Knees to a down opponent, will it ever happen?

Frankly speaking you might get such rules in non-American organisations like in Japan or Poland or Russia if they could grow big enough, but in America and the west there is a trend in the direction of safety, and fighter safety, which pretty much means rules are only going to get more restrictive as to allowed strikes, rather than less restrictive.

Even in those mentioned countries, I don't think it is common anymore in popular organisations, I just think if it were to happen that would be where it might happen. It's very hard to imagine it ever happening again in the UFC since it was banned.
 
ArtardFiesta said:
Will they ever allow this to happen?

I understand when they made this rule it was at a time where they were seeking adoption and acceptance. Knees to a ground opponent was deemed as to violent and barbaric. This rule was put into place before smart phones.

We are in 2024 now. All the major markets have accepted ufc events. The ufc events bring tourism and big money to their economies.

Knees to a ground opponent or someone who fails a takedown are a natural part of fighting. The public is educated on the sport now.

Do you t the commissions will remove this rule eventually?

View attachment 1045428

Side note: I understand there is likely a bribe scenario with this, where the commission figures will want some pay and they will get it done, but the ufc has the cash to throw 50-100K at them. They could also just allow it in UAE events where the UFC has pull and force the commissions hand on this.
Click to expand...

It's already allowed in One and they legalized it in Colorado where One does it's US events. Legalize knees #freetheknee
 
It would really take away from the dominance of wrestling in the UFC, which relies in many ways of not being kneed to the head during takedowns, and also cause real problems for the turtling position, which has grown in popularity since strikes to the head of a grounded opponent were banned.

In fact it would be fascinating to see what martial arts styles rose to the top if the rules were relaxed surrounding strikes to the head of a grounded opponent.
 
I think so, but not anytime soon.

UFC needs to make the push, and they don't care right now.

Something needs to spark their motivation for change.
 
I hope so. It would be a good balance for the sport.

I just don't think mainstream fans will like to see brutality like that.

Unless...it provides a dope ass ko.
 
There are very few full on sprawls these days. Most TDD happens standing against the cage now.

At best, this rule would help grapplers who are great at control but have no finishing skills.
 
Marko Polo said:
As fans we want the purest form combat available, but we have to accept that it’s a spectator sport and very few people want to see someone who’s already being controlled being pummelled with brutal shots in a way that they can’t defend. It’s not good for the viewer. I’m sure the fighters would disagree and say that we’re too soft, but that’s why we’re not in the cage, but the spectators pay the bills. Would I think the product would tank if they allowed knees to a grounded opponent? Nope. Would my personal enjoyment diminish if I had to watch Poirier get his skull caved in by Islam like this? Most certainly.
Click to expand...
For me and I'm sure others ... it not about someone who takes u down and is beating u up bit rather being a striker who now has a way to punish a grappler for a failed takedown.
 
I think I heard Luke Thomas say that the rules are going to be revisited this year and there's a good chance that 12-6 ellbows and knees to a downed opponent are going to be allowed.
 
Certainly hope so. It’s the one Change more than anything I think the sport needs. It’s a weapon for both grapplers, and strikers. And I really don’t think they’re anymore dangerous than standing knees.
 
I hope so, but not sure they would do it after all this time? It would give the dominant wrestlers another weapon to finish fights. Maybe they're afraid of someone's head getting pinned against the cage on the ground and getting kneed into oblivion (Bolivia)
 
Marko Polo said:
As fans we want the purest form combat available, but we have to accept that it’s a spectator sport and very few people want to see someone who’s already being controlled being pummelled with brutal shots in a way that they can’t defend. It’s not good for the viewer. I’m sure the fighters would disagree and say that we’re too soft, but that’s why we’re not in the cage, but the spectators pay the bills. Would I think the product would tank if they allowed knees to a grounded opponent? Nope. Would my personal enjoyment diminish if I had to watch Poirier get his skull caved in by Islam like this? Most certainly.
Click to expand...

Because people prefer seeing wrestlers repeatedly take bad shots that don't get punished instead?

<DontBelieve1>

I don't think spectators give a shit one way or another to be honest - forever we got sold by a certain media type that "it's so barbaric how you can hit them on the ground after they fall down" which is all perceptive (actually far more dangerous to make someone stand-up and throw hands after a knockdown).

It just seems so asinine to me that we only apply this rule to one situation (don't use the most logical attacking weapon to counter another offensive technique) - by this logic, you shouldn't be able to counter-punch right?

The real issue with this rule would be that at lower levels where there are bad mismatches we'd see some guys get their whole shit broke, but we'd also see most fighters quickly adjust their games (not taking bad shots, not just waiting when they get sprawled on or stuck in side-control).

I'm all for anything that makes a fight more inherently realistic without life-threatening damage (i.e. attacks to the eyes, groin, back of head, spine, etc.). Knees to the head of a grounded opponent and legal up-kicks from guard are essential to realistically simulating a fight; I could go without soccer kicks just because they are most effective when you've already dropped someone and it does seem very dangerous to punt someone in the head after you've just knocked them down (and they could already be unconscious, if not already brain-damaged).
 
You will NEVER see them in the UFC, again. That’s just common sense. It took a long time for mma to become legal in some places. That’s because of how violent it is in regards to mainstream tolerance. Without the unified rules the UFC never would have become what it is today.

Like drug testing. You can’t go backwards with it. Stomps, knees, or kicks to the head of a grounded opponent is never happening in the UFC.

It really is wasted discussion, imo.
 
GreatSaintGuillotine said:
ONE does it so I wouldn't rule it out. I'm all for it personally
Click to expand...

ONE rules are superior to the UFC's.

TheMMAnalyst said:
I'm all for anything that makes a fight more inherently realistic without life-threatening damage (i.e. attacks to the eyes, groin, back of head, spine, etc.). Knees to the head of a grounded opponent and legal up-kicks from guard are essential to realistically simulating a fight; I could go without soccer kicks just because they are most effective when you've already dropped someone and it does seem very dangerous to punt someone in the head after you've just knocked them down (and they could already be unconscious, if not already brain-damaged).
Click to expand...

The problem with soccer kicks is that the cage becomes a weapon. If a downed opponent has their head against the cage, a stomp or soccer kick effectively makes it into a weapon because your head is trapped (unlike in a ring.)

I do want knees to a downed opponent. Can't stand this new trend of turtling in MMA. Like who the hell would ever do that in a real life situation. That would never happen.
 
Last edited:
Probably not, unless theres a case to be made that changing the rule would bring in more money somehow then there isn’t really any incentive to do it.

There’s always some risk when it comes to changing safety based rules so no one is going to intentionally shoulder the risk of potential downside without an obvious upside.
 
Marko Polo said:
As fans we want the purest form combat available, but we have to accept that it’s a spectator sport and very few people want to see someone who’s already being controlled being pummelled with brutal shots in a way that they can’t defend. It’s not good for the viewer. I’m sure the fighters would disagree and say that we’re too soft, but that’s why we’re not in the cage, but the spectators pay the bills. Would I think the product would tank if they allowed knees to a grounded opponent? Nope. Would my personal enjoyment diminish if I had to watch Poirier get his skull caved in by Islam like this? Most certainly.
Click to expand...
Non pride watchin new generation
<{cruzshake}> <TrumpWrong1><DisgustingHHH>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,886
Messages
58,325,600
Members
176,001
Latest member
Markooz86

Share this page

Back
Top