# Knees to the head of downed opponents and lay n pray



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Now more than ever I want this rule changed. The main group that suffers from this rule are wrestlers. Anderson silver can take out someone out standing with one knee shot, generating astounding power, yet someone on top position on the ground, who probably can only generate half the power, is prohibited from kneeing the head. Everyone complains about lay and pray, and one of the reasons it occurs is this rule. I would surmise that half the lay n pray matches would be result in stoppages if this rule were reconsidered. 

I wish the fighters and fans would speak up on this more. Soccer ball kicks to the head I can understand. Knees I can't. There are numerous strikes that are more dangerous. Anyone know the reasoning behind making them illegal?


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

There is no give from the floor of the Octagon. Could you imagine getting a knee to the side of your head, and then your head bouncing off the floor? I may be exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you can understand.

Also, how about a knee to the head while you're getting up?


----------



## daveh98 (May 26, 2007)

UrbanBounca said:


> There is no give from the floor of the Octagon. Could you imagine getting a knee to the side of your head, and then your head bouncing off the floor? I may be exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you can understand.


Not just that; but also the ability to isolate the head from like a North/South and still surmise a lot of damage with little head movement. The less the head can move; the worse. The rules are pretty fair at this point IMO....


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> There is no give from the floor of the Octagon. Could you imagine getting a knee to the side of your head, and then your head bouncing off the floor? I may be exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you can understand.


I can, just still not convinced it's more dangerous than a knee from the thai clinch. 

I mean if we're going to be consistent, shouldn't all knees to the head be banned?


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

Calminian said:


> I can, just still not convinced it's more dangerous than a knee from the thai clinch.
> 
> I mean if we're going to be consistent, shouldn't all knees to the head be banned?


No, you have more body movement in the clinch, giving you a higher chance of being able to defend yourself.


----------



## DJ Syko (Jan 6, 2008)

how many of these threads is there now?

No there shouldn't be knees to the head of grounded opponent, far too dangerous IMO.


----------



## Sousa (Jun 16, 2007)

Wrestlers suffer?

Brock Lesnar,Rashad Evans,Shane Carwin,Frankie Edgar,Georges St Pierre etc all seem to have pretty decent time in the octagon. If anything wrestlers thrive under the rules where they are ALLOWED to lay n pray. Knees to the head wouldn't do anything


----------



## Spec0688 (Sep 9, 2007)

Calminian said:


> I can, just still not convinced it's more dangerous than a knee from the thai clinch.
> 
> I mean if we're going to be consistent, shouldn't all knees to the head be banned?


Are you really that thick headed? 

I was going to put a productive reply to this thread but after you responded with this, I decided to hold off.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> No, you have more body movement in the clinch, giving you a higher chance of being able to defend yourself.


Being able to defend is a different issue. I realize that those fighters who are weaker wrestles will suffer. But I'm talking about the power of the shot itself. Wrestlers shooting doubles are vulnerable to much more dangerous knee shots. Take the sandman's KO over Martin. That was brutal. 

Where is there a knee to a downed opponent that's comparable? It should be consistent.



Spec0688 said:


> Are you really that thick headed?
> 
> I was going to put a productive reply to this thread but after you responded with this, I decided to hold off.


What was wrong with my reply?


----------



## Mx2 (May 4, 2010)

A strong knee to the head from north/south can literally kill someone.. so no.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Mx2 said:


> A strong knee to the head from north/south can literally kill someone.. so no.


Okay, assuming this is true, why not just ban the north south knee? They ban certain elbow angles. Why not fine tune knee angles as well?

...and btw, so can a standing knee. In fact so can a punch to the head even with 14 oz boxing gloves (forget the exact weight).


----------



## DJ Syko (Jan 6, 2008)

Calminian said:


> Okay, assuming this is true, why not just ban the north south knee? They ban certain elbow angles. Why not fine tune knee angles as well?


because what if someone accidently does the wrong type of knee and seriously injures his opponent? That couldnt really happen with elbows.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

DJ Syko said:


> because what if someone accidently does the wrong type of knee and seriously injures his opponent? That couldnt really happen with elbows.


Anyone can die from any strike. Where is the proof that a knee from the ground is more powerful than a standing knee? I'm just asking. Have there been studies proving this? Obviously there was a reason behind the ban, I just want to know the reasoning.


