Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"instant" joint breaks illegal in UFC?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grey Owl
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grey Owl
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tao.jonez
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabetuno
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • tao.jonez
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grey Owl
    replied
    Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
    Semantics dictates this is incorrect as well. In the UFC, and most fighting of that nature, your job is to win and injure your opponent until they can no longer continue. This would include damage up to and including a KO.
    I was specifically thinking of BJJ for this point to be honest. Playing to the extreme though knocking the guy out isn't a problem brain damage however is. 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • gregaquaman
    replied
    [QUOTE=Gustard;2539352Also youd think the cops and doormen would go for a technique that was more effective and required less of a skill gap - after all they have a lot to lose if it goes wrong...[/QUOTE]

    Because they are not really alowed to punch, kick, choke and drop poeple on their heads.
    It is the most effective after that

    Leave a comment:


  • It is Fake
    replied
    Originally posted by Grey Owl View Post

    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.
    Semantics dictates this is incorrect as well. In the UFC, and most fighting of that nature, your job is to win and injure your opponent until they can no longer continue. This would include damage up to and including a KO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grey Owl
    replied
    Originally posted by PointyShinyBurn View Post
    You might have an argument in the latter case, but certainly not in the former because it isn't against the rules. Being knocked out doesn't give you the opportunity to submit beforehand, either.
    Excellent point.

    However I was only concerned by the 'instant break' aspect as I would hope that when competing opponents are not trying to break my arm and certainly not instantly (therefore before I have the opportunity to tap!). I would hope that they were applying enough pressure to force a submission rather than a break.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Coach Josh View Post
    Dave Camerillo. Shinya Aoki would disagree. I have DISLOCATED a couple myself and actually broke a bone another time. You don't break a joint you dislocate it.
    You don't "dislocate" a joint, you disorientate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • PointyShinyBurn
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • PointyShinyBurn
    replied
    Originally posted by Grey Owl View Post
    So if someone breaks your arm and obviously left no opportunity for you to tap or continued to apply the technique after you tapped then you would probably have a case.
    You might have an argument in the latter case, but certainly not in the former because it isn't against the rules. Being knocked out doesn't give you the opportunity to submit beforehand, either.

    Leave a comment:


  • realjanuary
    replied
    apart from going for higer percentage targets, etc here's some thoughts on wrist locks with wraps on
    hyper flexing aka kotegaeshi: wraps are passive protection
    hyper extension aka stirrup lock: wraps are passive protection
    hyper pronation (flexed wrist) aka nikyo: (see hyper flexion) little purchase without the flexed wrist
    hyper pronation 2 (straight wrist) aka sankyo: bulk of gloves make the hand edge grab a little tricky
    radial and ulner deviation: rare anyway, I'll wrap up and check them out tonight

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X