" Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
All elbow strikes are legal except for an elbow that is thrown in a downward trajectory (hand traveling from 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock). Any elbow thrown with an arc is a legal elbow. The point of the elbow may be used as striking instrument as well as the forearm or the tricep area of the arm."
"Dosnt say standing or ground."
The "12 to 6" reference was clarified to mean the trajectory of the elbow perpendicular to the floor.....Meaning an elbow thrown by a fighter standing, straight down with the point of the elbow.
Every rule meeting I've been to has made it very clear that the only illegal point-of-the-elbow stikes are coming in a vertical line. According to what I've seen, I woud say the elbows were legal.
It's difficult to elbow someone in the back of the head from your guard. I think the only elbow that hit Lauzon in the back of the head were when Lauzon turned his head during the flurry of elbows, which, IMO, doesn't make them illegal.
Every rule meeting I've been to has made it very clear that the only illegal point-of-the-elbow stikes are coming in a vertical line. According to what I've seen, I woud say the elbows were legal.
It's difficult to elbow someone in the back of the head from your guard. I think the only elbow that hit Lauzon in the back of the head were when Lauzon turned his head during the flurry of elbows, which, IMO, doesn't make them illegal.
"again down always means toward the floor,"
This isn't necessarily true.....
There are lots of degrees of freedom...
I agree that a "reference point or plane" should be clarified for some.
Big John McCarthy has said on mmaweeklyradio while back the only illegal elbow is "12 0'clock to 6 O'clock elbow strike"
I have a feeling that, no matter which side of the argument you agree with, this topic may become the football equivalent of the tuck rule - for New Englanders at least.
Kings, if you walked on walls and tripped and fell down, down would be the wall you walked on..Bottom is all perspective. If you lay down do you say the bottom of your foot is now your achilles? I dont, the bottom of your foot is the bottom of your foot.
Let's not rewrite the laws of gravity in order to make an absurd comparison.
Ceiling to floor are the only illegal elbows. If you want to use the clock reference, 12 is always the cieling, 6 is always the floor. If you are on your back elbowing a guy in your guard, you are elbowing wall to wall, not ceiing to floor. Those are legal elbows.
It isnt absurd..Not any more absurd than thinking a clock laying on a table has a 6 facing the floor. When you are laying in bed, you pull the covers up and down..Again, down is perspective..Hell, to be technical, down has to be towards your feet..For instance..You are standing on a street, a guy on the other side of the world is too..Which way is down, where does down end? or is it perspective?
Big John did in fact clarify that "down" only means toward the floor with no arc. He's the ultimate authority on this issue, being the leading MMA ref in the US for many years, the leading trainer of MMA refs, and a player in the rule codification process.
Also, while Lauzon exposed the back of his head by tucking his chin, the strikes are nonetheless illegal strikes to the back of the head. This was clarified after the Mir-Lesnar fight. The ref (Mazagatti?) said that Mir has the right to protect himself by tucking his head and that the striker is required to stop.
TrainJudo - It isnt absurd..Not any more absurd than thinking a clock laying on a table has a 6 facing the floor.
Tell me when in your life you've seen a clock lying on a table.
Just let it go.
orcus -TrainJudo - It isnt absurd..Not any more absurd than thinking a clock laying on a table has a 6 facing the floor.
Tell me when in your life you've seen a clock lying on a table.
Just let it go.
No shit. Clocks don't rotate around on the wall or anywhere else according to whether or not you are standing, sitting, laying down, doing a handstand, etc. The frame of reference is consistent. This is starting to seem like a troll.
"The elbows were thrown perfectly legally, and they were thrown and aimed at a legal target. A couple landed on the back of the head because Joe tucked his head as they were thrown."
This is incorrect. MAYBE you give him a bye on the first one, but after that he knew he was hitting the back of the head. That being said if a guy moves and you your kick goes into the nuts you are warned and he gets to recover. If you land a second one its a point, EVEN IF THE GUY MOVES AGAIN. Just because a guy changes position, it doesn't mean you are not at fault. It is unintentional perhaps, but still your responsibility.
I thought they were illegal also. I thought you couldn't come straight down with elbows ever.
I'm sick of seeing so many fights get stopped on cuts from elbows. I wonder if they'll ever ban elbows on the ground?
They are legal! You guys are talking like this hasn't been clarified a million times before.. It's not rocket science.
cumprido1 -
I'm sick of seeing so many fights get stopped on cuts from elbows. I wonder if they'll ever ban elbows on the ground?
You must be REALLY sick of fights being stopped on cuts from punches, then, because it happens about 50x more often than from elbows.
This is incorrect. MAYBE you give him a bye on the first one, but after that he knew he was hitting the back of the head. That being said if a guy moves and you your kick goes into the nuts you are warned and he gets to recover. If you land a second one its a point, EVEN IF THE GUY MOVES AGAIN. Just because a guy changes position, it doesn't mean you are not at fault. It is unintentional perhaps, but still your responsibility.
Not true at all. See the GSP-Hughes II fight. GSP kicked Hughes in the "balls" 2x, at least that's how Big John interpreted it, since he stopped the fight each time to let Hughes recover. BJM told GSP to make the strike clean and that he knew it wasn't an intentional groin shot. No points were deducted.
"You must be REALLY sick of fights being stopped on cuts from punches, then, because it happens about 50x more often than from elbows"
LOL
A little dose of truth never hurt nobody.
Good form orcus.
LOL at no arc.
The only way to apply an elbow with no arc would be to have the arm in the elbow position and not move it while landing on your opponent from above.
Someone needs to ask Royce what the UFC said to him concerning his elbows back in the day.
"Not true at all. See the GSP-Hughes II fight. GSP kicked Hughes in the "balls" 2x, at least that's how Big John interpreted it, since he stopped the fight each time to let Hughes recover. BJM told GSP to make the strike clean and that he knew it wasn't an intentional groin shot. No points were deducted."
Well it IS at the refs discretion, but it was STILL considered illegal even tho unintentional, and that was my point. Not about the actual penalty, just that legality has nothing to do with whether the guy moved or not. Unintentional does not equal legal.
"So if I kick you in the balls, it's your fault that your balls was in the way?"
LOL