----------



## Mirage445 (Dec 20, 2006)

Imagine a huge guy like Brock Lesnar or Shane Carwin, wrestling someone to the ground....they then proceed to knee their opponent to the head.

We would possibly see the first fatality in MMA.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Mirage445 said:


> Imagine a huge guy like Brock Lesnar or Shane Carwin, wrestling someone to the ground....they then proceed to knee their opponent to the head.
> 
> We would possibly see the first fatality in MMA.


to be honest, I think a knee from the thai clinch or a flying knee like from sandman would be more dangerous. I've seen Brock's knees to the body from top position, and don't see the same power generated. In fact his punches from the ground seem to have about the same power (such as those administered to Mir). 

I don't want to see anyone die, and to be sure, mma is dangerous. I just don't see why this one strike has been picked on. The north south knee I can see, but still don't agree. I've seen this knee over the years and have never even seen someone hospitalized from it. In fact I can't even remember a KO from one. Other strikes I have.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Maybe this will clarify my objection a little more. If a downed opponent is more vulnerable , especially when his head is touching the ground, shouldn't all strikes to the head be banned in that situation? Example, Machida KO'd Silva via a punch to the head while Silva's head was on the ground. Brock KO'd MIr with punches while his head was on the ground.

I could use every argument offered here against knees to also ban these punches. Would you all be down with that as well? Do you just want to see all strikes to a downed opponent banned? That would at least be consistent.


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Athletic Commissions rule knees to a ground opponent are not allowed in the united states, we want the sport more widely accepted not banned in more places we have trouble as it is with the rules we have now


----------



## DJ Syko (Jan 6, 2008)

Calminian said:


> Anyone can die from any strike. Where is the proof that a knee from the ground is more powerful than a standing knee? I'm just asking. Have there been studies proving this? Obviously there was a reason behind the ban, I just want to know the reasoning.


wheres the proof? hmmm what about common sense? what if someone ko'd some one but then followed up with a diving knee straight on his head while he was on floor unconscious, is that enough proof? thats maybe a bit extreme but it could happen if these rules were allowed. the sport doesnt need to be anymore dangerous than it is IMO.


----------



## punchbag (Mar 1, 2010)

UrbanBounca said:


> There is no give from the floor of the Octagon. Could you imagine getting a knee to the side of your head, and then your head bouncing off the floor? I may be exaggerating a bit, but I'm sure you can understand.
> 
> Also, how about a knee to the head while you're getting up?


Never mind knees I want soccer kicks/ stomps in ufc


----------



## HellRazor (Sep 24, 2006)

Calminian said:


> I can, just still not convinced it's more dangerous than a knee from the thai clinch.
> 
> I mean if we're going to be consistent, shouldn't all knees to the head be banned?


No. If your head is on the ground, there's a lot less give. Also, if your head is on the ground, the odds of knee to the temple go WAY up. And that's a kill-shot. That happens even once, and the besides the victim being dead, so is the sport.


A knee to the chin in a Thai clinch is just an uppercut with a lot of core strength, and a lot more chance to block it.

Totally different.


----------



## Can.Opener (Apr 8, 2009)

There weren't any deaths or out of the ordinary injuries in Pride that you don't see in the UFC.

I'd love to see knees, soccer kicks and stomps allowed in the UFC as well as 12 o'clock elbows. The rules can be manipulated to a fighters advantage far too easily, when in a real fight they are putting themselves in serious danger.


----------



## Mirage445 (Dec 20, 2006)

Can.Opener said:


> There weren't any deaths or out of the ordinary injuries in Pride that you don't see in the UFC.
> 
> I'd love to see knees, soccer kicks and stomps allowed in the UFC as well as 12 o'clock elbows. The rules can be manipulated to a fighters advantage far too easily, when in a real fight they are putting themselves in serious danger.


Lets bring back eye gouging and hits to the groin too.


----------



## astrallite (Mar 14, 2010)

Mirage445 said:


> Lets bring back eye gouging and hits to the groin too.


And Mark Coleman's headbutt!


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

Can.Opener said:


> There weren't any deaths or out of the ordinary injuries in Pride that you don't see in the UFC.
> 
> I'd love to see knees, soccer kicks and stomps allowed in the UFC as well as 12 o'clock elbows. The rules can be manipulated to a fighters advantage far too easily, when in a real fight they are putting themselves in serious danger.


