soccer kicks and stomps

RKMG

do you guys think that they should be allowed in mma today?

dlofnep

No, they are too dangerous and do nothing to assure the naysayers that MMA is a safe and regulated sport.

MMA can do without both - but knees to a downed opponent should be allowed.

Nothingcompares

If one man wants to soccer kick another consenting man in the head who are we to judge?

dlofnep

Nothingcompares wrote:

If one man wants to soccer kick another consenting man in the head who are we to judge?

If us the fans of MMA can't judge, who can? I think stomps and soccer kicks have a high chance in death at some stage - I think we can do without them.

RKMG

ye i agree for ppl new to the sport they do nothing but make it look barbaric. i also think if a downed opponent is in a position to be stomped and kicked in the head the fight is probably already over

Clive

I think they're great in Japan, where the media won't jump all over them.

I'd much prefer stomps and soccer kicks to elbows on the ground - at least they're exciting.

PeakOutput

ill point out im only a viewer of mma so cant speak from personal experience but i cant really see where the skill comes in with taking a running kick to the head at a downed probably dazed opponent and i kinda think the same for stomps.......if the victim is in that position anyway as already said i think the fght is probably over.........i do think kness to the head on the ground should be allowed just to get rid of a few more stand off situations that crop up in what iv seen of the ufc anyway

Nothingcompares

Well to be serious for a sec, I'm in two minds about soccer kicks and stomps. I'm not sure what category they fall into, the headbutt category i.e. too dangerous for the sport or the elbow category i.e. brutal but "safe".

I want a MMA bout to simulate a real fight as much as possible. However, I don't want any fighters to get "hurt" (seriously injured) in a MMA match. This means that the rules should allow fighters to go at it hammer and thongs but at the point where one fighter becomes clearly dominant over the other and the other can't defend himself or continue fighting, the match must be stopped quickly by the referee.

A further limitation on this is time. Television rights and simply basic organisation requires that the fights have some kind of structure to them. In the UFC this means 3 or 5 5 minute rounds. Now the problem with this, if you're on top of someone at 4.57 and are throwing punches and basically beating out a GnP victory and the bell goes and the referee stops you, is this realistic? Same for a submission. What happens if you have the guys back, have just sunk in a RNC and the other guy gets saved by the bell? Not realistic. Now in fairness, this doesn't often happen, at the end of a round guys are usually pacing around each other on their feet, or someone is in someone else's guard on the ground and there is a pause. Perhaps MMA could adopt the rugby principle that once the ball is in play after the 79th minute is up time continues until the ball goes out of play. This means the fight can go on a few seconds after 5:00 until some kind of natural pause happens.

Another criticism of the rules I have is the imbalance in scoring. If you take a guy like Mirko Crocop and you put him in against Gabriel Gonzaga and Gonzaga takes him down and does a bit of ground and pound, not much, but a little and then they get stood back up for inactivity. GG should be rewarded in the scoring because he imposed his will, his stradegy on Crocop who failed to defend the take down. On the other hand, you put Andrei Arlovski in the ring with Fabricio Werdum and AA get's the take down and doesn't do much in FW 's guard. Do you still give him the credit? FW is probably more than happy to play the guard game off his back and you could argue that it's FW gameplan that's been played out. Obviously, this whole area is going to be extremely difficult to sort out objectively.

So back to the original question - stomps - yay or nay? I think 2 MMA fighters of the highest calibre (pride/ufc) standard should be allowed to stomp and soccer kick on the ground. Firstly because, it discourages any kind of stalling or buttscutting on the ground by grapplers against kickboxers, which makes the match more realistic. Next, unless the guy on the bottom is completely disorientated he shouldn't be kicked in the head. He should be able to defend. Now, a soccer kick to head of downed opponent who is disorientated could be very dangerous. maybe just like punches you shouldn't be able to kick the back of the head? It's a tough one.

columok

Cage Rage's open guard rule works quite well!

Nothingcompares

That's what i said! (ages ago)

johnathan woss

Why are headbutts not allowed ?

columok

I'm not sure. I presume it means that being on bottom on the ground is ultra dangerous meaning you have to deal with three rather than two weapons. Maybe it's hard to sell MMA when headbutts are allowed. Could it be to do with teeth and faces colliding?

The Bored One

Or possibly that there's something innately stupid about ramming your head off a solid object.

Roper

I think if you look at everything you're allowed to do in MMA, theres a great deal of skill involved in the vast majority of it. Elbowing being a prime example of something that looks brutal but is very, very hard to get right. Headbutting is basically skill free, so a bad fighter could win a fight by headbutt when he's being attacked in closed guard. Also, you'd have lads throwing their noggins from posture which would be v-dangerous for both fighters.

columok

Good point Roper but to answer anyone who thinks that headbutts>greater than everything else.

The headbutt relies on positional dominance something which many early MMA wrestlers were very good at (taking mount/half guard) and headbutting to a KO. It doesn't encourage a diverse MMA game and has real dangers. It requires a skilled grappler to hold a guy down to be able to headbutt. It's prevalence in standup was much lower though I've seen Wand fights where he uses headbutts quite effectively.

A headbutt can be added to an already effective delivery system and skill set but without that it's relatively useless.

Musashi

Again :rolleyes: Mick Coup puts it well.

Hitting a guy with your head can knock him out, it can also knock you out!

