HAHAHA i thought gegard got robbed keith's face was destroyed, bt props for keith taking the fight on such short notice.
good post. Knees to a downed opponent would favour wrestlers morso than strikers, so would headbutts. the upkick to an opponent who is considered down may not be a great strategy vs a wrestler by why limit a fighter on his back? The position you speak of with a wrestler postered up is a good opportunity for the fighter on his back to land upkickes really its the only offensive strike the fighter on his back has. remember the fight with shinya Aoki vs Gilbert melendez, Melendez was able to stay out of Aoki's guard and and still keep top position by basically stalking Aoki from on his knees (Aoki was on his back) this strategy only worked because of the rules, otherwise he would have been lit up with upkicks. the way it is now a wrestler gets wins without doing the damage. Takedows > punches to the face.
Gerard shows me nothing that makes me think hell be a contender at 185 or 205 or whatever weight for that matter. Hes a good fighter but wrestlers will gobble him up. Frankly he is abit overrated.
We tend to agree. I really didn't consider Coleman's headbutts to be honest. It's just when wrestling and takedowns are used for scoring points, and avoiding a fight, rather than taking a fight to the ground that is a trend I think is pretty awful. The knees to the head thing, I believe goes both ways. Wrestlers tend to go for the double leg or single leg, putting them in danger for the knee to the head, as well as in danger when they are properly stuffed to wind up in the very position you are talking about. I think they are more vulnerable to it because they specialize in the double and single leg takedown and are more vulnerable to having a shot stuffed and winding up in that very position. It sort of goes both ways on this account. BJJ guys tend to do that lazy single leg trip than aggressively go for an all out explosive shot. I still feel the rules for safety, as well as the given scoring criteria are rather tailored to wrestlers outside of making headbutts illegal. It's not so much of a reach to simply say that its ultimate wrestling rules for MMA or something similar.
While I disagree with the premise that the rules overly protect wrestlers over strikers I also want to point out that calling the unified rules the ultimate wrestling moves also seems insulting because of the connotations of professional wrestling. This content is protected This content is protected Wrestlers can have a huge advantage with knees on the ground. I think a sensible rule change would redefine a grounded opponent as having a 3 point stance or being on his back. Having your knees on the ground but being fully postured in guard would no longer be considered grounded. This makes an upkick the style of Mousasi-Jardine or Silva-Okami legal but still leaves the more dangerous strikes out of it.
yea but i think if gegard was all he is hyped up to be im sure he couldve knocked out old man keith, even wanderlei beat keith and in my opinion the K1 heavyweight champ should have beaten a guy who got cut from the UFC.
I disagree i believed pride favoured strikers over wrestlers look at mirco, shogun, and wanderlei if wrestlers missed a shot it was all over soccer kicks, flying stomps and plus coleman was on steroids back in pride just type mark coleman roid rage after shogun's arm broke. The only good wrestlers in pride was coleman, randleman, rampage and fedor in the sense that he had sambo. However pride favoured strikers as they were more entertaining *subjective* plus all the wrestlers lost to strikers in pride anyway rampage to wanderlei, coleman to mirco and rampage to shogun and UFC favours wrestlers who lay and pray just take the gray maynard and ken flo fight.
Gegard is legit, he was robbed from the many stoppages allowing Jardine to suck in some air, to the no upkicks that didnt even look like an upkick, down to the scoring. Gegard won that fight from start to finish.
