MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[H0SS]

Originally Posted by optimusjoel

I see your point and that is exactly why the judges gave that fight to Guida, but even with the takedowns Pettis was winning the grappling exchanges, because he was the one constantly putting Guida in spots that he didn't want to be in, while Guida had zero offense the entire fight.

I think the best solution would be to implement the yellow card system like Pride did.

Speaking of Pettis, when I first saw the cartwheel kick, I thought he partially caught Cerrone with it. But as you can see here:



... Cerrone actually completely countered the cartwheel with his knee. If he had been a little faster, he would have caught Pettis in the head with it.

I guess I can kinda understand why sometimes the judges see things differently than we do on tv. Kinda.

[TheKidInside]

he threw that cartwheel kick first... o_O

[W.Silva>C.Norris]

Originally Posted by H0SS

I think the best solution would be to implement the yellow card system like Pride did.

Speaking of Pettis, when I first saw the cartwheel kick, I thought he partially caught Cerrone with it. But as you can see here:



... Cerrone actually completely countered the cartwheel with his knee. If he had been a little faster, he would have caught Pettis in the head with it.

I guess I can kinda understand why sometimes the judges see things differently than we do on tv. Kinda.

Hmm, I wonder.. if Cerrone had connected to the head with that knee, and pettis had his hand on the ground, would that be considered a downed opponent, or is it the 3 points on the ground?

[kalebarker]

Originally Posted by W.Silva>C.Norris

Hmm, I wonder.. if Cerrone had connected to the head with that knee, and pettis had his hand on the ground, would that be considered a downed opponent, or is it the 3 points on the ground?

It's definitely not 3 points. There are have times where guys have had to raise one foot to put a hand down to make it an illegal knee. I am pretty sure the rule is any part of your body other then your feet.

Originally Posted by H0SS

It is considered a disadvantageous position in MMA, especially if the other fighter put you down in that position. It is considered a neutral position in BJJ, but I think that is due to the inability to throw strikes. In MMA, the position favors the guy on top because keeping him down limits your opponent to the grappling aspect of MMA.

Fighters can strike from the bottom. Joe Riggs not someone out with punches from the bottom. Elbows from the bottom can very effective like in guida's fight with Diego. It does severely inhibit your ability to effectively do damage with strikes, but not completely. There are lots of fights where the guy on bottom does more damages.

[H0SS]

Originally Posted by kalebarker

It's definitely not 3 points. There are have times where guys have had to raise one foot to put a hand down to make it an illegal knee. I am pretty sure the rule is any part of your body other then your feet.



Fighters can strike from the bottom. Joe Riggs not someone out with punches from the bottom. Elbows from the bottom can very effective like in guida's fight with Diego. It does severely inhibit your ability to effectively do damage with strikes, but not completely. There are lots of fights where the guy on bottom does more damages.

I guess to be more accurate, it severely limits your striking capabilities. I think it is safe to say that the effectiveness of strikes is greatly reduced when you are on the bottom. However, the person on top most certainly is in a much more favorable position when it comes to inflicting damage via strikes. Either way, being on the bottom is rightfully considered a disadvantageous position in MMA.