PDA

View Full Version : Knock out vs Choke out



thebgbb
4/22/2007 11:14am,
I saw UFC 70 last night, and I was somewhat confused by the results of the Terry Etim / Matt Grice fight. Etim choked Grice out, and Grice never tapped. Nonetheless, they characterized the victory as a "submission" rather than a "knock out."

If you knock someone out, regardless of how you do it, shouldn't it be called a "knockout?" Is it because there was no "knocking" involve that they couldn't call this a knockout? If that's the case, should they have a new category of "win by choke out?"

Thoughts?

kracker
4/22/2007 11:48am,
A victory is a victory I wouldn't care what it was called, just what happened.

Epicurus
4/22/2007 12:10pm,
Interesting, I guess a choke-out that did not involve a tap would be either a KO or a ref stoppage (TKO?). However, it is probably classed as a submission in order to avoid confusion (it is a 'submission' technique to choke someone, after all).

How would you classify someone who gets armbarred or leg-locked but does not tap and then the ref stops the match?

meggaman7
4/22/2007 1:36pm,
How would you classify someone who gets armbarred or leg-locked but does not tap and then the ref stops the match?

I would guess ref stoppage due to submission attempt or something along those lines. Not too sure. As far as the topic goes though; I've seen fights declared won by rear naked choke when the loser tapped out, so I guess there's no rule set in stone as far as that goes.

thebgbb
4/22/2007 4:01pm,
I think the difference between the armbar and the choke is whether or not he was "knocked out." When you think about it, ALL fights are "ref stoppage"; It's just a matter of what causes the ref to stop the fight (unconscious fighter, tap out, object flying into the ring, etc). If the person is unconscious when the ref stops the fight, I think it should be a knock out (yes, even if he passed out from the pain of an armbar instead of tapping out, though that's not likely).

It could be that it's a PR issue; If they call a choke out to unconsciousness a "knock out," it somewhat highlights the fact that the person was, in fact, choked to unconsciousness. If they call it a submission, it gives the impression that it was something done by volition and makes it appear less brutal.

It really doesn't matter much, unless part of the fighter's reputation is that he has "never tapped." I think this is the case with Royce Gracie; he would pass out before tapping out, if he ever did get choked out. A submission on the record, though, hurts this reputation and image, and damages the fighter's "brand."

kracker
4/22/2007 4:07pm,
Interesting, I see where you're coming from now, but really if it became shameful to tap and honourable to go out or get your arm broken to the point it is recorded there would be a lot more permenant injuries and deaths would likely follow. This would be bad for the sport as popular fighters wouldnt be able to bounceback from losses and the sport would eventually be banned.

PointyShinyBurn
4/22/2007 4:09pm,
It really doesn't matter much, unless part of the fighter's reputation is that he has "never tapped." I think this is the case with Royce Gracie; he would pass out before tapping out, if he ever did get choked out. This is exactly what happened when Wallid Ismail caught him with a clock choke in a sport BJJ match.

jnp
4/22/2007 4:20pm,
You have to get "knocked" (hit) to be knocked out. Getting choked unconscious is a completely different animal.

Regarding a choke or jointlock, a person still wins by submission whether the ref stops the match or the guy taps out.

Next question.

thebgbb
4/22/2007 4:36pm,
You have to get "knocked" (hit) to be knocked out. Getting choked unconscious is a completely different animal.

Regarding a choke or jointlock, a person still wins by submission whether the ref stops the match or the guy taps out.

Next question.

If you have to get "knocked" (hit) to be knocked out, shouldn't it also be true that you have to "submit" for it to be a submission? Why the inconsistency?

This isn't simply a question; it's a point of discussion. I'm not asking "is it," I'm asking "should it be."


Thoughts?

Bang!
4/22/2007 7:26pm,
The more specific the term used to describe the fight ending, the more I like it. In that respect, I'm less concerned with the state of the loser's consciousness than what the winner did to take them there.

In other words, this:
Submission: RNC

is much more useful to me than this:
Sad upon awakening.

thebgbb
4/22/2007 8:05pm,
The more specific the term used to describe the fight ending, the more I like it. In that respect, I'm less concerned with the state of the loser's consciousness than what the winner did to take them there.

In other words, this:
Submission: RNC

is much more useful to me than this:
Sad upon awakening.

Good point, and that's really the heart of what I'm getting at.

To be sure, given the situation described, then, do you think it should be:

Submission: RNC
or
KO: RNC

Depending on whether he tapped out or not?

At the same time, should they use:

Submission: punches to the face
or
KO: punches to the face

by the same standard?

I think they should.

Bang!
4/22/2007 8:38pm,
That would be fine by me, but I don't see anyone changing the status quo, what with that being extra work and all.

I mean, if I had my way, to learn the fight outcome, you'd have to slip into a futuristic VR suit (circa 1990) and then -- for one brief, agonizing moment -- experience whatever the loser went through.

That's me, though. I also plan on finding a way to breed with monkeys and beating my mutant inter-special children savagely while gently singing them nursery rhymes. Don't judge me though, I gave $20 to Greenpeace this year.