Strikes that should be legal under Unified Rules

 







ALLOW UPKICKS AND KNEES TO THE HEAD ON THE GROUND



- Alters ground fighting strategies for both fighters

- Provides top fighter more chances to finish fights

- Provides bottom fighter more opportunities to scramble and improve position

- Leads to more ground action, more exciting fights, less chance of "lay and pray" strategies being successful

100% agree

 I'm okay with no knees to the head while on the ground.  In fact, I'd rather see head stomps before that.  Someone gets a severe kneck injury from knees on the ground, and the politicians will swarm all over our sport.




no one has ever brought that up in a threat ever.


what they really need to do is bring back ball flicks and taint punches.

Almost seems like Everything should go except the hooking and biting and gouging in order to be considered 'fighting,' but I understand the safety concerns involved.

 I'm trying to write a big article on this, but he's my take:



Instead of making certain strikes legal and illegal, go directly to the source, which is what makes them legal and illegal.



Right now, being a "grounded fighter" means "anything but the soles of your feet touching the canvas", which IMO, is a terrible definition.



At the very least, I'd like to see a a "four point rule", meaning you have to have 4 points down or be laying your torso on the mat to be considered grounded.  This means that a fighter who is down on one knee could get completely blasted in the face with a knee or a kick, but if he was on all-fours, he would be "grounded".



Just "bringing back Pride rules" is not a realistic starting point. I understand this is more of a compromise, but this way, we could ease forward and measure how much it effects fighter safety (the absolute #1 priority) and fighter strategies, etc.

The knees from sprawl look brutal, but that example you provided is the one and only time that there has been any concern about a serious injury from that type of strike. I could counter that by posting a half dozen gifs of knees from the Muai Thai clinch, where pulling down on the head causes the impact from the upward knee to be multiplied many times over. Dudes have been feared for dead from these types of KO's, but the truth is that serious injuries are few and far between for both attacks. Remember that these strikes are not banned in Japan and we have not seen any broken spines in the last 15 years of MMA there.



If I had to give up my stance on knees from that position, fine, but from side control I am still in 100% support of knees to the head



Banning these attacks is an archaic rule that was created to make MMA more palatable to a North American audience. By now, we have matured enough to move out of this phase and start adjusting the unified rules to what makes more sense to the competition, not to the politicians


 K I posted two gifs that make sense for my argument, ignore this fruitcake posting gifs of soccer kicks and dick punching. I do not support dick punching.

 

The safety argument is a gimmick, it's more about how violent strikes look than how much damage they do. In the west we have a long heritage of boxing, but have traditionally looked down on kicking or attacking someone on the floor, and that's where the unified rules get their bias from.

If it was just about safety the first strike to be banned would be punches to the head, since they cause the majority of KOs and have been the cause of almost every death in NHB/MMA to date.

 And let's all be realistic before we start trolling, nobody is supporting reverting back to no holds barred fighting.



I am suggesting two very specific strikes that should be allowed. Nothing more.

Signed.

 would make mma more exciting

couldn't agree more with OP

 The OP and I were arguing a bit about this in another thread.



I disagree with knees on the ground and soccer kicks, but its mostly the soccer kicks that are of concern. I could live with knees on the ground.



Upkicks I have a problem with only if the guy getting kicked has four points of contact down and is in a set position (like inside his opponents guard) Otherwise kick away.

FacepunchPOW -  The OP and I were arguing a bit about this in another thread.



I disagree with knees on the ground and soccer kicks, but its mostly the soccer kicks that are of concern. I could live with knees on the ground.



Upkicks I have a problem with only if the guy getting kicked has four points of contact down and is in a set position (like inside his opponents guard) Otherwise kick away.



agreed!

 

 Left High kicks should be banned! They cause more knockouts!

Masakyst - The knees from sprawl <b>look </b>brutal, but that example you provided is the one and only time that there has been any concern about a serious injury from that type of strike. I could counter that by posting a half dozen gifs of knees from the Muai Thai clinch, where pulling down on the head causes the impact from the upward knee to be multiplied many times over. Dudes have been feared for dead from these types of KO's, but the truth is that serious injuries are few and far between for both attacks. Remember that these strikes are not banned in Japan and we have not seen any broken spines in the last 15 years of MMA there.

