The elbows may have changed the outcome of the fight. Joe fought through it, but mentally it had to have been a challenge. Had he not received those blows to the back of the head, he may have been thinking more clearly without the panic of seeing the blood and so on...
I'm not saying he would have won. Just an opinion on the panic factor
If the back of Joe Lauzon's head was just a little bit tougher, this would be a non-issue.
bhamill - "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.
I can agree with that. In the GSP-Hughes II instance, it seemed like BJM knew that the strikes weren't dirty or intentional, so I don't think he was anywhere near assessing a 1 point penalty. I think context matters in each case of potential illegal strikes, so it's hard to generalize.
Funny thing about GSP/Hughes 2 is that Hughes said in the post-fight press conference that neither kick hit him in the groin and that they sent a shock down his leg and really hurt him.
My thought is that although the placement of the elbows were illegal, it's part of the game. You either need to allow elbows or don't.
I do know that the "back of the head" was CLEARLY defined by the ref in the locker room and in my opinion it's the person committing the strikes job to land strikes legally.
Like was said before, if I kick you in the balls, is that your fault cause you didnt' move your balls.
All that said, I don't necessarily think those elbows changd the fight, what is disappointing is the standup. And again, that might not change the fight, but the system needs to be fixed. A guy gets a takedown, gets fouled and his reward is going back to the feet?
Chris -
Like was said before, if I kick you in the balls, is that your fault cause you didnt' move your balls.
Not quite an accurate analogy. More like, if I kick you in your thigh, but you move your balls into my foot, is that my fault? Kenny wasn't aiming for the back of the head anymore than Anderson was against Lutter.
Train Judo is correct here.
The elbows being thrown weren't illegal but where they were hitting was.
Train Judo is correct here.
The elbows being thrown weren't illegal but where they were hitting was.
The part that bugs me, is that KenFlo was going for the cut. I can't respect someone who tries to win a fight by simply cutting his opponent and winning by a technicality. KenFlo is proud of that. This isnt a cutting competition, it's a fight. Thankfully, he changed course after that and finished Joe the correct way, by FIGHTING.
The rule specificly says 12 to 6..
BigJohn only made an interpretation..That is NOT what the rule itself says..
Ever been on a boat?
"12 o'clock is directly ahead 6 o'clock is directly astern. 3 o'clock is on the starboard beam 9 o'clock is on the port beam. "
Ever Line danced?
"FORWARD SHUFFLE, 1/4 TURN, FORWARD SHUFFLE Shuffle forward L-R-L in 10:30 direction
& Turn a 1/4 turn to right (CW) on ball of Left Foot [You should now be facing 1:30 o'clock direction] Shuffle forward R-L-R in 1:30 direction"
How About fly fishing?
"keep your cast in the same line of travel. Backcast at 6 o'clock and forward at twelve o'clock or backcast at 4 o'clock and forward at 10 o'clock, etc. A variation of an hour or so off the straight line path will produce a tailing loop"
How about Motorcycle racing?
"When turning to the right at steady speed, the bike is actually accelerating to the right in a 3 O’clock direction. Conversely when turning to the left at steady speed, the bike is accelerating to the left in 9 O’clock direction.
If you are in a right-hand corner which is opening up and you are accelerating through it, the bike is accelerating in a 3 O’clock direction AND forward, the net result being an acceleration roughly in the 2 O’clock direction"
How about TaeKwondo?
"Step forward in the 12 o’clock direction and assume a left front stance (Oen Apkoobi). Execute a palm inward wedge block (Anpolmok Hechyo Makki)."
I think you get the point..Why is it to you that a clock is stuck to the wall..Seems alot of other people see clock directions much differently.
my point being, it says 12 to 6 and leaves the interpretation of those directions up to the referee..This is IMO makes those elbows illegal..
Just because Big John Interprets the rule differently does not make him right..Unless he re-writes the rule to say "ceiling to floor"..The rule does not say that now, it says 12 to 6..
Dude.......the rule was made because of the exact same type of elbows royce used to land from guard.
The interpretation has somehow creeped a bit which is wrong.
You can argue the semantics all day long but the spirit of the rule was to prevent exactly what happened in the fight.
Maybe that's why the ref stopped the elbowing.
I agree with you...
I thought the 12 to 6 elbow rule was to prevent damaging elbow strikes that come down hard on the top of head, effectively applying all of the pressure to the spinal column.
It's an elbow strike from muay thai. Tony Jaa does a few of them in Ong Bak.
In a bad situation, a person could end up paralyzed.
You can't cause or apply that same kind of force to that same area.
Isn't that the reason the elbows from guard are legal?
Also, in terms of "the interpretation of the rules" argument, we have seen those elbows from guard in lots of big televised, fights lately, so I would argue if there were an issue with those elbows, someone somewhere from some commission would complain.
No one has said anything, because they aren't illegal and aren't just "being interpreted", IMHO.
Ponyboy - Dude.......the rule was made because of the exact same type of elbows royce used to land from guard.
The interpretation has somehow creeped a bit which is wrong.
You can argue the semantics all day long but the spirit of the rule was to prevent exactly what happened in the fight.
Maybe that's why the ref stopped the elbowing.
No, the ref stopped the elbowing because he said they were hitting the back of the head. Striking the back of the head is illegal. The way the elbows were thrown was not. Why would we speculate other reasons, when the ref already clearly stated the reason for halting the fight at that point?
"Ponyboy - Dude.......the rule was made because of the exact same type of elbows royce used to land from guard."
Says who? If anything, it was made because of John Hess's downward-spiking standing elbows to that other guy's spine.