Should elbows to the head of a grounded opponent be banned?

[Primate]

Originally Posted by Rob_Floyd

Kick:

http://www.mmaconvert.com/wp-content...after_penn.jpg

Kick:

http://www.fiveknuckles.com/assets/i...in-eastman.jpg

Knee:

http://cdn2.cagepotato.com/wp-conten...son-1.jpg.jpeg

Knee:

http://www.thefightnerd.com/wp-conte...tarnes-Cut.jpg

Hammerfists:

http://en.susumug.com/ufc/090613/susumu09.jpg

Knees:

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1300892690

Punch:

http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/c...n_002_CR24.jpg


I could keep going...

This.

Originally Posted by Thom

No, and they should get rid of the bullshit 12-6 rule.

And this.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Rob_Floyd

I think you need to calm down a bit.

Yeah, I'm sick of this forum being packed with nothing but wankers who can't even have a civil conversation.

This should be a really good MMA forum. It's not an MMA-exclusive sight, so it won't be flooded with retarded Sherdog-type Tapout fanboys. It's a combat sport site, so it should be filled with posters who are fans of combat sports in general, and have a little bit of knowledge and desire to have conversations about MMA.

Instead, what is it? Pathetic cliqueing, everybody has to be either a hater or a nuthugger, and any attempt to get a constructive discussion going is doomed to failure.

What the fuck is wrong with the question I asked or the way I asked it? Nothing, is the answer. Was I rude or arrogant in my initial responses? No.

So why did this thread turn to pathetic shit-slinging immediately?

Because that's what every thread in this subforum does, because the MMA forum is apparently nothing but wankers.

So what's the point of even trying to speak in a civil tone, respect other's opinions and have a satisfying adult conversation about MMA here? No point at all. Might as well just be every bit as dickish as everyone else then, and be a cunt on every thread no matter what.

[Rob_Floyd]

I haven't slung shit, I don't think. I answered with my opinion, and provided examples that I think aid my argument. You are set in your opinion anyway, and I doubt any argument will actually change your mind, so whatever.

[Lefthooktommy]

No, elbows are crucial part of Gnp and banning them would just water the sport down. If you ban elbows the finish rate would plummet and guys like Jon Fitch would have more excuses for why they couldn't finish their opponent off. This is a brutal sport and cuts are just apart of the game.

[Primate]

Haggis, you got one guy talking shit and you started banging on about Pride. The rest of use have just given our opinions on the matter.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Rob_Floyd

I haven't slung shit, I don't think. I answered with my opinion, and provided examples that I think aid my argument. You are set in your opinion anyway, and I doubt any argument will actually change your mind, so whatever.

Sure, you are the one poster who responded with somewhat of a civil tone.

But with regard to the bolded, you can't say that you acted any different. At least I clearly said "it's a matter of opinion" and acknowledged that opinions other than mine can be legitimate.

Look at the amount of abuse I've taken in this thread, and for what?

For asking a dumb question? It's not a dumb question.

For being a dick? I was not arrogant in my initial comments, and I never shit on anyone else's opinion.

So why did this thread turn to shit immediately?

Was this an inappropriate question to ask on a fucking MMA discussion board? Why are we even here, if not to discuss MMA and find out where other MMA fans stand on issues related to the sport?

Are we here to get MMA news? No, because we can get that at any number of sports news site. We are here for discussion. So why is it so fucking hard to start a civil conversation without getting abused right out of the gate?

[Rob_Floyd]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

Sure, you are the one poster who responded with somewhat of a civil tone.

But with regard to the bolded, you can't say that you acted any different. At least I clearly said "it's a matter of opinion" and acknowledged that opinions other than mine can be legitimate.

Of course I'm guilty. This is the internet. Nobody has actually ever changed their opinion from an internet argument. It's always just practice to make your own stance stronger.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Primate

Haggis, you got one guy talking shit and you started banging on about Pride. The rest of use have just given our opinions on the matter.

I didn't "bang on about PRIDE".

In response to getting ridiculed, I said that the PRIDE organization agreed with me that they cause too many cuts to be worthwhile. Still, I basically got called a retard a few more times. I never even said that anyone else was wrong for having a different opinion FFS.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Rob_Floyd

Of course I'm guilty. This is the internet. Nobody has actually ever changed their opinion from an internet argument. It's always just practice to make your own stance stronger.

It doesn't follow that you must ridicule all other stances though.

What does posting pics of cuts caused by punches or kicks do to make my opinion invalid?

The fact of the matter is, it's known that deep forehead cuts open up easier from elbows landed from top position than they do from any other strike. That's exactly the reason why PRIDE banned them outright. That's also why the UFC banned 12 to 6 elbows.

For simply stating this, and saying that IMO elbows should go back to being as they were in PRIDE but that other opinions are legitimate as well, look at the response. Look at the quality of the discussion in the thread.

[Primate]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

I didn't "bang on about PRIDE".

Really?

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

PRIDE didn't allow elbows to the head for that EXACT reason.
...

Was PRIDE worried about appearing too violent, you fucking moron?

