|
What will cause the heavyweight title to stay vacant this time? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jon Jones goes on a pre-fight bender in Vegas |
|
3 | 8.11% |
| Jon Jones goes on a post-fight bender in Vegas |
|
1 | 2.70% |
| Jon Jones goes on a mid-fight bender in Vegas |
|
4 | 10.81% |
| Jon Jones tests positive for supercocaine, which USADA spends the next three months pretending is normal |
|
18 | 48.65% |
| A well-fought majority draw |
|
1 | 2.70% |
| No Contest on account of simultaneous dick kicks |
|
10 | 27.03% |
| Total: | 37 votes | ||
|
While obviously intentional strikes to the back of the head/brainstem should remain illegal, do you think when a fighter is deliberately pointing the back of their head at their opponent who is fully controlling them as a form of defense, that should be considered a TKO? Like if the only thing you can do about your opponent's strikes is to point the illegal zone at the strikes, you've lost, no?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Can you punch people in the neck? Legalize neck punches to keep heads safe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:Can you punch people in the neck? Legalize neck punches to keep heads safe. Not the back in that inverted tee kinda section where Rogan recently said you should be allowed to, you also can't do some B martial arts movie poo poo and like lift your opponents chin and drill them in the throat, but a punch to the face that hits the throat or neck is deemed fair and legal and I guess technically if you wanted to punch at the side of the neck you could but why would you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Brut posted:While obviously intentional strikes to the back of the head/brainstem should remain illegal, do you think when a fighter is deliberately pointing the back of their head at their opponent who is fully controlling them as a form of defense, that should be considered a TKO? Like if the only thing you can do about your opponent's strikes is to point the illegal zone at the strikes, you've lost, no? I actually believe something along these lines, though we've argued about it in this thread before: specifically, that if a fighter is choosing to remain in a submissive/defensive position in which only the rules and their opponent's discretion are protecting them from grevious bodily harm, that it should be a TKO under the basic concept of "intelligent defense." Eddie Alvarez's DQ loss in ONE is the platonic ideal of this kind of position. But if the TKO were available in that spot on that criteria, the attacking fighter would be further incentivized to avoid throwing the DQ-worthy blow. The problem is that I've come to believe that the refs are too stupid even to follow the potato rules that they have let alone make this kind of judgment call.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:I actually believe something along these lines, though we've argued about it in this thread before: specifically, that if a fighter is choosing to remain in a submissive/defensive position in which only the rules and their opponent's discretion are protecting them from grevious bodily harm, that it should be a TKO under the basic concept of "intelligent defense." Eddie Alvarez's DQ loss in ONE is the platonic ideal of this kind of position. But if the TKO were available in that spot on that criteria, the attacking fighter would be further incentivized to avoid throwing the DQ-worthy blow. I once heard a podcast from someone's coach on how to improve MMA and it involved having a 2nd cage side referee who is sat beside the doctor with their own alarm to end the fight. The idea being that in situations like posted in the thread this month where a fighter is clearly out and hes having his arm broken a ref not in the cage can hit the siren and end the fight immediately. Part of this whole breakdown also included giving the cage side ref another noise maker - they referred to it as a beeper that would allow a fighter to throw knees or kicks at an opponent who's chosen to remain in a defensive or turtle posture on the ground. This also had the caveat of it being like k1 clinch strikes where you can't just loving tee off on the head with knees pride style but you could use one or two to break their posture and force a movement. So it would work like. A fighter gets the takedown, and starts working to the back and throwing head strikes while their opponent stays turtled up but is not making any attempt to regain their feet or move for a sub. After a few moments the cage side ref hits his beeper letting both fighters know they're now vulnerable to knees to the head while grounded. The fighter in top position moves around and clangs a knee into their head breaking their posture and the in cage ref advises them that's their strike. I didn't mind the idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
if you are a sicko pervert freak, you can talk about bellator and pfl and other stuff in this gdt https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4028749
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Brut posted:While obviously intentional strikes to the back of the head/brainstem should remain illegal, do you think when a fighter is deliberately pointing the back of their head at their opponent who is fully controlling them as a form of defense, that should be considered a TKO? Like if the only thing you can do about your opponent's strikes is to point the illegal zone at the strikes, you've lost, no? CommonShore posted:I actually believe something along these lines, though we've argued about it in this thread before: specifically, that if a fighter is choosing to remain in a submissive/defensive position in which only the rules and their opponent's discretion are protecting them from grevious bodily harm, that it should be a TKO under the basic concept of "intelligent defense." Eddie Alvarez's DQ loss in ONE is the platonic ideal of this kind of position. But if the TKO were available in that spot on that criteria, the attacking fighter would be further incentivized to avoid throwing the DQ-worthy blow. I think this is a case where the attempt to remove abstraction from the sport would wind up unintentionally adding more. The problem you're trying to solve is disincentivizing fighters abusing the ruleset by turning their heads just to avoid strikes, but in terms of interrupting the real flow of a fight that only commonly comes up two ways: Fighters are stuck in the clinch and trying to avoid damage while jockeying for position, or fighters are getting the poo poo beaten out of them on the ground and are trying to prolong their survival. The first situation almost never involves fight-ending or even really fight-changing strikes without a change in position (i.e. moving to the plum) that renders the back-of-the-head issue irrelevant, and the second situation CAN be problematic, but it's also most often dealt with in seconds by just reframing the opponent's head and returning to hitting them legally. So if it's a question of trying to avert one situation that doesn't matter and one situation that rarely impacts fights vs expecting referees who already struggle with things like stand-ups instructions to award TKO victories based on head positioning, I feel like you're going to wind up causing more damage than you're fixing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:I guess technically if you wanted to punch at the side of the neck you could but why would you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Hitting the vagus nerve can cause a KO, but it’s not a convenient target if their guard is remotely protecting their head. Now that you mention it I have been hit there by a wayward kick and it did make me go very light headed and IIRC kenny florian used to mention being happy to throw a question mark kick and hit there rather than the dome because he didn't risk breaking his foot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
 Run away from this accursed month and into a new accursed month. CarlCX fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Apr 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2023 18:19
|
|