- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,874
- Reaction score
- 2
Intelligent. Intelligent. Intelligent.
Shelling Up = Intellegent Defense?
- Thread starter jamesgalb
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2007
- Messages
- 23,754
- Reaction score
- 0
at first i thought you were going to say the exact opposite of what I believe, and then you said exactly what I believe. Good job.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 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 certianly excaped 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.
Thoughts?
(I gave more of my opinion then I expected)
Fighters should not get stoppages for quickly throwing 5 shots at the FOREARMS of an opponent they just knocked down. All that does is make the ref panic into stopping the fight when really no damage is being done.
And shelling up, is DEFINITION intelligent defense: You are (intelligently) putting up your arms and knees to DEFEND yourself from the oncoming strikes. I can't stand that there are people that actually don't think that's intelligent defense. That's like thinking a jab isn't a real strike...
The reason some don't think it's intelligent defense is because they are CONFUSING countering with defending.
Most of the time, when someone attacks in MMA, the other person COUNTERS in some way, and not necessarily counter strikes but even something like... if A is trying to finish you with strikes then B sticks up his legs and starts kicking. That is a COUNTER OFFENSIVE. or even if A is coming forward trying to hurt you with strikes and B shoots for a leg... that is a COUNTER OFFENSIVE.
It's like the old saying "a good offense is the best defense" so most people's idea of defense is for someone to actually ATTACK in some way (whether by going for a takedown or a submission, ect)
but that's not really "Defending". Pure DEFENDING is like....blocking. And turtling or "shelling" as you call it is basically hardcore blocking, where they're trying to block with all their limbs at once.
So it's definitely an intelligent defense.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,168
- Reaction score
- 0
Brock vs. Carwin is proof that the refs should not stop a fight when a fighter turtles up and blocks punches with his arms to buy time for a counter attack.
So to answer your question: Yes, shelling up is intelligent defense, unless a fighter uses his head as a turtle shell :icon_lol:.
So to answer your question: Yes, shelling up is intelligent defense, unless a fighter uses his head as a turtle shell :icon_lol:.
He should tap. Otherwise, he should get punched.
I agree, if a fighter shells for a long period of time, the fight is over, as their unwillingness to fight back should count for a stoppage...
However, it is good to see many agree that when a fighter gets dropped hard and decides to shell up, that he should be given the opportunity to recover no matter how quickly the opponent delivers quick and weak hammerfists to his gloves and arms...
I wish the athletic commissions would begin a forum (not message board, but discussion) about new rule changes. One thing I would like to see changed more than anything is for a 3 point stance to require a knee to be down to qualify the fighter as legitimately being down. If he is going to get the rule benefits of being down, he should most certainly have to sacrifice his standing feet position.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 65,561
- Reaction score
- 8,847
You have a very, very limited time to use this defense. It makes the sprot look TERRIBLE to outsiders. In a freakin street fight, a street fight that you enjoy watching that both guys agreed to be in, once a guy turtles and starts taking shots, the decent men in the crowd jumo in to break it up. That's the way it was in my decent neighborhood, and there were definitely fights.
But yeah, if in a real fight you break it up when somebody takes more than a couple shots while turtled because of how bad it looks, you probably do the same in MMA.
But yeah, if in a real fight you break it up when somebody takes more than a couple shots while turtled because of how bad it looks, you probably do the same in MMA.
Well what is a legitimately rocked, but not out, fighter supposed to do? Open up and throw caution to the wind at the same time your trying to stop seeing stars?
Like I said, if the guy on the ground gets legitimately hit while on the ground, and hurt, then stop it. This is more about fighting pouncing on dazed fighter and whacking his forearms for a quick stoppage.
I disagree bigtime here...
I do not think people look at MMA fighting like a street fight. People are not watching thinking that the person turtling up is a poor helpless victim getting beat on by an attacker while no one helps. They know full and well that these are trained athletes where no one is the victim and if things get too ugly that there is a ref around to help stop things...
Beyond that, strikes to an opponents defense/guard do not look gruesome or difficult to watch, in any way... and I think people watch in dramatic and intriguing suspense when they watch the winning guy tire himself out while inflicting little damage, and end up seeing the fight become fair game again.
Some of the most intense and suspenseful fights have come from the fighter winning punching themselves out and the opponent then coming back.
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...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,797
- Reaction score
- 0
Shelling up for a few seconds is fine, in my opinion, but then you've got to do something. After that, even if you're not taking much damage, I think it could fall under the category of "timidity", which is a foul under the unified rules:
So maybe the solution, rather than stopping the fight, would be to stand them up and take a point from the turtled-up fighter. It gives them a chance to continue, but still penalizes them. Just a thought...
So maybe the solution, rather than stopping the fight, would be to stand them up and take a point from the turtled-up fighter. It gives them a chance to continue, but still penalizes them. Just a thought...
