12 to 6 elbow -joe rogan's ridicolous assertion - SPOILER

imstrongerthanu

At the end of the John Jones fight where he was docked a point for using the 12 to 6 elbow strike on Matt Hamill; Joe Rogan says that it isn't any more powerful than a side ways elbow strike.What utter nonsense.

Chris89

Joe Rogan knows more about mma than you.

imstrongerthanu

Chris89 wrote: »

Joe Rogan knows more about mma than you.

Very intelligent and insightful post. Thanks for sharing.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Chris89 wrote: »

Joe Rogan knows more about mma than you.

LOL'z probably true!.

tomagetti

why dont you try it on a punchbag down the gym

peter p

Them elbows were nasty :eek:

calex71

You need to add a spoiler tag to title op many may not have seen this yet.

Hamill was likely done regardless of those elbows I think, end of the day though they are illegal as much as a DQ sucks for Jones them's the rules.

Fozzy

The illegal elbows are not any worse than legal elbows. There was no scientific or logical basis for them being made illegal, it was just a compromise reached with commissioners who wanted all elbows banned from MMA

roo1981

I'd say their a lot worse than normal elbows-the power generated may compare to normal elbow strikes, but the striking angle (especially the way the point of the elbow connects) looks far more likely to either

1:Rip someone open or
2:Smash the nose\teeth\eyesockets

Im pretty glad their banned being honest. I still think bows should be banned completely, the Pride fights were far more entertaining without them.

Did McSweeny get pulled up for using the downward elbow (Anderson style) from guard as well? I thought they were letting that one pass...

peter p

roo1981 wrote: »

I'd say their a lot worse than normal elbows-

Did McSweeny get pulled up for using the downward elbow (Anderson style) from guard as well? I thought they were letting that one pass...

mcsweeney threw a downward elbow which got titties in the base of the spine between the neck and head.

chordtype

roo1981 wrote: »

I still think bows should be banned completely, the Pride fights were far more entertaining without them.

You were allowed to kick the guy in the face when he was on the ground in Pride though!

Speaking of Pride and 12 to 6 elbows there was a fight at Pride 14 where Pele delivered one to Daijiro Matsui right on his spine when he had his back. This looked so nasty and could of been potentially career threatening.

I'd much rather see fighters be able to walk out after a fight than I would see them get their face destroyed.

calex71

Ok a test which as no scientific basis that I was just fooling about with here and looking stupid

Take your strong arm and elbow your palm 12 to 6 then to it 3 to 9 (9-3 if a lefty like me) and report findings

The only thing i could say for certain is that the down action to his nose may be worse in terms of injury but force would be the same

How would the more seasoned among us think?

Either way rules are there.

Roper

Is this the second thread on the same thing? Really?

There's a forum for this type of guff on www.sherdog.com

Karmafaerie

There is a big difference between sideways and downwards elbows.

The reason that 12 - 6's were banned, is quite simple really.
When somebody is lying on their back, their head is usally planted to the canvas.
If you elbow 3-9 (or visa versa) you're elbowing across the face.
When you elbow 12-6, you're catching their head between your elbow and the ground.
There's no give.
The compression will increase the force of the shot.
You can do a hell of a lot of damage like that.

Hence the ban.

Killme00

One thing that annoyed me about Rogans commentary was when Jones looked at the ref to see if he was stopping it, Rogan said something about Jones trying to con the ref into stopping it. I dont think this was the case and was very unfair on Jones.

Karmafaerie

I usually stand up for Rogan, but his commentary has been getting worse and worse.

Still not as bad as the Belcher vs Sexyama fight where he kept saying that Belcher was screwed.
He can read fights badly sometimes, and he gets way too vocal about it.
Akiyama won that fight, but Rogan almost insisted that it was a no brainer than Belcher won.

Tones69

Killme00 wrote: »

One thing that annoyed me about Rogans commentary was when Jones looked at the ref to see if he was stopping it, Rogan said something about Jones trying to con the ref into stopping it. I dont think this was the case and was very unfair on Jones.

ehh thats exactly what jones was doing

Devastator

Karmafaerie wrote: »

There is a big difference between sideways and downwards elbows.

The reason that 12 - 6's were banned, is quite simple really.
When somebody is lying on their back, their head is usally planted to the canvas.
If you elbow 3-9 (or visa versa) you're elbowing across the face.
When you elbow 12-6, you're catching their head between your elbow and the ground.
There's no give.
The compression will increase the force of the shot.
You can do a hell of a lot of damage like that.

Hence the ban.

sounds like sense to me

The-Game

In fairness Matt was done before Jones even dropped the 12-6 elbows, he had blown out his shoulder while defending the ground and pound shots and already been busted up.

