Should knees be allowed to the head/face on a grounded opponent?

[Towerworld]

in general no, i don’t think you should be able to stomp or knee a guy while he’s laying on his back. It would be very easy for permanent damage to be inflicted on an already incapacitated opponent before the referee can stop the fight by. While it makes fights more entertaining CTE and deaths are not good for the sport.

That said, I think the definition of grounded opponents should change, one knee or hand touching the canvas should not make you “grounded”. you should have to be on both knees, stomach or back to be grounded and the knee vs sterling should be legal. Yan did know the rules however and he should have just finished him with uppercuts as the guy was a sitting duck.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

in general no, i don’t think you should be able to stomp or knee a guy while he’s laying on his back. It would be very easy for permanent damage to be inflicted on an already incapacitated opponent before the referee can stop the fight by. While it makes fights more entertaining CTE and deaths are not good for the sport.

That said, I think the definition of grounded opponents should change, one knee or hand touching the canvas should not make you “grounded”. you should have to be on both knees, stomach or back to be grounded and the knee vs sterling should be legal. Yan did know the rules however and he should have just finished him with uppercuts as the guy was a sitting duck.

That wouldnt work. It's too easy to be on both knees. We would have the same problem. A downed opponent would just have to be classified as someone either flat on their backs or flat on their stomachs.

 

[Towerworld]

That wouldnt work. It's too easy to be on both knees. We would have the same problem. A downed opponent would just have to be classified as someone either flat on their backs or flat on their stomachs.

sure but its far easier/quicker to get up from one knee than it is from two, its also a rarer sight to see in the octagon.

 

[JustBleed69]

Should this be legal?

I'd like to see knees and up kicks to a grounded opponent be legal, but not soccer kicks or stomps.

 

[ClosetVitorFan]

sure but its far easier/quicker to get up from one knee than it is from two, its also a rarer sight to see in the octagon.

It would too hard to tell. Is he on one knee or two? Oh he was on one knee, great. Oh he was on two? It was illegal? I lost the fight. Crap.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

Yeah I’ll go with option 2. If it’s legal on the feet it should also be legal on the ground.

Also we can get rid of the long period of confusion by the refs and commentators every time someone gets KO’d this way.

 

[aerius]

Of course they should be legal.

 

[Drugstore Cowboy]

Yes. Without a fucking doubt.

 

[Sticko]

ONE has basically modified PRIDE rules that allow grounded knees and score the fight as a whole.

In this fight Santos was way ahead through the first 2 rounds, but then in the third, he gassed, shot a bad TD, got stuffed, then kneed into oblivion.

In this case it was an exciting come from behind finish, but I also think Kadestam didn't really deserve to win. He got controlled on the ground and got helped back to his feet 3 separate times (saved by the bell in R1, stood up by the ref in the middle of R2, saved by the bell in R2). He couldn't get up on his own until Santos got tired.

 

[dc007]

Yes. As long as both fighters are aware they are legal going into the fight as opposed to Yan's surprise knee.

 

[fzoid4454]

That knee yan threw? That should be a legal knee. Sterling was stalling in that position knowing yan had to throw specific shots. The knee was deserved. Same situation with moose /weidman and the Chris trying to plant his hand to force the downed opponent situation.

Stomps/soccer kicks are a tad much but I think that opponent who's capable of standing shouldn't be able to stall or force the person trying to engage into picking specified shots or face disqualification. I think maybe an opponent who's on all fours, back is on the mat or stomach should be the line. Not a guy on 1 knee

You really think a stomp is worse than that knee?

It seems like you don't like that Sterling was turtled up like that, but there were plenty of other options.

1. Step back, and stand it back up.
2. Stay there, and whale away with punches, to anywhere, and kicks to anywhere but the head.
3. Go to the ground (which Yan didn't want to do, which is fine, but HIS choice)

Yan chose not to go any of those routes, so the fact that Sterling was "stalling" was not just his choice, but Yan's as well. That's a pretty poor excuse for wanting dangerous, debilitating and potentially lethal shots to be allowed.

Not quite the same as Weidman. Weidman tried playing that game, but he was STANDING, and leaning over to touch the ground. That's a whole different area code than being on your knees.

 

[Kryptt]

Ground strikes need to be revisited. A number of strikes (particularly kicks) to grounded and grappled opponents need to be opened up.

 

[campbecc]

They should be legal but all fighters know they are not legal and it would be a lot harder to land a knee if they were not illegal because fighters are not looking for them.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

I mean we are talking about the context of hand-to-hand martial arts combat. Obviously guns would kill fighters quickly; are you suggesting these kinds of knees would cause deaths/or injuries at a more significant rate similar to that of guns???

The problem with ballshots is they're too effective, and so the entire game would be who can get the first ball shot, which no one wants to see. However, do you really think the Aljo situation would be so common that it would ruin the tactics of MMA? And it would its inclusion be so alien to the current tactics we already see?

I don't think so; I think downed knees fit in comfortably within the realm of "martial arts"; and for that matter, although its unnapealing to a western audience, headbutts would be fine and are already part of Lethwei rules.