If turtling up is more tolerated, that's unfair for the aggressive fighter. Imagine you just dropped your opponent and you're hitting him over and over again. The other guy can just chill there, like a turtle, recover his senses and wait until you tire yourself out.
Herb dean should've given Faber about 10 seconds in total. After 5 secs in turtling position, say "work or I'll stop the fight". Then after another 5 seconds of turtling, stop the fight. That would've been the best decision. A thumbs up is meaningless if you're still turtling.
Herb dean should've given Faber about 10 seconds in total. After 5 secs in turtling position, say "work or I'll stop the fight". Then after another 5 seconds of turtling, stop the fight. That would've been the best decision. A thumbs up is meaningless if you're still turtling.
The attacking/aggressive fighter can still damage a turtled fighter. They shouldn't be rewarded for not doing so.
Body strikes. More precise strikes through the guard. Body to head combinations and switching sides. Dropped elbows onto the guard to het through it... Whatever needs to be done. NOT just striking unintelligently and with no impact.
The aggressive fighter shouldn't be rewarded for simply pouncing. He should have to actually get a TKO to earn one, not just throw a bunch of meaningless punches to get an activity stoppage.... If you think that is 'penalizing' the aggressive fighter, I guess we are all entitled to our opinions
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2010
- Messages
- 5,985
- Reaction score
- 4
Faber went to the ground unconcious, he went back as he hit the ground with his face.
He fell to the ground with both arms up and open wide, which I can cope as a sign of being about to give up.
Some may argue that he turtled up with the back of his head all clear, but nevermind that. Herb had to make a call and Faber wasn't inspiring like he was about to turn it all around.
He should, indeed, wait two or three more seconds, just in case.
I recall a recent fight were the fighters were in the north-south position and one of the fighters was hitting the other on the shoulder with his ankle while holding the other fighter's legs. The attacked fighter proceeded to place his near his should and got slightly hit on the head.
So he turned out to the referee expecting a point deduction or DQ for an illegal blow, what do you guys think about that?
He fell to the ground with both arms up and open wide, which I can cope as a sign of being about to give up.
Some may argue that he turtled up with the back of his head all clear, but nevermind that. Herb had to make a call and Faber wasn't inspiring like he was about to turn it all around.
He should, indeed, wait two or three more seconds, just in case.
I recall a recent fight were the fighters were in the north-south position and one of the fighters was hitting the other on the shoulder with his ankle while holding the other fighter's legs. The attacked fighter proceeded to place his near his should and got slightly hit on the head.
So he turned out to the referee expecting a point deduction or DQ for an illegal blow, what do you guys think about that?
I don't know. If a fighter can just turtle up after getting rocked why would they hold the cards? Turtle up, wait for the opponent to stop pounding on them (even if the shots are blocked)? Why does the aggressor have to adjust to the turtling fighter that they just dropped?
Think about it. You drop your opponent, they turtle up, and now its up to adjust? Turtling can be done for a brief time. You can't expect to stay in that position indefinitely. It takes no skill to ball up and cover your head.
Think about it. You drop your opponent, they turtle up, and now its up to adjust? Turtling can be done for a brief time. You can't expect to stay in that position indefinitely. It takes no skill to ball up and cover your head.
When a fighter throws up a defensive guard, yes the attacker is always required to adjust to land meaningful shots. Why should this be any different?
People are asking like shelling up is impossible to break or get through... Its not...
Its when the aggressive fighters chooses to not break through the turtle by looking for holes/openings, and instead goes for a stoppage based on volume strikes to the forearms, that things become kind of 'messed up'...
Turtling with someone raining fists on your defensive forearms and hands covering your head is domination beyond full-mount. If a fighter finds himself surviving with a turtle defence then he can only wonder how he got there. Its all but over when a guy off the streets of Brazil has you at his mercy after tagging you several time to force a turtle defence.
I agree with this. If Faber shot in for a single or double that failed which led to that scenario, I belive the fight would not have stopped. Faber was flat on his stomach after he got laid out and the only thing he did was grab Barao's leg and cover his head.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 40,436
- Reaction score
- 33,614
Lets not act like Carwin/Lesnar was anything like Faber/Barao.
Brock was against the fence, on his ass, eating shot after shot, with his face and some with his arms, as well. That would have been a lot justifiable than the stoppage last night.
should we stop fights when people get mount after a knockdown too?
Yeah, its a bad position, and should be scored accordingly... But if the fighter can ride it out without taking additional damage, then he was defending intelligently and the opponent was striking unintelligently. No way in hell should the attacking fighter be rewarded a stoppage victory when he isn't even trying to land a meaningful punch but is instead trying to create an illusion of a dominant position... Dominant Positions are not a reason to stop a fight, and that is ALL that forearm punches represent.
