218358 Bullies, 918 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 91 to 96 of 96
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Gabetuno is offline
    Gabetuno's Avatar

    Woah. Alex Van Halen got huge.

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    3,295

    Posted On:
    4/26/2011 11:14am

    Join us... or die
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tao.jonez View Post
    A wrist lock would be virtually impossible under the current UFC ruleset - there is a rule that prohibits holding onto your opponent's glove. I can think of very few wristlocks that do not require holding the hand/glove area.
    Disallowing someone from holding onto a gloved hand when doing the lock is like DQing some guy for holding the thumb and palm as he goes for an armbar. It's a means of control, and in the end, the gloves are grabbed all the time. I think it's a rule that is really about the ref's discretionary abilities. Much like you can't grab the shorts, but you can grab the leg.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcastro
    He screams like a little girl as the pain ripples through his arm, shoots up into his brain, and now your dick is hard.


  2. tao.jonez is offline
    tao.jonez's Avatar

    Ninja Fruit

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,073

    Posted On:
    4/26/2011 11:24am


     Style: JKD, Jiu Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabetuno View Post
    Disallowing someone from holding onto a gloved hand when doing the lock is like DQing some guy for holding the thumb and palm as he goes for an armbar. It's a means of control, and in the end, the gloves are grabbed all the time. I think it's a rule that is really about the ref's discretionary abilities. Much like you can't grab the shorts, but you can grab the leg.
    I understand the difference - holding glove/short material as opposed to controlling the hand/leg inside. I'm saying I think it would be tough to get a wristlock without the ref perceiving that you are holding on to the glove material. OR giving the benefit of the doubt to the guy who says "he's holding my glove".
    Hooking a leg vs grabbing shorts looks different. Grabbing a hand vs grabbing a glove doesn't look as different.
    "Never trust a quote you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln



  3. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,607

    Posted On:
    4/26/2011 11:31am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey Owl View Post
    I was specifically thinking of BJJ for this point to be honest.
    Okay.

    I'm talking about deliberately flouting the rules and going too far because you intend to do damage. Maybe because of a personal dislike or because said person is unbalanced.

    However hard to prove if it could be proven then this person HAS broken the rules/law.
    Mike Tyson? Ear biting Broken rule. Flouting is subjective. Ali used loose ropes against Foreman to deliberately FLOUT rules and win his match. Rules weren't broken and neither was a law.

    This is why I said SEMANTICS because, your definition and explanations are left to wide open. Tyson was unbalanced, admitted by his own words, he flouted rules with his badass elbow uppercut and he was fine. We can point to many UFC drama cards were people purposely, with intent, inured people and were not penalized and where they were penalized.

    It isn't that cut and dry. All I said was, without your further additions, was the intent in many UFC type sports is to injure your opponent.
  4. Grey Owl is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    559

    Posted On:
    4/26/2011 12:11pm


     Style: Karate, BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Okay.

    Mike Tyson? Ear biting Broken rule. Flouting is subjective. Ali used loose ropes against Foreman to deliberately FLOUT rules and win his match. Rules weren't broken and neither was a law.

    This is why I said SEMANTICS because, your definition and explanations are left to wide open. Tyson was unbalanced, admitted by his own words, he flouted rules with his badass elbow uppercut and he was fine. We can point to many UFC drama cards were people purposely, with intent, inured people and were not penalized and where they were penalized.

    It isn't that cut and dry. All I said was, without your further additions, was the intent in many UFC type sports is to injure your opponent.
    I think I'm being thick. I didn't think rope-a-dope was illegal and Ali didn't injure anyone? Tyson=bonkers established.

    Flouting the law and not being punished/caught for it does not exonorate you. If so then Jack the Ripper was an upstanding citizen.

    Again, sorry but I don't get your point. Really not being an asshole I genuinely need clarification.

    I was only suggesting that the OP's point is only really one of intent. The technique for an armbar (for example) doesn't change (much) in order to carry out an 'instant break' it is only the intention of the person applying the technique that has changed.
  5. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,607

    Posted On:
    4/26/2011 12:27pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Rope-a-dope is the act or technique, the loosening of the ropes was in question and against the rules. It is their fault for agreeing to the ring measurements and size of the ring IMO. By your definition, they flouted the rules, as written, and were not punished. Yes, they can take fights away from fighters and strip them of titles after the fact.

    This is a debate for another thread or do some googling yourself.

    Back on point:
    It's only really a question of intent, hard to prove I will admit, but if you intend to injure your opponent then that is outside the rules.
    No, it is not outside of the UFC rules that many are discussing. Your intent, in the UFC, is to injure your opponent, following the rules, on purpose. That's it. I disagreed with your above sentence based on Semantics. I will end the circle we are about to complete now. We will "agree to disagree" concerning what I originally quoted from you.
  6. Grey Owl is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    559

    Posted On:
    4/26/2011 12:40pm


     Style: Karate, BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Rope-a-dope is the act or technique, the loosening of the ropes was in question and against the rules. It is their fault for agreeing to the ring measurements and size of the ring IMO. By your definition, they flouted the rules, as written, and were not punished. Yes, they can take fights away from fighters and strip them of titles after the fact.

    This is a debate for another thread or do some googling yourself.

    Back on point:

    No, it is not outside of the UFC rules that many are discussing. Your intent, in the UFC, is to injure your opponent, following the rules, on purpose. That's it. I disagreed with your above sentence based on Semantics. I will end the circle we are about to complete now. We will "agree to disagree" concerning what I originally quoted from you.
    Okay, but I understand your point now and have actually learned something. Thanks.
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.