment for a foul?
Replies
9
Views
138
666
666

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,694
Messages
55,435,311
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top