Why aren't the 'slice' attacks used more in MMA?

[gracie_barra**]

Does anyone know why people mostly go for chokes or the bone/joint based subs than rather, the attacks that involve the muscles? Ie. Calf slicer. I found the calf slicer to be waaaaaaay more painful than an ankle lock.

 

[nosebleed]

a lot of slicer moves work in grappling when you can't get punched, but the positioning is not ideal when the other person can punch you. also, its harder to do real damage with calf/bicep crush/slicers (they hurt like a bitch, but the physical longterm damage they do is less harmful/likely than with armbars, heelhooks, etc)

 

[minimagpro]

in most ju-jist tournaments muscle locks are illegal

 

[flyingknee16]

when ur in the heat of an mma fight and adrenaline is surging through your body, a calf slicer or bicep slicer will be much easier to resist while you pound away at the face of your enemy than in an all grappling match.

 

[Foul Breath]

Adrenalin is the antidote to muscle attacks. It doesnt really work on pumped up people. I tried. So i just stick to the standard armbars and chokes. Adrenaline can do nothing against those.

 

[GracieMMABarra]

good point on the adrenaline...and they do tend to leave you open to be punched

 

[The Sickness]

There is little to no danger of breaking with them. With a choke or a joint lock, you fall asleep, it breaks, or you tap. Simple....

 

[Deleted member 3729]

I'm pretty sure bicep locks came damage our elbow, if you go far enough with them.

 

[stephensharp]

I'm pretty sure bicep locks came damage our elbow, if you go far enough with them.

But you feel it if that's what's getting f'd up, and someone's not going to go for it thinking "If I get this JUST RIGHT... It's as good as an armbar!!" instead of going for an armbar.

It's all about high percentage.