Why attack with the very anatomical bit you are trying so very hard to protect? Short butts are used in C2, but are more an add on than a primary tool. They can make space for you to employ your "big guns", but they are not meant to replace those default shots.

crokester

Check out the Burmese Boxing vids on youtube. Bare knuckle and headbutts legal and actively encouraged. Despite this you rarely see them utilised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=328YVJVtMKU

Musashi

Double post, Sorry!

Valmont

I think the stigma attached to soccer kicks and stomps arises out reading things in the paper about some poor sod that get done in outside abrakebabra.
I believe however that soccer kicks and stomps in an MMA are not half as dangerous. Chances are if someone gets a solid connection the fight is over, the examples I think of are Baroni vs Minowa and Shogun vs Arona (I think) and Diabete. There is a big difference between a soccer kick on the street and between two professional fighthers.
I'd definitely be for knees to the head on the ground at least, it would make things more exciting on the ground and stop wrestlers performing lazy shots and not really suffering because of it.

Valmont

crokester wrote:

Check out the Burmese Boxing vids on youtube. Bare knuckle and headbutts legal and actively encouraged. Despite this you rarely see them utilised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=328YVJVtMKU

that looks brutal, I'd say the fighter's careers wouldn't be too long. Although anyone else think it just looks like bad thai? The kicks and knees seem to be the only strikes with technique.

dogpit

not completly of the subject,but it does bring up the issue of elbow strikes,most shows do allow grounded elbow strikes,which we at the UFR would like to see across the board
if irish fighters are to make an impact on the international scene i feel we should be useing them on irish shows
Some of my fighters do not want to fight on shows that dont allow elbow strikes
The most obvious guys are steve lynch and colin robinson who are fighting on the UFC
One of the factors the UFC liked about these guys was there well executed elbow strikes

David patterson

john kavanagh

i see your point dave and you are right for guys who want to go onto ufc etc. but personally i like the elbow rule in cage rage, where standing elbows are ok but no elbows on the ground.

i think it encourages more movement on the ground
i think its safer and stops fights being stopped over a cut.
99.9% of irish fighters compete on a 'hobby' basis, if they get a nasty cut in a fight that stops them working on the monday it'll put them and possibly future guys off.
also i think that fighters should have +10-15 pro fights before they start using elbows because of how dangerous they are - i think there is a similar 'path' in muay thai with elbows only allowed at the highest level.

crokester

Valmont wrote:

that looks brutal, I'd say the fighter's careers wouldn't be too long. Although anyone else think it just looks like bad thai? The kicks and knees seem to be the only strikes with technique.

The more protective equipment you remove in a fight the more frantic it becomes. The same in MMA, they dont soak up a few punches before counterattacking like boxing- they start aggressively attacking to counter. These guys have the same level of trainin as Thai boxers quite often. It goes to show how once you alter details of a fight it changes the dynamic significantly of that fight.

Tim_Murphy

There's valid points on both sides regarding elbows. I'd personally prefer to fight with them allowed, but that's just me.

PeakOutput

i think elbows are fine........cuts look(and im sure feel) nasty but getting cut because of an elbow does not make it anymore dangerous than a punch i dont think

Roper

Tim_Murphy wrote:

There's valid points on both sides regarding elbows. I'd personally prefer to fight with them allowed, but that's just me.

Thats fine of you're ugly, like you, but of you're beautiful, like me, and you rely on that beauty to get you through almost every social situation, you don't want to fight with elbows, or punches... or kicks. Who am I kidding I'm a lover not a fighter.

john kavanagh

PeakOutput wrote:

i think elbows are fine........cuts look(and im sure feel) nasty but getting cut because of an elbow does not make it anymore dangerous than a punch i dont think

lol i think there's slightly more chance of a cut from an elbow than a punch

Nothingcompares

I think what he means, the cut you receive from an elbow is not more "dangerous" then a cut you receive from a punch. I'm not sure if I completey agree with that, perhaps one is more likely to inflict a devastating tear on another with an elbow rather than a fist. I'd have to ask a MT guy.

However, I think we all agree elbow increase the chance of a serious cut in a bout.

PeakOutput

Nothingcompares wrote:

I think what he means, the cut you receive from an elbow is not more "dangerous" then a cut you receive from a punch. I'm not sure if I completey agree with that, perhaps one is more likely to inflict a devastating tear on another with an elbow rather than a fist. I'd have to ask a MT guy.

However, I think we all agree elbow increase the chance of a serious cut in a bout.

yes what i meant was that while an elbow is obviously more likely to inflict a cut than a punch i dont see how a punch is less dangerous than an elbow just because it probably wont cut you.............

john kavanagh

PeakOutput wrote:

i dont see how a punch is less dangerous than an elbow just because it probably wont cut you.............

really? you can't see how an elbow that could lead to a gash requiring multiple stitches and the fight being stopped is less dangerous than a punch?

columok

To start I prefer the no elbows rule. Cut stoppages leave the spectator feeling cheated and in many cases the loser feeling gypped and the winner feeling like it was a soft win.

jk wrote:

really? you can't see how an elbow that could lead to a gash requiring multiple stitches and the fight being stopped is less dangerous than a punch?

Well for a cut to be opened with an elbow a much lower force is required due to the sharpness of the joint. Surely superficial damage from a cut is less dangerous then the often quite severe head trauma from a punch to a grounded opponent. Very open to correction here and I'm not discounting the effect of scarring on a fighter's face.