Any UFC/MMA fans?

[kimmy]

Can you cite that rule please?

TECHNICAL KNOCKOUT (TKO):

(a) Applicable when the referee judges that it is impossible to continue the match due to an accidental injury (of neither fighter's fault) to a fighter. Such decisions shall be made in accordance with Article12.

( Applicable when a corner man throws a towel into the ring during the course of a match. In the event that the referee does not notice the towel being thrown in, the official observer is authorized to announce the end of match.

© Referee Stop: Applicable when the referee judges that one fighter is overwhelmingly superior to his opponent and the inferior fighter is in a physically perilous condition.

(d) Doctor Stop: Applicable when the official physician judges that it is impossible to continue the match due to an injury or severe damage to a fighter. If a fighter is down and has sustained severe damage, the official physician has the option to stop the match, accordingly to the deliberation.

(link)

Many fighters who have the ability to "defend himself" are often knocked out in mma and boxing. So it is a basically meaningless statement unless you have something specific to add which provides clear boundaries for punching a grounded opponent.

As dre explained, the referee uses a guideline that the fighter is "actively" or "intelligently" defending himself. For a fighter who is on his back, that typically means he is using his arms to block strikes, or using grappling to control his opponent's posture or arms to prevent his opponent from landing *effective* strikes.

Most strikes landed while on the ground in MMA fights are *not* effective strikes. It's very difficult to land effective strikes while grappling. The effective strikes only begin when the guy on top is able to improve his position (usually a mount position) and get free of his opponents arms. At this point, he's able to posture up so that he can get some wind up on his punches, and then the guy on the ground is in trouble. At this point he can punch freely and the referee is going to stop the fight unless the bottom fighter can regain a defensible position quickly. If he can't show the referee that he can protect himself at this point, and he is getting hit, the referee stops the fight. That's how rule 4.c is interpreted by every official working in North America.

And sitting on someone pounding their defended head is going to cause damage regardless not to mention being totally gutless.

The biggest thing that people just don't understand about MMA is how many tools the guy on the bottom has to defend himself with. Many fighters will willingly let an opponent get them on their back just to have an opportunity to use their grappling techniques. The frequency with which the guy on top ends up in a choke hold or a leg-lock or on his face with the other guy on top of him is surprising. So no, it's not gutless, because competent martial artists know how to fight in that position and are no more defenseless than the guy on his feet.

When the guy on top does attain a position that makes it impossible for his opponent to defend himself, that's when the match is over.

I've seen a few fightsin MMA/UFC where the guy gets a couple good elbow blows to the top of his head. That's gotta do more damage than a boxing glove. Sure the number of hits are less, the severity of the hits in MMA are higher. I am speculating here.

The assumption that punches thrown on the ground are somehow more dangerous than punches thrown while standing is just inane. Any boxer-- Jack Weber will vouch for this-- will tell you that real punching power doesn't come from the arms, it comes from the legs and hips and torso.

In MMA matches, when there is a knockout, it almost invariably occurs as a result of a blow thrown when both fighters are standing.

The reason is, you can punch far harder when you're standing up. When a fighter is on the mat grappling with his opponent, he can't throw powerful strikes like he can when he's standing. He can't use his footwork and his hips to generate power. And you don't have room to wind up. And you have a guy grabbing your arms and pulling you down and using your own chest to shield his head.

-k

[Sir Bandelot]

Yeah I suspect it is mostly a cover/justification for their real reason for opposing fighting sports, which is that they look down on them as barbaric/disgusting. Such subjective moral notions shouldn't be the basis of laws that reduce people's freedoms to participate in activities they like. Although there are a few whose main motivation really is the safety argument (and want to ban skiing, football, and everything else too), and those people are even worse than the previous category, because they genuinely believe that the government should control how people live so as not to hurt themselves.

Oh indeed, indeed, indeed...