Seifer

Karmafaerie wrote: »

There is a big difference between sideways and downwards elbows.

The reason that 12 - 6's were banned, is quite simple really.
When somebody is lying on their back, their head is usally planted to the canvas.
If you elbow 3-9 (or visa versa) you're elbowing across the face.
When you elbow 12-6, you're catching their head between your elbow and the ground.
There's no give.
The compression will increase the force of the shot.
You can do a hell of a lot of damage like that.

Hence the ban.

I don't know what you mean by "across the face".
A non 12-6 elbow still lands in such a way that the opponents head gets knocked back off the canvas.
The real difference lies in the fact that you are landing the point of the elbow straight on. More force in a smaller area = more damage.
Are 11-5 and 1-7 elbows ok btw?

The-Game

Seifer wrote: »

Are 11-5 and 1-7 elbows ok btw?

Once theyre not to the back of the head or on the base of the spine.

Karmafaerie

The-Game wrote: »

In fairness Matt was done before Jones even dropped the 12-6 elbows, he had blown out his shoulder while defending the ground and pound shots and already been busted up.

It seems Mat did the damage to his elbow with the takedown attempt from what I've heard.

Karmafaerie

Seifer wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "across the face".
A non 12-6 elbow still lands in such a way that the opponents head gets knocked back off the canvas.
The real difference lies in the fact that you are landing the point of the elbow straight on. More force in a smaller area = more damage.
Are 11-5 and 1-7 elbows ok btw?

The force of the strike is coming from right to left (or visa versa) and not head on.
It's not to do with the point of the elbow, as 6-12 elbows from the bottom are allowed.

The 12-6 elbow is forcing the head directly into the canvas.
A sideways elbows are at a tangent to the ground.
Which gives your head more give.


Basic physics.
This is why it's banned.

Dragan

Fozzy wrote: »

The illegal elbows are not any worse than legal elbows. There was no scientific or logical basis for them being made illegal, it was just a compromise reached with commissioners who wanted all elbows banned from MMA

The answer you are look for , is ocular socket.

Seifer

Karmafaerie wrote: »

The force of the strike is coming from right to left (or visa versa) and not head on.
It's not to do with the point of the elbow, as 6-12 elbows from the bottom are allowed.

The 12-6 elbow is forcing the head directly into the canvas.
A sideways elbows are at a tangent to the ground.
Which gives your head more give.


Basic physics.
This is why it's banned.

Sideways elbows as you call them, may come in from an angle but as they strike the opponents head they are pretty much straight on. When thrown properly they arc around and hit at a 90 degree angle. A lot of the time you see fighters just dropping them straight down.

You're not going to be able to generate the same force from the bottom (which is probably why they're allowed) but they still cut people to shreds because you are leading point first, look at what Kenny Florian does with them.

Yes, the bastardised pressure formula I provided is basic physics.

cletus

Big John on the genesis of this rule

McCarthy went on to explain why that particular elbow strike is disallowed. He said, “What it was, was when the Unified Rules were put together they took all the organizations. You had the UFC, Pride. You had the IFC. You had Hook N Shoot at the time. There were various organizations that all met together in New Jersey. Larry Hazzard is the one that put it together so he could clarify his rules. Marc Ratner was on a phone line for it, and they ended up having everyone sit there and try to come together with what they could be happy with. One of the things that happed was there was an IFC show that happened before that meeting occurred. There were a couple of fights, and because New Jersey wasn’t comfortable with Mixed Martial Arts at the time; there were a couple of fights that went on to change things as far as what they were going to permit and not permit. You have all these different organizations, and you have all these people with what they want to be able to do, so it’s tough to get people to agree on things. Finally, one of the things that was brought up is in one of the fights a fighter took another guy’s back and tried to sink in a choke. He couldn’t sink in the choke, so he started taking his hand and bringing it up and elbowing to the back of the guy’s head and neck. The doctor from New Jersey had a conniption about it. He said I will never ever pass something that allows that type of strike. That could be life threatening, and he started going into his thing, and so the one elbow they took out was that elbow, that type of position. The way that they wrote it up, you could interpret it a ton of ways, but the true position they were talking about was that hand coming up to twelve o’clock to six o’clock.”

http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=1588&zoneid=13

His own take on the rule

What rules do you think they should consider taking out, assuming they were open to that?

The downward elbow strike is something that some people think is really damaging. But you’re able to hit with every other kind of elbow strike. They really put that in because when it happened in a fight it was someone using it to hit the back of the head or neck area. But that’s already covered. You can’t hit that area anyway now. The actual downward elbow itself is, in my opinion, not any more dangerous than any other elbow.

http://www.cagepotato.com/exclusive-big-john-mccarthy-talks-mma-evolution-stand-ups-more

This is also covered in Clyde Gentry's "No Holds Barred" (ISBN 978-1903854303)

The rule was basically to protect the back of the head/neck, however this area is now protected due to other rules

Karmafaerie

Seifer wrote: »

Sideways elbows as you call them, may come in from an angle but as they strike the opponents head they are pretty much straight on. When thrown properly they arc around and hit at a 90 degree angle. A lot of the time you see fighters just dropping them straight down.

You're not going to be able to generate the same force from the bottom (which is probably why they're allowed) but they still cut people to shreds because you are leading point first, look at what Kenny Florian does with them.

Yes, the bastardised pressure formula I provided is basic physics.

When a moving object hits a non moving object, all the energy from the moving object is transfered to the stationary one.

When the stationary object has give, the energy is disapated in part through the kenetic release of energy through the stationary object moving.

If the stationary object is locked, and so can't relaese some of the energy kinetically, the full brunt of the hit is absorbed by the secondary object.

I'm not trying to be funy here, but that's the simple logic of it.

3-9, and 9-3 elbows, no matter what way they land, are moving at a tangent to the ground, so the energy is disapated sideways.

The reason that Louseau or Florian cut people with their elbows is because the strike slices across the skin.
It's the point of the elbow ripping across the skin, causing the cut to open.
A straight strike is less likely to break the skin, it's the whipping action that cuts.

The downward elbow isn't more dangerous than a normal strike.
The downward elbow against a head laying flat on the matt, is.

Charlie3dan

Karmafaerie wrote: »

When a moving object hits a non moving object, all the energy from the moving object is transfered to the stationary one. .

Karmafaerie wrote: »

3-9, and 9-3 elbows, no matter what way they land, are moving at a tangent to the ground, so the energy is disapated sideways.
.

Even is the head is stationary?
If the a sideways elbow (same position as 3-9/ 9-3 elbow but moving down rather than across the face) takes the same line as the 12-6 elbow (directly down) and hits the head while it's pinned to the mat, is that strike not equally dangerous?

*The elbow I describe above is not an Illegal strike.

Karmafaerie wrote: »

The downward elbow isn't more dangerous than a normal strike.
The downward elbow against a head laying flat on the matt, is.

Again, is this just the 12-6 elbow or does the same apply to the elbow I describe above?

I don't know myself but what seems to make most sense to me is this:

The downward elbow strike is something that some people think is really damaging. But you’re able to hit with every other kind of elbow strike. They really put that in because when it happened in a fight it was someone using it to hit the back of the head or neck area. But that’s already covered. You can’t hit that area anyway now. The actual downward elbow itself is, in my opinion, not any more dangerous than any other elbow.

scudzilla

I won a competition with the UFC Fight Club to go backstage at UFC 93 for the weigh ins and have a tour before the fights on the Sat night.
We went into one of the fighters locker rooms to listen to the ref's instructions, Kev Mulhall was the ref and Martin Kampmann was the fighter, Kev explained to Kampmann about the illegal elbows and he didn't have a clue that these were illegal, i found this quite surprising considering his experience.
Kev even had to use my son as a guinea pig to show him exactly what was allowed and what wasn't
How many other fighters are in this situation, only being made properly aware a few hours before fight time.

Seifer

scudzilla wrote: »

How many other fighters are in this situation, only being made properly aware a few hours before fight time.

That's his choice though. He could go off and read the rule book if he wanted. Although you'd expect his coach would have informed him if he had seen him doing illegal elbows in training.

Charlie3dan

Saw this article here:
http://mmajunkie.com/news/17153/ask-the-doc-should-12-to-6-elbow-strikes-be-illegal-in-mixed-martial-arts.mma

This past weekend at The Ultimate Fighter 10 Finale, Jon Jones was cruising to a co-main-event victory before he caught opponent Matt Hamill with illegal elbow strikes.

The blows resulted in Jones suffering his first career loss – via disqualification – and shined a light on the concept of illegal "12-to-6" elbow strikes.

In his latest "Ask the Doc" installment, Dr. Johnny Benjamin weighs in on the topic and gives a surprising recommendation on how to simplify the referees' job and improve fighter safety all at the time.


* * * *

What are the biggest risks of 12-to-6 elbows, and do you believe they should be illegal in mixed martial arts competitions? – Blaize Richardson

This has become a very popular question after the destruction of Matt Hamill by Jon "Bones" Jones during the The Ultimate Finale 10 Finale. It's a shame that Bones was disqualified for illegal blows because prior to that, the outcome of the fight was no longer in question.

I also heard Joe Rogan comment that 12-to-6 elbows were banned for non-medical reasons. He went on to say that the ban was developed when one of the original architects of the modern rules for MMA witnessed a demonstration by a martial artist breaking blocks of ice with elbow strikes.

I have no way to check the accuracy of this statement, but I also have no reason to doubt it. Rogan is a very knowledgeable and credible source.

That being said, an elbow strike delivered by a grounded fighter from a 12-o'clock position is not significantly more or less dangerous than a blow delivered from an 11-o'clock position. Furthermore, with mounted fighters intelligently defending themselves by squirming, switching hips, covering up, etc., it is an extremely difficult rule to enforce properly . I emphasize the phrase intelligently defending because if a fighter is unable to do so, as per the rules, the fight should be halted.

The theoretical concern from a medical viewpoint is the blow pinning the head to the ground, and therefore, not allowing the body/neck to effectively dissipate the force.

I believe that all elbows to legal areas of the head of a grounded opponent should be considered legal. It could then be more uniformly enforced by the referee. The ref would consider if the area of the strike was legal (not back of the head, etc.), if the recipient is intelligently defending himself, and whether the recipient sustained too much damage to allow the fight to continue.

When you think about it, that is a lot for the ref to process in the heat of battle. Relieving the burden of requiring the ref to assess the angle of contact in a fast-paced and fluid situation creates greater consistency in enforcement and ultimately better fighter safety.

bret69

Jones Files Formal Appeal Over Hamill DQ


A management team representing light heavyweight Jon Jones this week filed a formal appeal with the Nevada State Athletic Commission requesting that his disqualification loss to Matt Hamill at “The Ultimate Fighter 10” Finale on Dec. 5 in Las Vegas be overturned.

Jones, who entered the bout unbeaten, was disqualified by referee Steve Mazzagatti after he struck Hamill with repeated illegal downward elbows to the face.

In the complaint, Ryan Ciotoli and Gary Marino of BombSquad Sports Management called the criteria used to determine whether or not Hamill could continue “flawed,” citing Mazzagatti’s decision to ask Hamill, a legally deaf athlete whose vision had been impaired by blood, “Are you done?” The complaint also claims that proper protocol was not followed, since none of the ringside physicians assessed Hamill’s condition prior to the stoppage.

“If the referee believed that the injury was due to a foul, Mr. Hamill should have been given the appropriate amount of time to recover,” the complaint reads. “At minimum, Mr. Hamill should have had [the] opportunity to clearly understand what was being asked of him and given the ability to respond.”

The complaint also cites a statement posted on Hamill’s Web site in which he pointed to a shoulder injury he suffered during a takedown prior to the illegal blows. “I knew it was probably over at that point,” Hamill wrote. Jones’ representatives also called into question the use of instant replay and the decision that was based upon it. Their independent review, according to the complaint, shows that the illegal blows did not cause the lacerations to Hamill’s face.

“It is clear that the elbows that were deemed illegal were in fact not the blows that caused the facial cuts,” the complaint reads. “In fact, on the tape you can clearly see that with 1:30 remaining in the first round, the bridge of Mr. Hamill’s nose was cut open and blood was starting to flow. The illegal blows however were not thrown, nor was Mr. Jones given a warning by the referee, until 1:05 minutes remaining in the first round.”

Furthermore, according to the complaint, Jones threw 27 legal blows during the 25-second interval in question, “accelerating” the facial injuries Hamill sustained. In light of the evidence as they see it, Jones’ representatives have requested the decision be changed from a loss to a win, though they would settle for a no contest, “should the commission determine that the footage is not sufficient to determine which blows in fact caused the vital injury.”

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/Jones-Files-Formal-Appeal-Over-Hamill-DQ-21568

dunkamania

Jones should have just let this go

No one is actually going to be thinking that he lost the fight irregardless of the official record.

Seifer

It is a bit weird since he seemed so content to have the pressure of an undefeated streak lifted.
I'd say his management are behind it since an unbeaten fighter is much more marketable.

The Article wrote:

“It is clear that the elbows that were deemed illegal were in fact not the blows that caused the facial cuts,” the complaint reads. “In fact, on the tape you can clearly see that with 1:30 remaining in the first round, the bridge of Mr. Hamill’s nose was cut open and blood was starting to flow. The illegal blows however were not thrown, nor was Mr. Jones given a warning by the referee, until 1:05 minutes remaining in the first round.”

Furthermore, according to the complaint, Jones threw 27 legal blows during the 25-second interval in question, “accelerating” the facial injuries Hamill sustained.

Seems he was hitting more than his forearms so