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

PRIDE was all about the violence and brutality, They embraced the street-fight aspect of it all, yet they didn't allow these elbows. Why is that?

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

Why did PRIDE not allow elbows to the head and face?
...

So why no elbows to the face in PRIDE?

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

It's enough of an issue that the #2 MMA org in history, an org with a much looser ruleset than the current one, OUTRIGHT BANNED elbows to the head for the exact reason that I stated.
...

WHY THE FUCK DID PRIDE BAN ELBOWS TO THE HEAD AND FACE? WAS IT BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO VIOLENT, OR BECAUSE THEY CAUSE TOO MANY SERIOUS CUTS?

That's almost every post you've made in this thread.

No one in this thread cares what Pride did. Pride has been dead for years.

Elbows opening fight-ending cuts is a largely over stated issue, and elbows certainly aren't the only thing that can open a fight ending cut.

Taking away elbows limits a fighters ability to finish a fight. It limits his/her offensive tools. Jon Jones whole game is built around his fight ending elbows, with only one notable exception I can't remember any of his elbows opening a fight altering cut. Anderson messed Chael up from the bottom using elbows. Anderson also knocked Tony Fryklund (a notorious bleeder) out cold with an amazing elbow, without cutting him.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Lefthooktommy

No, elbows are crucial part of Gnp and banning them would just water the sport down. If you ban elbows the finish rate would plummet and guys like Jon Fitch would have more excuses for why they couldn't finish their opponent off. This is a brutal sport and cuts are just apart of the game.

Not sure if finishes would "plummet", but I can appreciate the argument. It's a difficult situation, because it seems you need some combination of stomps/soccer kicks/elbows. Otherwise it's too easy to fight negatively and survive on the ground. I hate a good fight being affected by a massive cut opened up by a glancing elbow, but I dislike stomps and in particular soccer kicks more.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Primate

That's almost every post you've made in this thread.

Yeah, because nobody addressed it. Instead they pretended like it's not a legitimate question.

Originally Posted by Primate

No one in this thread cares what Pride did. Pride has been dead for years.

Not that you'd know it from this forum.

Originally Posted by Primate

Elbows opening fight-ending cuts is a largely over stated issue, and elbows certainly aren't the only thing that can open a fight ending cut.

They are enough of an issue to warrant a discussion, at least.

Originally Posted by Primate

Taking away elbows limits a fighters ability to finish a fight. It limits his/her offensive tools. Jon Jones whole game is built around his fight ending elbows, with only one notable exception I can't remember any of his elbows opening a fight altering cut. Anderson messed Chael up from the bottom using elbows. Anderson also knocked Tony Fryklund (a notorious bleeder) out cold with an amazing elbow, without cutting him.

Well, I would dispute the bolded. Jones' elbows only really come out when the opponent is already in trouble.

And there are other things to be considered, if we look at it in a wider context.

MMA is pushing to become a mainstream sport. To do that, they have to overcome the "human cockfight" problem, and convince the casual audience that it's a real, legitimate, respectable sport.

It's difficult to do that when you have so much blood. The public can handle blood to an extent - boxing matches produce cuts and they are watching a fight. Humans bleed.

But a deep facial cut in an MMA fight is a different story. They bleed on each other. You end up with two guys covered in blood, and that is revolting to a significant percentage of the potential audience. It's bad for the continued growth of the sport, and that is another aspect to potentially consider.

Elbows to the face have been considered a problem before in MMA history. They're considered a problem now - hence the 12 to 6 rule. All I wanted to know is how much of a problem the community here thinks they are. After getting ridiculed for no reason, I threw a tantrum because I'm sick of the black or white, with me or against me, hater or nuthugger style of this forum.

[Lefthooktommy]

You really have to take the good with the bad when it comes to elbows. Sure they cause cuts but removing them from the sport would limit how a fighter can attack his opponent on the ground.

[Primate]

Originally Posted by Haggis McJackass

Well, I would dispute the bolded. Jones' elbows only really come out when the opponent is already in trouble.

No. They don't. Opponents are in trouble when Jones' elbows come out.

Vera, Bonnar, Matyushenko, Hammil, Machida and Rashad all ate significant elbows from Jones. Matyushenko was in a bad position when Jones unleashed the elbows, but he wasn't in trouble until the elbows started raining down. Bonnar and Rashad were both standing and far from 'in trouble' when they were hurt with elbows (none of which caused cuts). Vera was working from guard. Machida got dumped and was looking to scramble. The only arguable one in there that was in trouble was Hammil.

[Haggis McJackass]

Originally Posted by Primate

No. They don't. Opponents are in trouble when Jones' elbows come out.

Vera, Bonnar, Matyushenko, Hammil, Machida and Rashad all ate significant elbows from Jones. Matyushenko was in a bad position when Jones unleashed the elbows, but he wasn't in trouble until the elbows started raining down. Bonnar and Rashad were both standing and far from 'in trouble' when they were hurt with elbows (none of which caused cuts). Vera was working from guard. Machida got dumped and was looking to scramble. The only arguable one in there that was in trouble was Hammil.

Just quickly (I'm on my way out), I have no problem with standing elbows. They are much less likely to cut.