Once again you ideologues can only see a situation as a black or white issue. Either let the people do anything they want, between consenting adults or ban everything. That attitude is not necessary. There are some who don't want to ban anything, but do want to see better rules, such as wearing helmets when playing football. What's wrong with that concept? You can still have your fun just don't be a fool. Know about the danger. That's what the role of th BCMA would be. to lobby the government and use ads to make people aware of the danger. Wear safety equipment it might save your life. No need for "outrage" at the dangers of skateboarding.

[GostHacked]

Oh indeed, indeed, indeed...

Once again you ideologues can only see a situation as a black or white issue. Either let the people do anything they want, between consenting adults or ban everything. That attitude is not necessary. There are some who don't want to ban anything, but do want to see better rules, such as wearing helmets when playing football.

Yeah those guys would not stand a chance playing rugby. You can get injured in sports, that is obvious, if you think it's too dangerous, don't watch and don't participate. People who get into these professional sports know exactly what they are getting into. They are aware of the dangers and understand the risks.

What's wrong with that concept? You can still have your fun just don't be a fool. Know about the danger. That's what the role of th BCMA would be. to lobby the government and use ads to make people aware of the danger. Wear safety equipment it might save your life. No need for "outrage" at the dangers of skateboarding.

MMA is low on the injury list. Cheerleading is more dangerous it seems.

[dre]

Oh indeed, indeed, indeed...

Once again you ideologues can only see a situation as a black or white issue. Either let the people do anything they want, between consenting adults or ban everything. That attitude is not necessary. There are some who don't want to ban anything, but do want to see better rules, such as wearing helmets when playing football. What's wrong with that concept? You can still have your fun just don't be a fool. Know about the danger. That's what the role of th BCMA would be. to lobby the government and use ads to make people aware of the danger. Wear safety equipment it might save your life. No need for "outrage" at the dangers of skateboarding.

I dont see it as being black and white. I think its reasonable to take steps to make these sports safe in relative terms. The bottom line is that you cant put these events on if the city wont give you a permit, and if you cant purchase insurance for them.

My position isnt that sanctioned sports shouldnt be relatively safe, its that sanctioned MMA already is.

[Shady]

My position isnt that sanctioned sports shouldnt be relatively safe, its that sanctioned MMA already is.

Exactly. And MMA is sanctioned and regulated. But that's not good enough for some people. Why? Because they just don't like the sport. And therefore, apparently nobody else should either.

Kimmy, great point about some fighters prefering to fight on their back. Those fighters who have particularly good guards, and good jujitsu love fighting from the bottom. They want fighters to throw punches, so they can catch arms in arm locks, or catch their head in a triangle or similar type sumbission. But unforunately, many people who are ignorant to the sport, continue to base their opinions on their own stereotypes and lack of knowledge.

[Jack Weber]

I've seen a few fightsin MMA/UFC where the guy gets a couple good elbow blows to the top of his head. That's gotta do more damage than a boxing glove. Sure the number of hits are less, the severity of the hits in MMA are higher. I am speculating here.

I'm no fan of MMA,but,the Marquis of Queensbury rules state that two boxers can ONLY hit their opponents with the pronated part of the fist and can only hit their opponents from the belt up.Obviously that's going to account for higher power punches to the head.I would also say that from the MMA fights that I have watched,the punching skill from many MMA fighters is not at the level of a professional boxer...In otherwords,the punches are not thrown with the proper form or proper velocity.As far as the use of elbows go,one only has to look at Muay Thai to see that an effective elbow will do far more damage than a wrapped and gloved fist.

On the boxing glove issue...Boxing gloves,and the relative merits of the padding,are not designed for the protection of any opponent.They are designed to protect the hands of the one throwing the punch.

