the piece gets more amusing when he goes on to talk about Belfort's wins over Franklin and Akiyama. I haven't rewatched the TUF fight, and I didn't really pay too close of attention while it was going in, but I was pretty sure at the time I saw Bisping throw at least two consecutive strikes to the base of the skull where the spine enters in the second. I didn't have the sound on, so I couldn't hear if Mazz warned him or not. But they were very, very different than a shot behind the ear, like the blogger is going on about.
On the headkick, I probably would have halted action and issued a warning, regardless of the fact that it didn't land. Bearing in mind Bisping's last win, it wouldn't have been out of the question.
I didn't notice any elbows, but again, I wasn't very focused.
that website suuuuuuuucks. whoever noobjacked this did a good job.
Originally Posted by GL Jeff
I'm one of the biggest advocates of illegal strikes,I mention it quite often about shots behind the ear and back of the head. And I can't remmeber seeing anything that made me speak out during this fight,except the head kick(which missed). I want to rewatch the fight and pay closer attention,I usually see these things but who knows.
When you say that you're an advocate, do you support them? I'm not sure what you mean.
Shots behind the ear and to the back of the head are two totally different things. McCarthy has explained at length working with the NSAC to implement the policy to unified rules in the first place, and talks about a two inch-wide strip from the spine to the crown. The concern isn't necessarily because of knockouts, it's because of spinal/brain damage. A shot behind the ear can take someone's equilibrium easily, but the risk of permenant damage isn't as profound as the area at the base of the skull where the spine enters.
I will say this,sometimes a fighter covers up in such a way that their is no legal striking area on the head. So,should the fighter be allowed to keep striking, the fight ended right away because the fighter has covered up and no longer defending himself,only cowering, or let the fight continue but those punches arent allowed period. Two good examples of this situation,Hughes vs. Gracie, and Aldo vs. Brown.
I don't think the fight should be stopped, by any means. I don't see it as any more cowering than clinching or working hand control. It's just preventing an opponent from using one specific advantage. It's an intelligent defense, and certainly--based on the relative advantage/disadvantage of the two positions--less cowardly than a fighter putting one hand down to indicate that they're "grounded."
I think the warning should state "you can't strike his head from that angle" and that the striking aggressor should have to move to body shots. I don't think the fight should be ended until it's clearly finished. The rules currently call for intelligent defense, that's an intelligent defense, as is keeping a moving target so the striker can't be sure if his blow will be a foul or not.
Right now, there is too much ambiguity with the rules, and I'd love to see a governing body refine them [what is the back of the head, etc] and interpret what a fighter is supposed to do in given situations.