In my opinion:

Either YES, it should be legal, OR it should be illegal but a fighter should be deducted for a point trying to play in a safe position:

Situation A
Fake down fighter
REF: move position!
Fake down flops to his back or stands up

Situation B
Fake down fighter:
REF: move position!
Fake down stays in position
REF: 1 point deduction!

While I like the idea of the ref forcing the "downed fighter" to move, in all honesty that just adds another layer of complexity (ref interfering with the fight and changing the flow even more).

Just let them knee them in the face if they so choose to kneel; they can always fall to their back or stand-up as they should be are aware they aren't safe by taking a knee.

Very savvy post for a white-belt....previous account ban I presume?

 

[Oicho Throw]

In this fight Santos was way ahead through the first 2 rounds, but then in the third, he gassed, shot a bad TD, got stuffed, then kneed into oblivion.

How is this any different than "Got gassed, dropped his hands, ate a KO punch" or "Got gassed, attempted a bad TD, got stuffed, got choked"?

 

[Cpt Migraine]

That's a weird false equivalence. Dropping down to all fours to deal with "inconvenient striking" is a very bad strategy, as your opponent gets a dominant position and can still punch your head, kick or knee your body, take top position, etc. It's not like it's some full proof get out of jail free card.

It's not a perfect equivalence bit it's not false..

It feels a bit outdated to speak in the terms of strikers and grapplers and one could say the mat favours the striker since slams would be horrible on concrete as proved by world star..

But the thing is it fucks up the flow.. a bad shot is basically losing the wrestling exchange.. you can punch or step back but it's not the same fight ending power as the winner of the grappling exchange is forced to give up control to punch/step back.. ie you get away with losing the exchange..

It would be like not getting to choke a guy if he puts his finger up his nose or starts massaging his right thigh.. your'e wide open to be finished but because you are in a certain position your opponent can't do the most logical thing..

 

[Hurricane Brad]

With the exception of no elbows on the ground PRIDE had a far superior ruleset.

Yeah I would have liked to see elbows to the head allowed in Pride as well. I think I prefer the cage over the ring though, I used to hate how they would have to stop and reposition the fighters when they were grappling near the ropes.

 

[mmamxfan]

Yes it would make people think twice about constantly spamming takedowns knowing there is no repercussions. It would help get rid of all the lame fights we've been getting and why the fan base is diminishing. Or don't and watch the sport disappear.

 

[Grayto]

The knee is traveling to a completely different place, and a standing fighter has the ability to protect themselves. Obviously some standing knees can be brutal, but it is clearly more dangerous that kneeing a guy kneeling on the ground. You want proof? Go to your local MMA gym and give it a shot.

This makes no sense. Again, the point of fighting is to get your opponent into a position where they could not defend themselves. By your definition, a crucifix should be illegal because the fighter cant defend themselves; or all fights should be stood up because fighters can protect themselves better. It's like youre missing the point of MMA in general.

Also, you are arguing against basic physics here. Head on collisions (intercepting knees) create more impact; collision into fixed objects (Thai plum) create more structural damage (no way for the energy to dissipate). The "go to an MMA gym" is the most Sherbro arguments I've ever heard. Congratulations. I do do muay thai. I wouldn't want to take any form of knee in the face; they're all brutal, but none qualitatively more so than the other.

But Im glad you agree that the gun analogy was bad, that Aljo was stalling, that the position is avoidable, and that rules as they are artificially advantages the weaker fighter.

 

[Grayto]

While I like the idea of the ref forcing the "downed fighter" to move, in all honesty that just adds another layer of complexity (ref interfering with the fight and changing the flow even more).

Just let them knee them in the face if they so choose to kneel; they can always fall to their back or stand-up as they should be are aware they aren't safe by taking a knee.

Very savvy post for a white-belt....previous account ban I presume?

Just an idea. I agree that less is better, considering how easy it seems for Refs to fuck up calls.

The point is, the onus should not be on the winning fighter to reduce their offence in this situation. The onus should be on the losing fighter to defend themselves. Kneeling on the mat is only intelligently defending yourself in the context of artificial rules. But I agree, in that position, free the knee.

And thanks(?), not sure if thats back-handed compliment. It's odd to assume that posting on sherdog will increase your savviness, rather than the opposit. I'm just a lurker tired of shit arguments.

 

[TheMMAnalyst]

Just an idea. I agree that less is better, considering how easy it seems for Refs to fuck up calls.

The point is, the onus should not be on the winning fighter to reduce their offence in this situation. The onus should be on the losing fighter to defend themselves. Kneeling on the mat is only intelligently defending yourself in the context of artificial rules. But I agree, in that position, free the knee.

And thanks(?), not sure if thats back-handed compliment. It's odd to assume that posting on sherdog will increase your savviness, rather than the opposit. I'm just a lurker tired of shit arguments.

Agreed entirely, well said.

Not a back-handed compliment, just joking around with the stereotype that white belts never make good posts lol.

I was a lurker for like 6+ years before I made an account. Appreciate the posts!