Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!?

Your Message

Click here to log in

What Is Quinton Jackson's Nickname?

 
 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • 12-12-2011, 06:26 PM
    Sniggles
    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    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.
  • 12-12-2011, 03:29 PM
    rivethead
    Quote Originally Posted by FCK View Post
    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
  • 12-11-2011, 03:58 PM
    lwbrewer
    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
  • 12-11-2011, 03:37 PM
    FFFRpickup
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat--Smasher View Post
    Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!?



    Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!? - Head Kick Legend
    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"
  • 12-11-2011, 03:12 PM
    FCK
    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.
  • 12-11-2011, 01:56 PM
    rivethead
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefthookstcrook View Post
    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. 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??
    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
  • 12-06-2011, 11:32 PM
    LefthookStcrook
    Quote Originally Posted by rivethead View Post
    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!"

    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. 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??
  • 12-06-2011, 05:10 AM
    Esox Express
    Quote Originally Posted by The8thPlague View Post
    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.
  • 12-06-2011, 04:13 AM
    MIZjitsZOU
    Quote Originally Posted by The8thPlague View Post
    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.
  • 12-06-2011, 03:24 AM
    cnlclink
    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.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •