- Joined
- Apr 16, 2009
- Messages
- 16,021
- Reaction score
- 12,494
maybe if you turtle and just leave the back of your head exposed that should be a sign of submission and the fight stopped........might be tough to enforce but agree it shouldn't be a defensive loophole. like the grounded opponent rule was exploited (and still is).Well generally I agree with your point.
Any fight-ending technique should be allowed. If an opponent can't defend against it then the fight ends.
Right now the rules change the way you fight and defend yourself from how you would if they weren't in place. That isn't really what this sport is about. It's about seeing who's the best at 1v1 unarmed combat in a confined area. Setting rules in place that artificially extend the fight ARGUABLY exposes the fighter to more damage than they would have seen eating that fight-ending knee on the ground (or god forbid a 12-6 elbow, those deadly ass things).
That all said, strikes to the back of the head can kill or paralyze a man so they are rightly banned... but fighters even abuse that by tucking their head so it is the only place their opponent can strike... Its tough to draw a line. They drew it in a weird spot but the rules arent THAT bad.
Talk to the commissions. It was the athletic commissions that did away with them thanks to Gan McGee blasting Brad Gabriel in the head with knees while he was on the ground in the first sanctioned MMA event in NJ way back when at IFC in 2000.It's silly to me why it isn't allowed. Jorge running across the cage and jump kneeing someone leaning forward is far more dangerous.
This rule change could legit turn the majority of the boring fighters into exciting monsters! Perfect example, the monster, Kevin Randleman.
Bring knees on the ground back
It would... The knee is big and the leg is even bigger... The muscles are more powerfull and gravity is a bitch. a punch on a downed oponent is nothing compared to a knee to a downed oponent. MMA fans being warrior when they do not have to fight... Step into a ring / cage and then you could talk... It's easy being a soldier when it ain't no warKnees to the head of a ground opponent wouldn't amplify CTE in MMA anymore than anything else than happens in the sport.
Just look at all of the brutal injuries and even deaths from all the fights that have allowed knees to the head of a downed opponent! Oh the humanity! So much more vicious than other strikes! Oh myyyyy!It would... The knee is big and the leg is even bigger... The muscles are more powerfull and gravity is a bitch. a punch on a downed oponent is nothing compared to a knee to a downed oponent. MMA fans being warrior when they do not have to fight... Step into a ring / cage and then you could talk... It's easy being a soldier when it ain't no war
Go watch soccerSome of y'all who want this are just ruthless individuals. Let's try caring about these athletes just a little bit.
you can block them, as they are more predictable than punches.CTE...?
no dummy, I don't want to see knees to the head on the grounded opponent (a la Pride style). I don't want to see fighter's last fight due to sustained injury to the head from a fucken knee.last fights? what are you talking about? so do you want to ban all knees to the head or what?
dummy? let's keep it civil sherbro have any fighters been permanently injured from getting kneed while they're on the ground? i'd like to know. i don't think it could be any more dangerous than the KOs we see normally, where people fall and often hit their head on the mat/canvasno dummy, I don't want to see knees to the head on the grounded opponent (a la Pride style). I don't want to see fighter's last fight due to sustained injury to the head from a fucken knee.
This would favor him even more mateI agree. although Im a khabib fan I think the rules favor grapplers too much.