I couldn't disagree more. You're just asking for serious and career-ending injuries.


----------



## KittenStrangler (Mar 26, 2010)

Knees to a downed opponent are both too easy and too dangerous. They're nearly impossible to block, making for easy victories. If someone were to cover their head, they would most likely break/fracture a bone in one of their arms from the impact. I'll watch an entire PPV of Greg Jackson fights well before I ever agree to downed knees.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> I couldn't disagree more. You're just asking for serious and career-ending injuries.


Then why not be consistent and make all strikes to a downed opponent illegal? Just seems like there's a middle of the road stance here. You can strike with hands, but not to the back of the head. You can strike with elbows, but not straight down. You could regulate knees the same way if there was a particular knee that was really dangerous.

But frankly, in all my years of watching, I just haven't seen that brutal knee shot to a downed opponent that makes me so concerned about them. In all the years it was legal, what was the most brutal knee to a downed opponent you've seen? Conversely I've seen guys knocked silly on the feet.



KittenStrangler said:


> Knees to a downed opponent are both too easy and too dangerous. They're nearly impossible to block, making for easy victories. If someone were to cover their head, they would most likely break/fracture a bone in one of their arms from the impact. I'll watch an entire PPV of Greg Jackson fights well before I ever agree to downed knees.


Again, the same question to you. When they were legal, what was the most brutal shot to a downed opponent you've seen. An easy victory is fine. Are we going to ban them because they are effective in getting victories? That's what this is all about?


----------



## joey__stalin (Dec 31, 2006)

Well what are some examples of these easy/dangerous victories via knees to grounded opponents from PRIDE fights?


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Then why not be consistent and make all strikes to a downed opponent illegal? Just seems like there's a middle of the road stance here. You can strike with hands, but not to the back of the head. You can strike with elbows, but not straight down. You could regulate knees the same way if there was a particular knee that was really dangerous.
> 
> But frankly, in all my years of watching, I just haven't seen that brutal knee shot to a downed opponent that makes me so concerned about them. In all the years it was legal, what was the most brutal knee to a downed opponent you've seen? Conversely I've seen guys knocked silly on the feet.


You're being ridiculous now. You can't strike to the back of your head because of the Cerebellum. If you get hit in the Cerebellum, you die. Not to mention, you can cause major spine damage. It can also cause blindness. Yes, a strike to the _back_ of the head can cause you to go blind.

You can't strike with 12/6 elbows for the same reason; spine damage.

These rules have been developed for *fighter safety*, not because Dana sat down one day and said, "Let's ban _this_, and not _this_, and confuse the **** out of everyone."


----------



## patojag (Jun 20, 2009)

MMA is a sport and knees to the head on a north-south position can damage the spine. If you are really that brutal just go YNC or something and watch some senseless streetfights.


----------



## streetpunk08 (Jul 15, 2006)

I like knees to the head of a downed opponent since if a fighter is on all fours or on the ground like that imo the other fighter that is standing should have the advantage since it's an advantagious position but he can't really do anything and what he can do runs the risk of losing a point if he misses. I also hate when a fighter tries to get up but then puts his hand back down just to avoid getting tagged due to a technicality. I do not like foot stomps and agree that they should be illegal also 12-6 north south knees should also be illegal.


----------



## M_D (Apr 8, 2007)

Can.Opener said:


> There weren't any deaths or out of the ordinary injuries in Pride that you don't see in the UFC.
> 
> I'd love to see knees, soccer kicks and stomps allowed in the UFC as well as 12 o'clock elbows. The rules can be manipulated to a fighters advantage far too easily, when in a real fight they are putting themselves in serious danger.


pride fights were fixed of course your not gunna see any deaths or out of the ordinary injuries in Pride.


----------



## Can.Opener (Apr 8, 2009)

Mirage445 said:


> Lets bring back eye gouging and hits to the groin too.



yea man, and bring on biting, anal probing and brass knuckles. It's not on par with what we're discussing.

The OP is proposing a question to the current trend of lay and pray, and whether the risks are too high for banned techniques. My argument is that I havent seen or heard of injuries in Pride that are any different to what we see in the UFC.

These techniques are considered high risk, but they also allow fighters to exploit rules to their benefit.