Having said that,I don't think the two sports are really comparable.Of all the martial arts,boxing is the most restrictive,so in a mixed martial art setting it's only a portion of the package necessary to win.Having said that,an MMA fighter in a boxing match is going to be in way over his/her head because they simply are'nt skilled enough in the finer points of boxing.A prime example of this is what recently happened with James "Lights Out" Toney...He got destroyed in an MMA match because he really is'nt anything more than a boxer...But if the MMA guy who beat Toney fought James in a boxing match at Cruiserweight,I suspect he would last no more than 6 3 minute rounds because of Toney's exceptional ability at infighting.He's one of the best short range fighters of the last 4 decades and Toney would have simply beaten his opponent up with short,sharp punches to the body....

Edited September 9, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Sir Bandelot]

I'm no fan of MMA,but,the Marquis of Queensbury rules state that two boxers can ONLY hit their opponents with the pronated part of the fist and can only hit their opponents from the belt up.Obviously that's going to account for higher power punches to the head.I would also say that from the MMA fights that I have watched,the punching skill from many MMA fighters is not at the level of a professional boxer...In otherwords,the punches are not thrown with the proper form or proper velocity.As far as the use of elbows go,one only has to look at Muay Thai to see that an effective elbow will do far more damage than a wrapped and gloved fist.

On the boxing glove issue...Boxing gloves,and the relative merits of the padding,are not designed for the protection of any opponent.They are designed to protect the hands of the one throwing the punch.

Having said that,I don't think the two sports are really comparable.Of all the martial arts,boxing is the most restrictive,so in a mixed martial art setting it's only a portion of the package necessary to win.Having said that,an MMA fighter in a boxing match is going to be in way over his/her head because they simply are'nt skilled enough in the finer points of boxing.A prime example of this is what recently happened with James "Lights Out" Toney...He got destroyed in an MMA match because he really is'nt anything more than a boxer...But if the MMA guy who beat Toney fought James in a boxing match at Cruiserweight,I suspect he would last no more than 6 3 minute rounds because of Toney's exceptional ability at infighting.He's one of the best short range fighters of the last 4 decades and Toney would have simply beaten his opponent up with short,sharp punches to the body....

Yeah!

That's why boxing is the sweet science...

[kimmy]

I would also say that from the MMA fights that I have watched,the punching skill from many MMA fighters is not at the level of a professional boxer...In otherwords,the punches are not thrown with the proper form or proper velocity.As far as the use of elbows go,one only has to look at Muay Thai to see that an effective elbow will do far more damage than a wrapped and gloved fist.

Muay thai elbows are seldom used in MMA, even by guys with muay thai backgrounds. The vertical elbow smashes are against the rules, and the spinning elbows are too risky to throw in MMA because you risk giving up your back. People who aren't familiar with the sport assume that there's going to be crazy elbow smashes and flying kung-fu kicks and stuff like that. The truth is, the dominance of grappling in MMA makes flashy kicks and spinning elbows too risky to be of use. MMA striking tends to look a lot like boxing, with kicks to the legs added in.

As for the boxing form of MMA fighters... I think one has to realize that boxing would look a lot different if boxers had to worry about being taken down or being kicked.

What happened to James Toney was .. heh.. well, he failed to land even a single punch, got put on his back, and put in a submission hold by a guy who is 20 pounds smaller and nearly 50 years old. Boxing fans (and boxers) who ridicule the grappling aspect of MMA should take note.

-k

[bloodyminded]

That is an oversimplification of the issue. These people are professionals and their concerns are valid. MMA is a dangerous sport with the potential to kill, and it has killed.

Moving on to a more reasonable, measured view, I like this excerpt from the article-

Gillespie said the BCMA takes the position that MMA fights are more dangerous than boxing because of fewer safety rules.

“MMA allows a fighter to attack an opponent while down and we believe those things increase the risk of serious injury,” said Gillespie.

Yes, and at first blush, this sounds perfectly true.

Except it appears they've jumped the gun, since actual research is at odds with what appears to be the "common sense" assessment...that turns out not to be "common sense."

