Thats a K.O slam

Paolo Delutis said:
The legal technique caused the heads to impact over momentum... it's incidental but its still a K.O...

Its like what if your opponent is running at you and u punch him and his head clashes with yours on the way down...is it not a K.O then? ... sometimes shit is uncontrollable but you gotta look at how they got there and it was from a real legal technique...heads are gunna connect on takedowns cuz ur grappling and throwing...

With this decision they've just effectively called into question many previous slam K.Os...stupid move
Click to expand...

Because he got KO by the head collision not by the slam or a punch. It’s simple man, he got ko by the head colliding.

See holland v daukus for a perfect example.

it’s not rocket science.

they clashed heads, bondar got ko by a head clash. Simple.
 
GrantB13 said:
I'd say the bigger talking point is that ref letting those freaking elbows go unanswered while the guy was clearly knocked out. What was he waiting for?
Click to expand...
Idk how nobody is talking about it, he was ded for some time there, elbows just kept coming
 
uff said:
Are you completely disregarding the headclash?? didn't you see it? do you think the officials reviewing the film didn't consider all the eventualities?? They arrived to that conclusion after carefully rewatching the sequence and i happen to think it was the right one, and no the decision doesn't call into question any past or future clean Slam KOs.
Click to expand...
You can't prove whether it was the slam or the clash of heads that ko'ed him. The slam itself was legal and the head clash was incidental. There's also precedent set from previous slam ko wins (Tito v.s. Tanner), so it should not have been ruled a no contest.
 
Southpoor97 said:
Because he got KO by the head collision not by the slam or a punch. It’s simple man, he got ko by the head colliding.

See holland v daukus for a perfect example.

it’s not rocket science.

they clashed heads, bondar got ko by a head clash. Simple.
Click to expand...
No, that was a very different situation. Holland got choked out because he got rocked from a head clash which gave Daukus an opening and the ref let the fight continue for some stupid reason. The head clash in Hernandez v.s. Bondar was due to a perfectly legal technique that led to the finish.
 
A slam with crashing heads?
AEtllhF.gif
 
Southpoor97 said:
Because he got KO by the head collision not by the slam or a punch. It’s simple man, he got ko by the head colliding.

See holland v daukus for a perfect example.

it’s not rocket science.

they clashed heads, bondar got ko by a head clash. Simple.
Click to expand...


You dont know that... No1 does...

He hit his head hard enough off the mat for it to bounce back up into buddies head coming down...

Thats a significant impact where im from and its what a suplex is supposed to do...

The contact was incidental...not accidental... you can't avoid it ..in most grappling situations.. there's plenty of grappling situations where people don't get knocked out when the head spang up from the impact of a takedown is that now a headbutt and if so ..should it be restarted,?!?!... should we just take grappling out of the sport because they might clash heads on the way down...


Slippery slope my friend
 
Big Al's Texas BBQ said:
You can't prove whether it was the slam or the clash of heads that ko'ed him. The slam itself was legal and the head clash was incidental. There's also precedent set from previous slam ko wins (Tito v.s. Tanner), so it should not have been ruled a no contest.
Click to expand...
Altough Tito's head is huge ,that big melon of his didn't clash with Tanner's head , it's a completely different situation; and more than one official with multiple angles available to them, rewatching the sequence and deciding on the clash of heads is proof enough for me.
 
Big Al's Texas BBQ said:
You can't prove whether it was the slam or the clash of heads that ko'ed him. The slam itself was legal and the head clash was incidental. There's also precedent set from previous slam ko wins (Tito v.s. Tanner), so it should not have been ruled a no contest.
Click to expand...

Fact is there was a clash of heads and with he full force of a slam behind it. I'm ok with the call to get it to a decision.
 
I saw a double play the other day that got called back because instant replay showed the shortstop missed 2nd base.

10 years ago that would have NEVER been called. Anywhere close to the base was fine. I can only assume it was instant replay that changed the rule.

Same thing here. Rampage/Arona was a head clash, but all us old timers still consider it a slam KO. Same with Couture v Gonzaga (IIRC). Tonight's was little to no different than those and many others.

So the slam didn't change; how we perceive the slam it what changed.

But, rules evolve all the time. So, shrug.

Frankly I'm more disturbed with the ref allowing all those elbows after he was clearly not defending anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,681
Messages
58,311,313
Members
175,997
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top