----------



## Mirage445 (Dec 20, 2006)

Can.Opener said:


> yea man, and bring on biting, anal probing and brass knuckles. It's not on par with what we're discussing.
> 
> The OP is proposing a question to the current trend of lay and pray, and whether the risks are too high for banned techniques. My argument is that I havent seen or heard of injuries in Pride that are any different to what we see in the UFC.
> 
> These techniques are considered high risk, but they also allow fighters to exploit rules to their benefit.


They don't need to make any more techniques legal imo...they should add in a yellow card system, as well as a finishing bonus to fights.

If someone wants to play it safe enough to just win the fight, their wallets will take a hit. If someone wants to get a little more pocket money, go for the finish.


----------



## joey__stalin (Dec 31, 2006)

Can.Opener said:


> yea man, and bring on biting, anal probing and brass knuckles. It's not on par with what we're discussing.
> 
> The OP is proposing a question to the current trend of lay and pray, and whether the risks are too high for banned techniques. *My argument is that I havent seen or heard of injuries in Pride that are any different to what we see in the UFC*.
> 
> These techniques are considered high risk, but they also allow fighters to exploit rules to their benefit.


I dunno... Rampage did say he still has nightmares about those soccer kicks he took from Rua... heh


----------



## MikeHawk (Sep 11, 2009)

If you're in north/south position and you knee your opponent to the top of the head, there's a very likely chance that you will break their neck or severely damage their spinal cord.

This type of knee is different from stand up knees because most of the time you're holding onto the opponents body allowing for no movement so absorb some of the blow. Add to the fact that the neck is not meant to be decompressed and you have a very deadly strike.

If these strikes are ever allowed it will be far in the future after the UFC has established itself in every country and has earned a decent reputation of being a safe sport. But, right now they're not willing to take the risk.


----------



## Vice537 (Nov 13, 2009)

I think allowing knees to an opponent who is kneeling would be alright but not a completely downed opponent.


----------



## Rusko (Feb 4, 2010)

M_D said:


> pride fights were fixed of course your not gunna see any deaths or out of the ordinary injuries in Pride.


Let me see you fix a soccer kick to your jaw.


----------



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

I said yes but the complete opposite reason for strikers to have better defence vs wrestlers latest example i can think of is Mr daily kneeing Kos in the head Kos left his knees on the floor so Daily couldn't throw a knee if anything wrestlers use this ban rule to they advantage even more


----------



## T.Bone (Oct 15, 2008)

Defiantely not, it's too dangerous. 

I don't think people realise just how unavoidable knees to a grounded opponent are, especially the head.


----------



## KillerShark1985 (Jan 6, 2010)

No way, I even think SF are one step ahead of the UFC with the no Elbows rule, I think they take more away from the sport with unnecessary cuts, than they give to the sport, I think it forces more technical ground and pound, take the Overeem/Rogers fight for example, if Overeem was able to use his elbows Rogers would of been in trouble big time with an earlier position Overeem had, but Overeem was forced to advance that position and move up to throw those hooks that finished the fight, I found that more enjoyable and more technical that what could of happened if he had of used his elbows in his former position


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> You're being ridiculous now. You can't strike to the back of your head because of the Cerebellum. If you get hit in the Cerebellum, you die. Not to mention, you can cause major spine damage. It can also cause blindness. Yes, a strike to the _back_ of the head can cause you to go blind.
> 
> You can't strike with 12/6 elbows for the same reason; spine damage.
> 
> These rules have been developed for *fighter safety*, not because Dana sat down one day and said, "Let's ban _this_, and not _this_, and confuse the **** out of everyone."


Can you please read my posts carefully. You just rated about something I never advocated. But I hope you feel better.



streetpunk08 said:


> I like knees to the head of a downed opponent since if a fighter is on all fours or on the ground like that imo the other fighter that is standing should have the advantage since it's an advantagious position but he can't really do anything and what he can do runs the risk of losing a point if he misses. I also hate when a fighter tries to get up but then puts his hand back down just to avoid getting tagged due to a technicality. I do not like foot stomps and agree that they should be illegal also 12-6 north south knees should also be illegal.


There you go. All I'm trying to say is there should be a middle of the road position.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Can you please read my posts carefully. You just rated about something I never advocated. But I hope you feel better.