[Jack Weber]

Muay thai elbows are seldom used in MMA, even by guys with muay thai backgrounds. The vertical elbow smashes are against the rules, and the spinning elbows are too risky to throw in MMA because you risk giving up your back. People who aren't familiar with the sport assume that there's going to be crazy elbow smashes and flying kung-fu kicks and stuff like that. The truth is, the dominance of grappling in MMA makes flashy kicks and spinning elbows too risky to be of use. MMA striking tends to look a lot like boxing, with kicks to the legs added in.

As for the boxing form of MMA fighters... I think one has to realize that boxing would look a lot different if boxers had to worry about being taken down or being kicked.

What happened to James Toney was .. heh.. well, he failed to land even a single punch, got put on his back, and put in a submission hold by a guy who is 20 pounds smaller and nearly 50 years old. Boxing fans (and boxers) who ridicule the grappling aspect of MMA should take note.

-k

I was specifically speaking about Muay Thai and not Muay Thai techniques in MMA...

I've already stated that I don't think either sport is comparable...Which is why I stated that Tony got slaughtered,however,I think if that MMA guy had fought a boxing match at Cruiserweight(assuming Toney coulf even make weight anymore),I highly doubt the MMA guy would last 5 or 6 rounds with Toney...Toney was/is a prodigious infighter and body puncher...

[Shwa]

The fighter on the end of such an exchange must be engaged in an "active defense". The stoppages usually come very quickly when that active defense isnt there, and the UFC gets a fair ammount of critisism for quick stoppages.

Gimme a break, that us almost as useless a reply as Shady or Kimmy. Many fighters are no longer in an "active defense" because they are already pooched. And when do they usually get pooched? When they are in an active defense. All you have said here is that once a guy is knocked out or gives up, the other guy has to stop beating on him. Nooo....

Not really. You need to win the fight. And with the rise of Brazilian Jujitsu a lot of fights are actually won by the guy on the bottom. In fact I would say that when the guy on the top is the "full guard" of the guy on the bottom that position is basically a coin toss. Silva beat Sonnen from the bottom at UFC 118, and Fedor Emelianenko was beaten from the bottom a few weeks ago as well.

So from the few examples you cite, where do you get "a lot of fights?" The fact is, delivering a downward blow to a defended head is still going to cause damage regardless of who has the advantage. And sitting on a guy, pouding away at his head is going to cause damage. Really.

Fighting on the ground is just part of the sport.

Hence, gutless.

Its probably actually LESS dangerous than standing up and trading blows.

Yes, cowardly things usually are "LESS dangerous." That's why they are cowardly things.

[Shady]

Yes, cowardly things usually are "LESS dangerous." That's why they are cowardly things.

Yes, like when boxers continue to punch an opponent that's been hurt and is already staggering. Pathetic and cowardly.

[Jack Weber]

Yes, like when boxers continue to punch an opponent that's been hurt and is already staggering. Pathetic and cowardly.

That's the referee's fault,in most cases...Or the corner of the fighter who's getting beaten on...

Question...

When Roberto Duran beat Davey Moore to a bloody pulp was it Duran's fault because he continued in a fight that was'nt stopped???

Or

Was it Moore's corner,and an incompetent referee,who allowed a senseless beating to continue?

When Larry Holmes was matched up wit an obviously overmatched Marvis Frazier,on national TV no less,was it Holmes fault that he kept on beating up Marvis,even after pleading with the referee to stop the fight?

Or

The referee,who did nothing while Holmes asked him to stop the fight?

[Jack Weber]

Holmes vs Frazier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g6JKdFu4Qo

And Mills Lane is the referee!!!Not exactly a hack!!!

Holmes motions to him to stop the fight 3 times before Lane steps in!!!

That's Holmes being cowardly and pathetic???

[Jack Weber]

Duran vs Moore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUGBHaopSfg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h7_vAKLs0

[Jack Weber]

Duran vs Moore continued...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X36_R_CDn8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPLEhWGgEDM

Now,it should be noted that Moore was the WBA Champion at 154 lbs at the time.He beat Charlie Wier in Johannesburg,S.A. earlier that year and Duran was the #1 ranked challenger.But clearly,this is a total mismatch and the outcome is not in doubt at all by Round 5.However,who is the real pathetic coward here???