If I had to give up my stance on knees from that position, fine, but from side control I am still in 100% support of knees to the head

Banning these attacks is an archaic rule that was created to make MMA more palatable to a North American audience. By now, we have matured enough to move out of this phase and start adjusting the unified rules to what makes more sense to the competition, not to the politicians




Well, you have to be practical, and you need to thread a line between allowing fighters to use their tools with minimal limitations and keeping the competition not only safe, but a spectator sport.

You need to settle somewhere on this spectrum. Even UFC 2 was not unregulated. Sure, the rounds that were used in the first event were gone but biting and eye gouging were still illegal, and fans are still discussing what may have happened if there were no rules or how fighters of today would be able to perform under those rules. And still, hardly anyone wants the rule set of UFC 2 brought back.

Knees to an opponent on all fours: this is very obvious. Not only is the power of such a knee absolutely tremendous, much more powerful than any high roundhouse kick, but it can be very difficult to judge how the fighter lying down is doing. He may be completely out of it but eat more knees and not change position at all (see Coleman vs. Goes). This would dramatically change the sport and reduce wrestlers abilities to simply dig for takedowns forever and ride out a decision, but there is the safety concern.

Kicks to a grounded opponent's head: Realistically speaking, it is too brutal for a mainstream audience. It is far more brutal than punching the head. It just looks bad, and is dangerous. Don't demand it's introduction into MMA at this point just because you want to see how it would look, it is too much.

The only one worth discussing in my opinion is the upkick. It is less brutal looking than a kick to an opponent lying down and it would change the sport a lot, a grounded opponent would more asily defend himself and make the standing fighter more reluctant to dive down on him and lay'n pray. It is a problem that you if taken down you are not only being somewhat shut down by your opponent but you also have some tools removed from you by the referee.... Frankly, when you become LESS able to do damage with your kicks (lying down) then you are no longer allowed to use them although your opponent now has a superior position instead of an equal one.

I am not sure about how this should be handled but I think it is worth discussing. As for the other stuff, I am strongly opposed to it.


And I must also shine a light on this: You hear quite often fans that call for a less restrictive set of rules with knees and stomps to a grounded opponent allowed, and the argument is often that it should be somehow true to the core of the sport, the comparison of abilities, Mixed Martial Arts, how fighters of different disciplines and different tools and styles should fight without the rules hindering one competitior and helping the other. That all sounds nice. But you almost never hear people call for unlimited rounds and even less restrictive frameworks. Why on earth not, if it is the equality you are after? The closeness to a real battle, not an artificial one?


We snored through 90 minutes of lowkicks when Royce fought Sakuraba the first time, we snored through countless figths where a wrestler lied down forever on his opponent throwing little headbutts, we were overjoyed when fighters could be stood up after inactivity on the ground (and how realistic is that?).


Could it be that you want an artificial framework that allows the maximum amount of violent strikes, knockouts, and brutality? Ask yourself this question: do you simply want to see more strikes being thrown regardless of where the fight takes place?

Knees on the ground and upkicks won't be allowed simply because they look brutal. Whether they are or not is secondary; adding them will get MMA banned again in many places.

This is a sport, not a fight, and you win by the rules in place. Why is a field goal worth three points and a converted touchdown seven? Why is it ten yards for a first down? Why four downs? Sport rules tend to be arbitrary, but athletes play to the rules in place, not to the ones they'd prefer.

Head butts could be allowed too, so could biting, and groin shots, and in fact just about everything - none of these things are fatal, and in fact medicine is pretty good at closing the wounds that come from them. It'd change the game, probably open up the action (imagine if you could bite someone's throat from within a clinch, or their ear) - and get MMA banned very quickly. Even as it is, MMA is still on the edge of public acceptance.

And no, I don't seriously want biting in MMA, but that's the difference between sport and MMA (though there was a bite in the NHL just a few days ago) - MMA isn't a fight, its a competition. Fights don't have rules.

Good post full of good points, but no, I have no desire to see MMA return to No Holds Barred or make any other completely drastic changes. I am just suggesting two very specific strikes, upkicks and knees from side control, that for all intents and purposes should be legal. I'd be OK with knees from the sprawl position too, but I understand that it would be less acceptable for many people than the other two strikes.



The best outcome of adding these strikes is to open up more possibilities to keep the ground action moving, and reduce the success of Lay & Pray

knees to the head of a grounded opponent should be legal. same with up kicks.