PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!?



Cat--Smasher
12-05-2011, 07:44 AM
Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!?


The Ultimate Fighting Championship once had no rules. Royce Gracie could pull on Kimo's beautiful, flowing ponytail to his hearts content. Keith Hackney could punch Joe Son in the balls endlessly and it was all good. Given events that went on outside the cage in the life of Random Task, perhaps Keith should have been given all the time he wanted to speedbag his balls into dust.

Today, of course, there are rules. Sometimes.

In the main event of The Ultimate Finale tonight, we saw Michael Bisping throw a head kick at his downed opponent, strike the back of the head repeatedly and throw repeated 12-6 elbows. This was all a non issue to Steve "Hot Tub" Mazzagatti. Steve is linked to 2 situations involving illegal strikes. He infamously deducted a point from Brock Lesnar at UFC 81 with no warning for strikes to the back of the head and disqualified Jon Jones for 12-6 elbowing Matt Hamill into another lifetime. The Steve Mazzagatti that occupied the cage tonight was cool with both of those things and more. Baffling


Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!? - Head Kick Legend (http://www.headkicklegend.com/2011/12/4/2609333/illegal-strikes-Bisping-Mayhem)

GL Jeff
12-05-2011, 09:02 AM
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.

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.

slikguy
12-05-2011, 09:58 AM
oh cry me a river

rivethead
12-05-2011, 05:36 PM
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.


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.

rh

GL Jeff
12-05-2011, 08:50 PM
I advocate against them, I don't think ref's actually know the rule about illegal areas on the head. Behind the ear,and the mohawk line are illegal areas for striking,thats what I read,I posted a diagram a loooong time ago.

rivethead
12-05-2011, 09:10 PM
I advocate against them, I don't think ref's actually know the rule about illegal areas on the head. Behind the ear,and the mohawk line are illegal areas for striking,thats what I read,I posted a diagram a loooong time ago.

I agree that the reasoning isn't understood across the board. I think some refs have a better understanding of the reason behind the rule, and how it was initially stated, and some just go by how it's popularly employed [ie, mohawk, behind the ear] and some just suck and don't even catch it when it happens right in front of them.

rh

LefthookStcrook
12-05-2011, 09:32 PM
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.

AGREED!!! IMO The fight should be stopped.

Another good example is Brock/Mir 1. If Fighter A(Mir) is covering up in such a posistion that allows for NO legal strikes to be thrown, then WTF if Fighter B(Brock) supose to do?

He cant throw strikes or else his gets a point deducted or worst disqualified. And if he doesnt throw strikes hes allowing his opponent to regain his composure. Basically saying "bye bye" to the win.

IMO if the rules stay the same, we'll eventually see fighters taking advantage of the small cracks in the rules. AKA- Putting their face to the mat and covering their ears, putting a hand down as a knee/kick is coming.

And thats not something I want to see.

I may get flamed, but I see no way how a hammerfist to the back of the head can be worst then a Flying Hendo Bomb or a "Slampage":confusedsmilie:<--both are perfectly legal apparently, and people cry about fighters safety from shots to the skull?:huh:


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

Wouldnt that be nice! lol

If Randy Couture, Joe Rogan and Big John all have different examples, how is the casual fan....shit hows a professional fighter going to know whats legal?

rivethead
12-05-2011, 10:07 PM
AGREED!!! IMO The fight should be stopped.

Another good example is Brock/Mir 1. If Fighter A(Mir) is covering up in such a posistion that allows for NO legal strikes to be thrown, then WTF if Fighter B(Brock) supose to do?

A) strike the body. It's generably considerably larger than the head [well, Tito Ortiz notwithstanding] and represents a viable target even when a fighter is intelligently defending themselves.

B) be patient enough to plant well-aimed, well-timed strikes. Contrary to what you guys are talking about, there isn't a way to cover your head so that there is absolutely no viable target. A fighters hands just aren't that big.





Realistically, if you think there are controversial stoppages now, just wait until you get one because a completely healthy fighter is simply squirming and covering. It will be batshit crazy.