1.Roberto Duran,who is fighting for a belt and simply doing his "job"?

2.The referee,who seems to be unale to see that Moore is bleeding profusely and cannot see out of his right eye by the end of Round 5,and only seems to stop the fight in Round 8 because Jose Torres is shouting at him to do so from ringside?

3.Moore's corner,who has the real reponsibility to protect their fighter when he's clearly overmatched,and taking a horrendous beating,regardless of the fact that he's holding a belt?

[Shwa]

Yes, like when boxers continue to punch an opponent that's been hurt and is already staggering. Pathetic and cowardly.

Nope.

A fighter who is still on his feet hasn't submitted and can still defend himself by moving away. It would be pathetic and cowardly only if said hurt and staggering fighter fell and the other fighter jumped on him and started wailing away.

I didn't say that boxing wasn't violent or boxers don't get hurt. I am saying it is gutless and cowardly to hit a man while he is down and this applies to a ring, cage or street. Every man knows this. Every man also knows it is gutless and cowardly to hit a woman. Different side of the same coin.

[kimmy]

Nope.

A fighter who is still on his feet hasn't submitted and can still defend himself by moving away. It would be pathetic and cowardly only if said hurt and staggering fighter fell and the other fighter jumped on him and started wailing away.

Watch the videos Jack just posted for a stunning rebuke of the premise that a fighter can defend himself as long as he's still on his feet.

-k

[Shady]

Watch the videos Jack just posted for a stunning rebuke of the premise that a fighter can defend himself as long as he's still on his feet.

-k

Exactly. That was pretty brutal. And the thing about boxing that's kind of screwed up, it that if you get hurt really badly. They allow you a bit of time to get up and recover, just to get pounded again. And if you get hurt again, you're given some more time to recover, to get pounded again. Over and over. In MMA, if you get hurt like that once, the fight is stopped.

[Jack Weber]

Exactly. That was pretty brutal. And the thing about boxing that's kind of screwed up, it that if you get hurt really badly. They allow you a bit of time to get up and recover, just to get pounded again. And if you get hurt again, you're given some more time to recover, to get pounded again. Over and over. In MMA, if you get hurt like that once, the fight is stopped.

For the most part,that has stopped...Since the death of Duk Ku Kim in '82,refree's and Athletic commissions have increasingly gone more to the medical community for diagnosis' regarding licences.For example,it used to be if you got knocked out,you could go to another commission and fight the following week.Now if you get KO'd,your license is supended for 90 days and to get it back you have to go through a battery of neurological tests,including at least 2 CAT scans...And that suspension and advice from the medical profession is honoured all across Europe and North America

But that's not what you said...You claimed it was cowardly and pathetic for a boxer to continue to do his job...But who's fault is it really when it's the referee that is in control of the combatants,the corners giving advice inbetween rounds,or,the medical doctor at ringside who can be called over at any time if the referee thinks it's warranted????

[dre]

Exactly. That was pretty brutal. And the thing about boxing that's kind of screwed up, it that if you get hurt really badly. They allow you a bit of time to get up and recover, just to get pounded again. And if you get hurt again, you're given some more time to recover, to get pounded again. Over and over. In MMA, if you get hurt like that once, the fight is stopped.

Yeah from a health perspective the standing eight count is definately a disaster.

[dre]

For the most part,that has stopped...Since the death of Duk Ku Kim in '82,refree's and Athletic commissions have increasingly gone more to the medical community for diagnosis' regarding licences.For example,it used to be if you got knocked out,you could go to another commission and fight the following week.Now if you get KO'd,your license is supended for 90 days and to get it back you have to go through a battery of neurological tests,including at least 2 CAT scans...And that suspension and advice from the medical profession is honoured all across Europe and North America

But that's not what you said...You claimed it was cowardly and pathetic for a boxer to continue to do his job...But who's fault is it really when it's the referee that is in control of the combatants,the corners giving advice inbetween rounds,or,the medical doctor at ringside who can be called over at any time if the referee thinks it's warranted????

