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

How could I have missed that ?

nutnut

 

Pride banned them because it encourages fighters to take it to the mat. Punching leaves you vulnerable to armbars and triangles. Elbows are much safer and equally devastating. The entire point of pride, was like you said, to be a street fight. Stomps and **** are fine, but they almost bought into the negative MMA stereotype of two dudes humping.

The 12-6 elbows were banned because some dip**** watched those brick breaking competitions on ESPN and thought they were too violent. Nothing to do with cuts.

Imo, elbows of all kinds should be legal, and I would like to see stomps, kicks, and knees to the head of a downed opponent. The latter will probably never happen, especially after all the UFC has done to try and clean up the image of the sport. I can live with it. I'm satisfied with the current product.

 

How is it untrue? ALL CUTS COMBINED FROM ALL STRIKES end very few fights.

Elbows probably aren't the best weapon, unintentional head butts seem to do it far more often. We'll start decapitating fighters at the weigh ins, problem solved.

Yes, they are more difficult to defend, that's part of the game. That's why Pride banned them. As an organization, they chose action over substance. They wanted knockouts and submissions. The kind of submissions and knockouts you see when fighters are forced to punch and posture their way into an upkick, triangle, armbar, etc.

 

Yes, they cause cuts.
Ruins a fight.

 

How often does this happen? Present some statistics.

 

Your right. Actually cuts from elbows do not officially end many MMA fights it is something like 1%.

They do cause cuts however far more often but it is uncommon that the fight is ended by the cut itself even in the Cain Valasquez fight was technically not stopped due to the cut. Officially it was stopped by TKO from punches.

I dont like that they are used in GNP, (arguably being the most powerful weapon) they do often create cuts and are difficult to defend. especially since when you watch how some fighters use them they really cant be considered elbows at all but rather forearm strikes. Guys that use them correctly with the point of their elbow will cause cuts more often. example florian and jones.

Like I posted before my dislike for them is beyond the danger of cuts, the dynamic of the fight itself is changed by elbows. potentially they can be used to inflict a high number of cuts or can be just a powerful weapon that doesnt need a postured up position to do a lot of damage. The postured up position would create openings for the defender. Nick Diaz talked about this in an interview.

Ill admit I think GNP is the ugliest part of MMA. it becomes more difficult without the use of elbows adding more risk of submission attempts and sweeps making it more appealing to me. I also dont like soccer kicks and stomps I think Stikeforce had it right. I assume Im in the minority.


here's an elbow for you crazy elbow fans!




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uH8EMPI7zY[/ame]

 

Fair enough.

 

This content is protected

Seriously though that is ****ing nasty

 

This is what happens when elbows are allowed on the loose... hide your kids, hide your wife.

Obviously stoo your anti ear.

 

I guess it's an example of an octagon related deaf...I'll stop now

This content is protected

 

Jones should not be compared to Florian when it comes to elbows. Florian legitimately tried to cut with his; Jones tries to knock you out/break your face. I'm pretty certain that he has only caused two bad cuts (Machida and Rampage) and neither were fight stoppers.

 

Collegiate Wrestling can spawn a psychological edge, just as a Black Belt in JJ, size advantage, Olympic Medal, MT or Kickboxing backround, etc etc. A psychological advantage is not exclusive to elbows in full guard.

If fighter A is going to let an elbow or two hinder his performance then it is nothing I can fix.. This is a combat sport, and these are competitors.. They signed the contract, and put their health on the line. Hundreds of men and women pull out a victory in the face of fear, we see it happen all the time.

We've seen the edge of a glove cause a nasty gash.. The cuts that you speak of happen all the time, and most often from non-elbows.

This is completely irrelevant.. Your talking Muay Thai, and they aren't landing elbows on a downed opponent in MT, let alone grappling with each other.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

James Thompson had his ear busted by a punch, so did an Antonio Margarito victim.. It's all part of the fight game.. Nothing new is under the sun.

 

Bottom line is fights ending prematurely because of elbows on a downed opponent does not occur often, and not often enough to warrant a change in The UFC.

It's only an opinion, and one I do respect.. But, what I don't like is Haggis exaggerating trying to get his point across.. He has named one, just one fight that ended because of an cut caused by an elbow in the guard.. A fight that was one sided from the opening bell.

 

No one is underestimating its effectiveness. The point people who you quote are trying to make is cuts happens. Don't want to have elbows raining down on you, don't end up in a mount.

 

Its fighting cuts come with the territory

why eliminate a legitimate move

great fighters can overcome the blood and fight on