If Randy Couture, Joe Rogan and Big John all have different examples, how is the casual fan....shit hows a professional fighter going to know whats legal?
Since McCarthy was the one who helped introduce the rule to the Unified Rules Drafting Committee, I'd go with his definition more than anyone. Couture, as a fighter, to a lesser extent. I would not consider Rogan a particular resource except for black dress shirts.

But that's what I'd like to see...not only knowledgeable refs, but to educated trainers and fighters on what to do in a given situation.

rh

The8thPlague
12-05-2011, 10:46 PM
wasn't it Mazzagatti that Dana was talking about when he said he's the worst ref in MMA & he's surprised he's still aloud to walk into a cage?

dbader08
12-05-2011, 10:53 PM
Rivet you are 100% correct about the shots to tlhe back of the head. It's bullshit, even if they are just short hammerfists those are still enough to do damage in that tender area just above your neck. He also blatantly threw like 3 or 4 12-6 elbows and of coarse the almost head kick while Mayhem was down. The elbows were angled in and not straight down but they were still coming in in a 12-6 motion. Some douchebag who I am not going to name fucking negged me and called me a "sour" loser, whatever the hell that is because I pointed out that Bisping was cheating. I'm not a big Mayhem fan, just pisses me off when Bisping cheats so blatantly in consecutive fights, and it being Michael Bisping just makes it piss me off that much more lol. He was beating his ass, he could have just continued doing so without throwing illegal strikes.


I would not consider Rogan a particular resource except for black dress shirts.
rh

hahahaha, don't forget hour long marijuana legalization lectures.

cnlclink
12-06-2011, 03:24 AM
When Bisping threw that hugely illegal head kick at Miller who was clearly down the fight should have been paused, a large warning for Bisping or even a point loss. I know at this point that would have been moot based on the outcome. The fact that he threw that kick, knowing full well the rules and that Miller was down, is no better than landing it. It was a thrown kick and strikes are thrown with intention to land. That was a disgusting display from him.

MIZjitsZOU
12-06-2011, 04:13 AM
wasn't it Mazzagatti that Dana was talking about when he said he's the worst ref in MMA & he's surprised he's still aloud to walk into a cage?

I believe he said he shouldn't be allowed to watch mma, let alone ref it!!! Ha, that is a burn. And correct in my opinion. I get scared when I see that idiot reffing. I will never forget watching Cain V utterly dominate Big Ben and then see the fight stopped while Rothwell is standing up. My god they have to do something about the reffing.

Esox Express
12-06-2011, 05:10 AM
wasn't it Mazzagatti that Dana was talking about when he said he's the worst ref in MMA & he's surprised he's still aloud to walk into a cage?

That is correct. I believe Brock Lesnar also stated the he would like to "punch his mustache off".

I did notice that Mazzagatti showed up to the finale sans-stache. Subsequently, we can deduce that his aptitude as a referee bears no correlation to his appearance as a child pornographer.

LefthookStcrook
12-06-2011, 11:32 PM
A) strike the body. It's generably considerably larger than the head [well, Tito Ortiz notwithstanding] and represents a viable target even when a fighter is intelligently defending themselves.

B) be patient enough to plant well-aimed, well-timed strikes. Contrary to what you guys are talking about, there isn't a way to cover your head so that there is absolutely no viable target. A fighters hands just aren't that big.

So if a fighter lands a punch to the face that drops his opponent, he should switch to something different??

What if the fighter on the ground is laying on his face and keeps moving his hands back and forth from the side of his head to the sides of his ribs...but he gets pounded on for minutes on end?? Thats intelligently defending yourself?

And "if a fighters hands arnt small enough" to hit a certain area...but all other areas are covered or considered illegal...you dont look at that as "bending the rules"?? I sure as hell do.

"Cant hit me!, should have been born with smaller hands!" :laughing4:

And as I said earlier, IMO, eventually we'll see fighters taking advantage of these cracks if nothing is done about them. I wish I knew how to take screenshots because I have 100's of gigs of fights on my computer and Im sure I could pause a posistion of two where there is NO legal strike to be thrown(including body shots).


Realistically, if you think there are controversial stoppages now, just wait until you get one because a completely healthy fighter is simply squirming and covering. It will be batshit crazy.

Shouldnt be squirming or covering then lol. In all seriousness, As you said if there was one set of rules, it wouldnt/shouldn't be a problem to say to a fighter "listen if your on your face covering up and taking shots, Ill stop the fight"


Since McCarthy was the one who helped introduce the rule to the Unified Rules Drafting Committee, I'd go with his definition more than anyone. Couture, as a fighter, to a lesser extent. I would not consider Rogan a particular resource except for black dress shirts.

Thing is though..it doesnt matter what I/You/or anyone here goes by, it matters on what the certain ref on that certain night is going by. And theres no two refs that Ive heard discribe the same thing.

Its deffinetly a gray area, one that us forums jockeys could argue forever.

My big thing is, a fighter can slam another person ontop on their head with 400 pounds+ of force and everyone jumps for joy. People see a hammerfist to the back of the head and scream like they just seen a murder.:confusedsmilie: I just dont get that.

The same people crying about illegal shots are the same people that jumped for joy when Hendo dropped the deathbomb on Bisping arnt they??:confusedsmilie:

rivethead
12-11-2011, 01:56 PM
So if a fighter lands a punch to the face that drops his opponent, he should switch to something different??

Yes. If he can't throw a legal strike to the head, he should strike the body or look for a submission.

Look, I hate unified rules. I didn't create them. They leave a lot of loopholes...but they're rules. And what's more, in this case, they protect the fighter. I wouldn't change them, except to redefine the back of the head as the area surrounding the spine, and allow strikes closer to the back of the ear, as the original rule intended.

Whether you think a fighter is playing a game or not, they're considered intelligently defending if they're not presenting a viable target, and it's up to the striker--who has the advantage in that situation every time--to adapt. Unless you want more injuries that will present even more barriers for MMA to become a mainstream sport.


And as I said earlier, IMO, eventually we'll see fighters taking advantage of these cracks if nothing is done about them. I wish I knew how to take screenshots because I have 100's of gigs of fights on my computer and Im sure I could pause a posistion of two where there is NO legal strike to be thrown(including body shots).
We see fighters take advantage of unified rules every time a one-dimensional wrestler steps into the cage. Jon Fitch and Sean Sherk made a career out of taking advantage of unified rules. I wouldn't simply single out one aspect of the industry--particularly because what you're talking about has more risk of injury--without revamping the entire system.

I'd love to see a gif where there is no legal shot available at all.


Shouldnt be squirming or covering then lol. In all seriousness, As you said if there was one set of rules, it wouldnt/shouldn't be a problem to say to a fighter "listen if your on your face covering up and taking shots, Ill stop the fight"
I'm fine with a qualified ref making that call. I'm less fine with some anonymous guy on the internet making blanket statements about allowing fighters to strike the back of the head because a guy is squirming.


My big thing is, a fighter can slam another person ontop on their head with 400 pounds+ of force and everyone jumps for joy. People see a hammerfist to the back of the head and scream like they just seen a murder.:confusedsmilie: I just dont get that.
I know. You clearly don't understand that a shot to the back of the head has a higher percentage of permanent injury than your average slam.


The same people crying about illegal shots are the same people that jumped for joy when Hendo dropped the deathbomb on Bisping arnt they??:confusedsmilie:
This is the second time you're bringing up jumping for joy. I, personally, don't jump for joy at slams, nor did I jump when Henderson hit Bisping when he was already out. Per the rules, it was a legal strike--in that the ref hadn't done anything to stop the fight and it landed in a legal area--and it was safer than a shot to the brainstem, but I can't really speak for anyone emotionally crippled enough to be jumping for joy about that. Either they really, really hate Bisping, or they're a little nuts.

rh

FCK
12-11-2011, 03:12 PM
Do you think the head kick from Bisping was missed? Or Deliberately aimed high? As Mayhem was 3 ft away from him, clearly in range.

Do you think its alright to throw the bluff? Mayhem was playing the game not getting up.

FFFRpickup
12-11-2011, 03:37 PM
Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!?



Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!? - Head Kick Legend (http://www.headkicklegend.com/2011/12/4/2609333/illegal-strikes-Bisping-Mayhem)

To me, attempting an illegal headkick ahould be punishable. It was a blatant attempt. It should be looked at on a case by case basis but there is a trend here: Bisping is a weak minded individual. Ya, I said it. It's easy to get under his skin and Miller did on TUF and Rivera did as well. both cases Bisping reacted in the ring with illegal(or attempted) moves. we will probably get the same old "i'm an emotionally guy" routine.

Not to compare to real life stuff but....Kinda like shooting a gun at somebody...I can see it now.

Mazagatti as a police officer..

"Officer...he shot at me..he's right there!"

"are you wounded?".... "no..he missed"

"well then...go about your business"

lwbrewer
12-11-2011, 03:58 PM
My take is theirs no reason to allow any strikes to the back of the head/neck. Punishment though changes is the fighter is thrashing around that could be unintentional. If a fighter is covered up and if possible leave no legal area of the head to hit than treat it like a RNC. You don't go for/get a RNC if their blocking it. You hit the body and other moves until you get the opening to apply the RNC. Illegal strikes should be treated the same way.

We will never totally stop this but 100% agree on more education for REFs

rivethead
12-12-2011, 03:29 PM
Do you think the head kick from Bisping was missed? Or Deliberately aimed high? As Mayhem was 3 ft away from him, clearly in range.

Do you think its alright to throw the bluff? Mayhem was playing the game not getting up.

It depends on whether you think he's an accurate striker or not. Personally, I can't tell. If he's an accurate striker, sure, it was a bluff, but that indicates he's simultaneously a very dirty, based on the illegal knee to Rivera, the shots to the base of Miller's skull and the 12-6 elbows.

If he threw it with intent and just whiffed, it makes the rest of his strikes more plausible as not thrown intentionally to foul his opponent, but it discredits the elite skillset he's gone on and on about.


Mayhem "playing the game" is pretty understandable. He went to stand and Bisping moved forward as though to time a strike as he was standing--ie, before he could effectively defend. Most fighters in a situation like that are going to do the same thing--the reasoning is: if I stand, I'm going to get hit before I can get up, so I'll either stay down till he commits, or till he gives me space to resume the fight. Mayhem taunting Bisping is also understandable, given Bisping's blatant illegal knee against Rivera.

A lot of strikers who fight with respect will simply stand back and let their opponent reset before resuming. Particularly when they feel they hold the striking advantage. You can debate whether Bisping is an elite striker who is dirty, or a fighter whose skills are vastly overrated who happens to foul his opponents an awful lot...but you can't debate that he is simply not a fighter who fights with respect.

You could make an argument that he's not given respect, and thus doesn't return it, but that's more of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg? type argument. If he was respectful from the beginning, he'd have garnered more respect in turn.

rh

Sniggles
12-12-2011, 06:26 PM
A) strike the body. It's generably considerably larger than the head [well, Tito Ortiz notwithstanding] and represents a viable target even when a fighter is intelligently defending themselves.

B) be patient enough to plant well-aimed, well-timed strikes. Contrary to what you guys are talking about, there isn't a way to cover your head so that there is absolutely no viable target. A fighters hands just aren't that big.





Realistically, if you think there are controversial stoppages now, just wait until you get one because a completely healthy fighter is simply squirming and covering. It will be batshit crazy.


Since McCarthy was the one who helped introduce the rule to the Unified Rules Drafting Committee, I'd go with his definition more than anyone. Couture, as a fighter, to a lesser extent. I would not consider Rogan a particular resource except for black dress shirts.

But that's what I'd like to see...not only knowledgeable refs, but to educated trainers and fighters on what to do in a given situation.

rh



A lot of strikers who fight with respect will simply stand back and let their opponent reset before resuming. Particularly when they feel they hold the striking advantage. You can debate whether Bisping is an elite striker who is dirty, or a fighter whose skills are vastly overrated who happens to foul his opponents an awful lot...but you can't debate that he is simply not a fighter who fights with respect.


rh

Above are opinions of mine that Rivet stole from me.