Part of it comes down to how easy of an out the fighter has. In MMA its HONORABLE for you to tap out. Deciding youve had enough is part of the sport. If a boxer quits he might never get another fight.

[kimmy]

A couple months ago I saw a boxing match between Amir Khan of England, and Paulie Malignaggi-- a Brooklyn boy! From Noo Yawk! And it was quite a mismatch. Khan was just head and shoulders better, and just picked him apart and by the end of it was landing at will. And eventually-- in the 11th round, the referee finally said ok, that's enough. But the thing is, because Paulie never got knocked down, and because he kept his hands up right until the end, it looks like he's still got a chance, right? He's still standing, and his fists are up, so he's still in the fight, right?

Was Duran gutless to keep pounding Moore until the referee steps in? No. Is an MMA fighter gutless to throw punches from a mount position until the referee steps in? No.

Both sports rely on the referee to protect the participants. And personally, I've seen a lot of MMA and quite a bit of boxing, and I believe that MMA referees are more assertive in protecting the participants, and I believe the nature of the sport is the main reason why.

As Shady points out, in boxing if a guy gets hurt that badly, he gets a chance to recover and continue. In MMA, if a fighter gets hurt that badly, his opponent will be on him very quickly and end the fight. I was pretty surprised that Moore was allowed to continue after that huge knockdown in the 7th round. If that was an MMA fight, that knockdown itself most likely gets a referee stoppage. If the referee didn't stop the fight right then, Duran would have mounted Moore, thrown 3 punches, and the referee stops it. Instead, Moore gets enough time to shake out the cobwebs, convinces the referee he can continue, and goes on to absorb probably 15 or 20 kill-shots to the head before the referee ends it. Why? He stayed on his feet. He kept throwing punches. He couldn't protect his head at all, but Duran couldn't knock him down again. Khan finds Paulie's face with the consistency of a Swiss watch, but Paulie never goes down so there's not really a moment when it's obvious that the referee has to step in. In MMA, it tends to be very apparent when the referee needs to step in. In boxing you get this .. well, he's still standing, his fists are still up, he can probably tie him up and get time to recover, he still has a chance to land a big punch, that sort of thing.

I think the core of this argument over what's "gutless" is Da Shwa's misconception that if a guy is standing he can still defend himself but if he's not standing he can't defend himself.

-k

[Jack Weber]

Part of it comes down to how easy of an out the fighter has. In MMA its HONORABLE for you to tap out. Deciding youve had enough is part of the sport. If a boxer quits he might never get another fight.

That might be true...

I can't speak for MMA,but I know that boxers from early on as an amateur,are taught to never quit...

That's why,for example,Roberto Duran became a punchline in a joke after his "No Mas!" fight with Ray Leonard...You are simplt taught not to quit.

That works both ways,however...If a boxer does'nt hav all the skill necessary to continue in a fight,but has the heart,it is incumbent on the outside controlling people observing the fight to stop it,to save the fighter from himself.Conversely,how many times have we seen a boxer seemingly doomed to a knockout,get himself off the canvass and come back and win a fight?It's not an easy thing to say a fight should be stopped because someone seems to be in serious trouble...

An example of this would be the first Pacquiao vs Marquez fight in 2005...

[kimmy]

It's common for MMA fighters to submit. You can get into trouble that there's just no way out of other than to concede. There's nothing to be gained from attempting to continue except for a serious injury.

On the odd occasion when a fighter really is too stupid to submit, you get something like this... (for the record, I believe that remains the most serious injury ever to occur in a UFC fight. And another example of how the guy on the bottom is able to protect himself from the guy on top, btw.)

-k

{"Oh SNAP!" }

Edited September 18, 2010 by kimmy