Illegal Strikes?!?! WHAT Illegal Strikes?!?!?!?

Cat--Smasher · 12-04-2011, 10:44 PM

Quote:

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

GL Jeff · 12-05-2011, 12:02 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, 12:58 AM

oh cry me a river

rivethead · 12-05-2011, 08:36 AM

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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, 11:50 AM

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, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GL Jeff

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, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GL Jeff

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"

<--both are perfectly legal apparently, and people cry about fighters safety from shots to the skull?

Quote:

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, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lefthookstcrook

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.

Quote:

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, 01:46 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, 01:53 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivethead

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

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