Submission Holds Are A More Definitive Ending To A Fight Than KOs

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

You think UFC fights are fake? I'm guessing you're just trying to explain the difference between a UFC fight and an actual ho holds barred fight but lack the mental acuity to do so. If I'm right, now you know how to explain what you were trying to explain.

You're welcome.

Don't resort to trolling when your argument gets shot down by everyone. Accept you were wrong and move on like you aren't 13.

 

[Alphafail]

Machida never quit against Jones. Does that mean Jones' win against Machida was less definitive than Anderson/Chael 1?

 

[flyingscissorsheelhook]

I would say KO=Sub - tko - dominant decision win - close unanimous decision win - fluke injury win - split decision win - Robbery - DQ - Officials error.

The two stupidest FUGGed up victories IMO were Johnson winning by breaking AA jaw six minutes into the five minute first round, followed by Mighty Mouse winning on an elementary school arithmetic error!

Add Kevin burns' TKO win over Rumble via brutal eye gouge to that list too.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

When you make your opponent say "I quit" that's the most definitive ending to a fight you could possible have. Even after being KOd may fighters have wanted to continue after regaining consciousness but the referees don;t allow them to continue. They're depending on a 3rd person to decide the fight should end. When a fighter has to say "I quit" that is a 100% definitive ending to a fight. It doesn't rely on a referee's judgement or that of the judges. It's the only finish in The UFC that is entirely definitive.

When a guy looks like he's dead that's the most definitive it can get.

 

[Kung Fu bb]

It is a shame the ref has to pull them on away though.

I know. imagine how awesome they´d be for highlights, that 10 seconds flurry of bombs on a semi dead opponent.

 

[I'mBetterThanYou]

Depends what you mean by definitive. Definitive means that the fight goes until somebody dies, correct? If you agree with that, then certain submissions like a rare naked or a triangle are equally as "definitive" as a KO because obviously, once your opponent is out, it wouldn't be too hard to kill them. TKOs are probably the least "definitive" ending to a fight (not counting rare circumstances like doctor stoppages) but I don't see how you could argue that submissions are more definitive than KOs.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I never noticed how bad Bisping looked here before the KO. He's standing straight up throwing arm punches. He's so much better now, imo.

 

[jeremyemilio]

In real life you aren't fighting for a win. Your fighting to hurt your opponent. Nothing will lead to hurting him more than taking his consciousness. It leaves him prone to death. Which is way more final than a broken spirit or broken arm.

Not more final than a choke, though.

Besides which, the whole "real fight" thing is much more subjective than people let on. Real fights happen under all sorts of scenarios. In many of those scenarios, making a man submit to you is far more preferable to knocking him unconscious.

In fact, if you were to get drunk and decide to pick a fight with a world class fighter, he'd very likely choose to make you submit to him over knocking you out, precisely because he's SO dominant over you that he doesn't NEED to knock you out.

 

[jeremyemilio]

If you tap out and walk away, it wasn't a real fight. Why not just say tap then get up and swing? Nothing saying I shouldn't and it would sure help my "soul" and "spirit" recover.

Not entirely true. What stops you from getting up and swinging is the knowledge that your opponent gave you a chance once, but next time he won't be so nice. Maybe you don't really want him to break your arm and stomp you to death, so you figure you'll let it go?

That's how it works in the animal kingdom, too. Rarely do animals of the same species fight to the death. They generally fight until one of them submits.

When wolves challenge for alpha status, and one wolf gets the other by the throat, and makes him submit, that's as real as a fight gets. If a wolf decides he doesn't want to live by those rules, then he's going to die by them... with his throat ripped out.

 

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

Not more final than a choke, though.

Besides which, the whole "real fight" thing is much more subjective than people let on. Real fights happen under all sorts of scenarios. In many of those scenarios, making a man submit to you is far more preferable than knocking him unconscious.

In fact, if you were to get drunk and decide to pick a fight with a world class fighter, he'd very likely choose to make you submit to him over knocking you out, precisely because he's SO dominant over you that he doesn't NEED to knock you out.

If you're knocked out, what's stopping me from grabbing your neck and choking the life out of you?

The entire idea of basing it outside of the rules of combat is to judge which brings more finality. Nothing's more final than taking a man's consciousness.

 

[jeremyemilio]

If you're knocked out, what's stopping me from grabbing your neck and choking the life out of you?

The entire idea of basing it outside of the rules of combat is to judge which brings more finality. Nothing's more final than taking a man's consciousness.

I'm not saying a choke is more final than a KO. But it is equally final. In either case, one fighter is helpless, and the other is in a position to kill him at will.

But in a "real fight" sometimes (usually, in fact) you really don't want to kill anyone. If you kill your drunk uncle at the family picnic, it's probably not going to go good for you. Yes, he slapped your aunt, and sure he's a scumbag... but "he needed killin'" has never been a very effective defense.

Now, mind you, if he's a very dangerous scumbag, that's a different story. In that case, a KO (or even an offensive resulting in death) might actually make sense.

But if you're DOMINANT enough over him, you won't need to knock him out and risk killing him, probably won't want to, and sure as hell don't want to find yourself standing in front of a judge explaining why you did.

 

[J. Bernie Cunningham]

I'm not saying a choke is more final than a KO. But it is equally final. In either case, one fighter is helpless, and the other is in a position to kill him at will.

Threads comparing submissions. In no way is someone yelling uncle in an armbar more definitive thsn knocking someone unconscious. Chokes until a man's out I'll put as even.

 

[jeremyemilio]

Threads comparing submissions. In no way is someone yelling uncle in an armbar more definitive thsn knocking someone unconscious. Chokes until a man's out I'll put as even.

We agree, then. Why you fighting?

 

[ocean size]

TBH TS I am surprised you are a brown belt with a comment like that.

It is interesting though you almost never see submission to punches. Instead guys turtle and stop responding and keep taking damage even if they know the end is inevitable. It isn't seen as acceptable to not wait till the ref stops it, even though getting beat until you are out or at least can't defend is usually more damaging than getting choked unconscious.

 

[grecobjj]

Uhhhh....how can anyone say "I quit " when they're unconscious?

Devils advocate
You do see a lot of fighters arguing that stoppages were early or that they "weren't really out". You also see fighters talk about "lucky punches"

Kind of hard to argue an audible tap or a clean tap. I don't recall anyone saying "he just caught me with a lucky triangle "

 

[Mochan]

Fatality is the most definitive way to win a fight.