I dont want to start this thread with long paragraphs about my opinion, so I will keep it simple and try to stick to the question.
Should shelling up be considered intellegent defense? By definition, it is exactly that.
I ask this because I have seen countless fighters shell up, weather the 'storm', and then come back strong. Then in other fights, I see a fighter shell up and the ref ends up stopping the fight quickly, when they took the last 4-5 shots on the forearms and were going in the direction of recovering. This is particularly frustrating near the end of the round, when it seems the defending fighter could have certainly escaped and gone on to create a much more interesting fight (Diaz vs Daley and Carano vs Santos come to mind).
I personally feel like a ref should only stop a fight from strikes if a) the fighter is out and unable to defend themselves (whether stuck on their feet against the cage or on the ground), or b) when the fighter has been hit enough to cause them to want to TAP (physically or sometimes even verbally) instead of shelling up and trying to ride it out...
I am tired of watching fighters volume striking the forearms of a dazed fighter trying to look for the quick stoppage. Either you hit them again and get a real stoppage, or you dont, but you shouldnt be rewarded to punching the forearms of a dazed fighter who is enroute to recovering.
It is not as though a turtled fighter can not be hit, because they can. Elbow strikes to break the guard, body shots, knees to the body, mixing up punches on different sides, etc... Why should a fighter be rewarded for lazily and ineffectively hitting the defense of the opponent instead of finishing the fight with meaningful strikes? I think that's wrong.
Thoughts?
(Update: I like how many seem to agree that many stoppages on lightly dazed 'turtled' fighters come too soon. However; I do agree that if a fighter shells up for a lengthy period of time that the fight should be stopped. Also is a fighter is shelled p but taking significant damage, the fight should be stopped. The real debate here is when a fighter is shelled up and the winning fighter tries to unleash volume punches on their forearms or defense, and they don't get through)
(UPdate 2 Baroa vs Faber: Unfortunately, Herb Dean felt 'pressured' last night. When 3/4ths of the public thinks 'unanswered strikes' demand a stoppage, and there is no real definition of 'intelligent defense', eventually you feel almost obligated to stop a fight even if the fighter being hit isn't really taking any damage...)
(Update 3: Quote 1: "Why should someone be allowed to just chill and recover?" Quote 2: "If your opponent can just chill and recover, why on earth should the fight be stopped? If all you're doing is tiring yourself out, you're doing the wrong thing." - And that is exactly why the fight shouldn't be stopped)
(Update 4: Im tired of hearing "covering up is an exploit of the rules and it makes it so you can only be hit in the back of the head". WRONG.
-Body punches or elbows
-Precision punching around the guard instead of uneffectively punching into it for volume
-Reposition for new angle
-Elbows THROUGH the guard
-Knees or kicks to the body
-Grappling your opponent out of the turtle
-Submissions
ALL ways to FINISH the TKO instead of just punching the opponents guard and hoping for a volume striking award.)
Should shelling up be considered intellegent defense? By definition, it is exactly that.
I ask this because I have seen countless fighters shell up, weather the 'storm', and then come back strong. Then in other fights, I see a fighter shell up and the ref ends up stopping the fight quickly, when they took the last 4-5 shots on the forearms and were going in the direction of recovering. This is particularly frustrating near the end of the round, when it seems the defending fighter could have certainly escaped and gone on to create a much more interesting fight (Diaz vs Daley and Carano vs Santos come to mind).
I personally feel like a ref should only stop a fight from strikes if a) the fighter is out and unable to defend themselves (whether stuck on their feet against the cage or on the ground), or b) when the fighter has been hit enough to cause them to want to TAP (physically or sometimes even verbally) instead of shelling up and trying to ride it out...
I am tired of watching fighters volume striking the forearms of a dazed fighter trying to look for the quick stoppage. Either you hit them again and get a real stoppage, or you dont, but you shouldnt be rewarded to punching the forearms of a dazed fighter who is enroute to recovering.
It is not as though a turtled fighter can not be hit, because they can. Elbow strikes to break the guard, body shots, knees to the body, mixing up punches on different sides, etc... Why should a fighter be rewarded for lazily and ineffectively hitting the defense of the opponent instead of finishing the fight with meaningful strikes? I think that's wrong.
Thoughts?
(Update: I like how many seem to agree that many stoppages on lightly dazed 'turtled' fighters come too soon. However; I do agree that if a fighter shells up for a lengthy period of time that the fight should be stopped. Also is a fighter is shelled p but taking significant damage, the fight should be stopped. The real debate here is when a fighter is shelled up and the winning fighter tries to unleash volume punches on their forearms or defense, and they don't get through)
(UPdate 2 Baroa vs Faber: Unfortunately, Herb Dean felt 'pressured' last night. When 3/4ths of the public thinks 'unanswered strikes' demand a stoppage, and there is no real definition of 'intelligent defense', eventually you feel almost obligated to stop a fight even if the fighter being hit isn't really taking any damage...)
(Update 3: Quote 1: "Why should someone be allowed to just chill and recover?" Quote 2: "If your opponent can just chill and recover, why on earth should the fight be stopped? If all you're doing is tiring yourself out, you're doing the wrong thing." - And that is exactly why the fight shouldn't be stopped)
(Update 4: Im tired of hearing "covering up is an exploit of the rules and it makes it so you can only be hit in the back of the head". WRONG.
-Body punches or elbows
-Precision punching around the guard instead of uneffectively punching into it for volume
-Reposition for new angle
-Elbows THROUGH the guard
-Knees or kicks to the body
-Grappling your opponent out of the turtle
-Submissions
ALL ways to FINISH the TKO instead of just punching the opponents guard and hoping for a volume striking award.)
Last edited:
