Why are upkicks illegal

People talk about the fact that you can do it as long as they don't have a knee on the ground. But is it that much of a difference? A person squatting with knees hovering over the ground can still get blasted with an upkick, is that any less impactful than if they had one knee down?
 
Because you can't kick a grounded opponent?

Another much weirder rule is not being able to stomp feet of a grounded oponent (although that may have been specific for that states commission)
That was just in pussy-land Canada. Will be corrected when they become 51st state soon.
 
People talk about the fact that you can do it as long as they don't have a knee on the ground. But is it that much of a difference? A person squatting with knees hovering over the ground can still get blasted with an upkick, is that any less impactful than if they had one knee down?
I am not a physicist so could be wrong lol but in the first scenario a certain amount of that impact will be reduced in that you will be pushed backwards and then fall, but as a grounded fighter with a more stable/grounded base then there will be much more impact just on the head/neck and be more likely to cause injury? In a similar way to a seatbelt in a car will cause whiplash

If there are more educated gym bros on board it would be good to hear lol but instinctively it feels like the difference in potential damage would be quite significant?
 
Any attacks to the head of your opponent (barring headbutts and any other outright banned strikes) should be legal when you are in a disadvantages position with your back in contact with the mat.
 
NHB is supposed to be NHB. As soon as we started calling it 'MMA', that was proof enough that we'd all turned into limp-wristed girly men.

The sport is broken without grounded knees and kicks. They are essential. We've been watching NHB's retarded cousin for decades and just got used to it.
 
Fucking Anderson Silva got DQ'd against Yushin Okami due to an illegal upkick. The rule is shite and should be reviewed.
I think axe kicks from bottom can stay illegal. Feels like they can cave a face in.
 
Where is it that "grounded opponent" came to mean touching the ground with anything other than your feet? Big difference between laying on the ground and being on your knees or touching the ground with one hand or etc.
 
I think axe kicks from bottom can stay illegal. Feels like they can cave a face in.

Just like a flying knee can.

f739d02800e60b08-600x338.gif


oardefault.jpg



It's a brutal sport. They know the risks. Upkicks from the guy in a disadvantages position on the ground, should absolutely be able to use all of his limbs to try and get up.
 
Where is it that "grounded opponent" came to mean touching the ground with anything other than your feet?
The very first iteration of the rules. That's almost literally the definition of a grounded fighter in MMA from the start.

Hell, NJ even has language to say that a fighter on their feet can be considered "grounded" if the ref feels the cage is holding the majority of their weight. The point is, it's anything that is not "standing" (or aerial, obviously).
 
One of the most normal human reactions to being on your back with someone raining down shots on your face from above is to up kick. Someone who never training MMA a day in their life would instinctively do that in that situation.

This a dumber rule than when 12-6 was banned.
 
People here acting like there can be no separation from a grounded opponent and legalizing upkicks. They are illegal because they bunch everything together as "grounded opponent". But there can easily be a modification like they added 12/6 elbows. I don't think anyone has trouble separating upkicks from soccer kicks, neither should the legal framework struggle to define it.
 
The difference is that your mobility is much more limited if you're grounded. If you get kicked in the head while you're on your feet, you have a chance to get out of the way. If you're on your knees, what are you supposed to do?
You can apply the same logic to punches and elbows. Should those be banned on the ground too?
 
The very first iteration of the rules. That's almost literally the definition of a grounded fighter in MMA from the start.

Hell, NJ even has language to say that a fighter on their feet can be considered "grounded" if the ref feels the cage is holding the majority of their weight. The point is, it's anything that is not "standing" (or aerial, obviously).
In UFC 1 Gerard Gordeau famously kicked Teila Tuli flush in the face when he was down on the ground so I don't think any rules about grounded opponents in UFC 1 rules, but rules like no fishhooking or eyegouging.
 
Silly rule. That Jones kick to the knee is way more dangerous and ugly to see.
 
You can apply the same logic to punches and elbows. Should those be banned on the ground too?

Punches and elbows need to come from the whole body for them to hit as hard as possible. You can't generated that force against a grounded opponent in the same way you can with kicks.
 
Silly rule. That Jones kick to the knee is way more dangerous and ugly to see.
I honestly wouldn´t mind oblique kicks and stomps to the knee to be illegal, I´m 50/50 on them. The one Khalil used was brutal, instant surgery. Also Jon gave Thiago double knee surgery, he probably tore his knee by just kicking, but Jon kept targeting both knees. Too much damage. Than again 50% that I think they are fair, hard to land.
 
Back
Top