Shelling Up = Intellegent Defense?

[ramsesrod]

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.

That is the thing though. Faber had a single! How can your stop a fight when he is blocking all of the shots and working a single leg?

 

[jamesgalb]

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.

Okay... Faber was laid out...

What other way could he have 'intelligently defended' himself from that position that would have been acceptable? He was aware and able to defend, so what should he have done?

Instant monkey roll or fight stoppage?

What else could a recovering fighter do in that position to not get stopped besides covering up and wait a second? What else would have been intelligent by your standards?

Legit question, because under your standards it seems that as soon as Faber hit the matt the fight was over, and Barao did more to win the fight be just smothering Faber from getting up rather than actually inflicting any additional damage. Is that right?

 

[Loiosh]

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.

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.

 

[jamesgalb]

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.

Bingo! If the opponent can chill and recover, then you are not inflicting damage! Stop hitting the forearms and hit the turtle to the body, or find a whole before firing off a meaningless shot.

How should a fighter win a fight if his opponent in any way can just 'chill and recover'? lol

 

[Lanshire]

I think so as long as the fighter isn't staying in the position too long and isn't absorbing significant damage then it should qualify as intelligent defense. If someone turtles up for a few seconds and isn't taking heavy hits, then yes. If they're sitting there for 30 seconds and still eating heavy shots, then no. It's the context.

 

[sportkillergreg]

Yeah, judges shouldn't be so quick to stop the fight when a guy turtles up. The only reason they stop the fight is because turtling up looks bad. Conversely, if a guy is getting hit with clean shots constantly but is squirming around like a maniac, the ref will be less likely to stop the fight.

Judges should only stop the fight when the guy is obviously finished and getting hit with good shots. Chael vs. Rashad needed a ref stoppage for example, he was not intelligently defending himself. Chael vs Jones was a bit early stoppage imo for 2 reasons. Chael was turtling up, which is still defending yourself and it was a title fight - give fighters time to work (I don't think Chael would have won - besides the freak injury Jones had - but it's the principle of the matter).

As it stands now, if a guy turtles up then all the other guy has to do is throw a bunch of shots to the side of his head, the more volume the better. It doesn't matter if all the punches hit the guy's gloves or not or even whether the punches are powerful or not. The fighter can also look at the ref for good measure to try to pressure him to stop the fight.

P.S. wow i didn't even look at the gif of the fight before posting this. was just posting my opinions of turtling. That looks bad to me that Barao looked at Herb Dean like that. It gives me the impression that he was trying to pressure ref to stop the fight, like I mentioned. Shouldn't Barao have known his hammerfists were just hitting glove? Of course I don't know what Barao was thinking in the heat of the moment or whether he thought Faber was done, it just looks bad to me :L

 

[Jermei]

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.

Funny, fans want blood and destruction but the fighters know when a guy is about to get raped. Barao was c'mon ref don't make me send this guy to the hospital because if it was about punching fabers brains out he would have... perhaps he should have I guess but fabers got tagged several times which has a lot to do with where they were when the fight ended. Faber wasn't doing well and would not have recovered if the fight stood up. I know there's a chance of some miracle haymaker to even the odds but against Barao, the champ, not likely.

 

[jeremyemilio]

It's called turtling up. Just saying.

Turtling up only works because you can't strike your opponent's back. Which is fine since it protects the fighter from rabid punches which are pretty dangerous.

Nonetheless it's not really an effective form of defense. If a guy can't get out of that position regardless of whether or not he's seems to be taking damage or not I think they should stop the fight. Because it's also in the rules that a fight should be stopped if the fighter can no longer defend himself.

This.

Which is also the answer to this:

Just ask Josh Rosenthal.

If you stand in the corner in a boxing match and cover up and try to avoid shots, the ref is going to give you some time or at least wait until it looks like you're really hurt. BUT if go into the corner and turn your back to your opponent and act like that's "intelligently defending yourself" because your opponent can't hit the back of your head, well good luck with that, because the ref's going to stop that fight.

I don't see why people think it should be any different in MMA.

 

[SuperNerd]

MMA refs don't like you blocking furries. You have to eat them and stand up.

 

[jeremyemilio]

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.

Because the only REASON he can chill and recover is because it's illegal to hit him in the back of the head. You aren't allowed to hit a guy in the back in football, either... but that doesn't mean you can get away with just running around the field backwards and now no one can touch you. Either you want to play football, or you don't. Either you want to fight or you don't. Exposing your back to your opponent just signals that you don't feel much like fighting anymore.

 

[SuperNerd]

Because the only REASON he can chill and recover is because it's illegal to hit him in the back of the head. You aren't allowed to hit a guy in the back in football, either... but that doesn't mean you can get away with just running around the field backwards and now no one can touch you. Either you want to play football, or you don't. Either you want to fight or you don't. Exposing your back to your opponent just signals that you don't feel much like fighting anymore.

That's bullshit and an unfortunate event like putting one hand on the mat to stop a knee, due to rules.

It has nothing to do with quitting. He's blocking the parts that can be attacked. It's not his fault he can't be hit in the back of the head and is smart enough to be aware of it.

Do not buy. Sell elsewhere.

 

[MilesAbove]

In the position Faber was in, the most intelligent thing to do was to block the shots with the left arm while holding the right leg with his right arm. Barao would either waste his energy trying to finish or alter his position.

The guy even gave a thumbs up that he was fine. What more do you need? Like Faber said: Is it more intelligent for me to let go of the leg and not block the shots, stand up and go "hey, herb, I'm okay."

 

[The Real Pedro]

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.

Did you watch the actual gif you posted? Because he was flat on his stomach for a split second. Barao hurt him badly standing but was doing nothing at the time of the actual stoppage.

Barao himself said (via translation) that he was somewhat surprised the fight was stopped at that point.

 

[DarthChen731]

TS didn't want to have a long paragraph so he put every sentence on a new line lol

 

[SuperNerd]

wrong thread

 

[kflo]

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.

Barao isn't even trying to damage at the end. He's looking at the ref more than where he's hitting his opponent.

 

[grimballer]

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)

As long as strikes are not going throu the fight should continue.

These guys are going in there knowingly they might get hurt.

 

[Doodles]

Should shelling up be considered intellegent defense? By definition, it is exactly that.

The only reason this could actually qualify as defence is because the unified rules are shit. Allow knees to a downed opponent and this shelling up bullshit will disappear overnight.

 

[SuperNerd]

As long as strikes are not going throu the fight should continue.

These guys are going in there knowingly they might get hurt.

I read a post after the fight, those arms shots could have caused nerve damage, and shortened Faber's career.

 

[DarthChen731]

In the position Faber was in, the most intelligent thing to do was to block the shots with the left arm while holding the right leg with his right arm. Barao would either waste his energy trying to finish or alter his position.

The guy even gave a thumbs up that he was fine. What more do you need? Like Faber said: Is it more intelligent for me to let go of the leg and not block the shots, stand up and go "hey, herb, I'm okay."

It's also more intelligent to eat a rock than nuclear waste but that doesn't make it a good idea.