Why did you even ask other opinions, when you're already convinced? By your logic, every punch or kick should be banned because another punch or kick in different form is against the rules.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I wouldn't mind knees to a downed opponent, I've never, ever seen anyone get hurt in an MMA fight, outside of the normal, by using downed knees. I have, however, seen guys like Koscheck get "kneed in the head" when clearly it missed, and use that as an excuse to get a breather/points. 

Look at Jones vs. Matt, sure, the elbow hurt, like all the elbows did, but that didn't FINISH the fight, Matt used that as an excuse to get out of the fight, he was already beaten, badly. I know it's a different illegal strike, but it helps get my point across in the koscheck example.

However, with all that said, I would say that a yellow card system would beat putting in knees to a downed oppoenent. Yellow cards would make sure that there is minimal lay and pray, which solves the actaul issue.


----------



## dario03 (Oct 8, 2008)

T.Bone said:


> Defiantely not, it's too dangerous.
> 
> I don't think people realise just how unavoidable knees to a grounded opponent are, especially the head.


Yeah theres not much you can do to stop something like this, at about 1:10 (besides not letting yourself get in this kind of spot). But then again the guy seems fine afterwards, which was really surprsing to me since you could take a lot of damage from that posistion.


----------



## Icculus (Oct 4, 2009)

can someone point out any serious injuries that were caused by knees to a downed opponent (or soccer kicks for that matter)?

Is there any science to the decision to ban them or is it just because it looks too brutal to casual fans and voters who would only protest MMA fights being held in their states more strongly after watching Shogun soccer kick Rampage into oblivion?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Mx2 said:


> A strong knee to the head from north/south can literally kill someone.. so no.


citation please. they happened in pride, no deaths


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Knees to the head of a downed opponent are no worse than normal GnP. In fact knees are a long lever which if thrown horizontally are much less dangerous than a short lever thrown horizontally - and these are called elbows and are allowed. From the top of my head I recall two fights ending in knees to the head and both times the guy was fine afterwards. I've seen numerous fights ending in vicious elbows and punches on the ground that totally f'ed the other guy up. Punches and elbows can deliver just as much force on the ground as a knee, plus they're more effective because most of the time you will be close to your opponent and since you can't put your hip into the knee it's less dangerous than a standing knee in a thai clinch. The clinch is very important for a good knee. You don't just hold on to the head, you pull the head closer to your knee as you throw it to decrease the distance your knee has to travel to reach your opponent's chin. You can't do that stuff on the ground AND your knee has to travel beyond the point of maximum force so it actually loses power. Most knees to the head in PRIDE were easily defended by the other guy intercepting the knee with his hands.


----------



## KillerShark1985 (Jan 6, 2010)

HexRei said:


> citation please. they happened in pride, no deaths


just because it never happened, don't mean that it was not a time bomb waiting to happen that they caught in time.


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

I wouldn't mind knees in the four point stance where the head and the body are off the canvas. However, if any part of the head shoulders or stomach are touching the ground than knees should be disallowed to the head.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I just want to add that knees to the head on the ground will not solve the LnP issue. Have you ever seen somebody knee his opponent in the head from full guard? I don't think so...


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

About two or three weeks ago Rashad was on an episode of "Deadliest Warrior" and they had him knee a human gel torso in the head. The torso had bones, muscle, organs, etc. 

In one single knee to the top of the head, Rashad caved in the skull. 

There is no way, after seeing that as a possible result of knees on the ground, that I will ever support that in MMA. The fact that a possibility is a guy dying or being crippling the ring so that fans can find something else to complain about... There's just no way I'll support that.


----------



## Hawndo (Aug 16, 2009)

Aww man you beat me to it, tried finding a video link but none work.

But yeah I was all for them til I saw that damage, totally fucks the ballistic gel dummy up.

North South knees most definitely should be banned, not too sure about knees such as Mach Sakurai against Aoki but probably should be banned for the best I think.


----------



## Mx2 (May 4, 2010)

Calibretto9 said:


> About two or three weeks ago Rashad was on an episode of "Deadliest Warrior" and they had him knee a human gel torso in the head. The torso had bones, muscle, organs, etc.
> 
> In one single knee to the top of the head, Rashad caved in the skull.
> 
> There is no way, after seeing that as a possible result of knees on the ground, that I will ever support that in MMA. The fact that a possibility is a guy dying or being crippling the ring so that fans can find something else to complain about... There's just no way I'll support that.


Yeah that's what I was referring to earlier in the thread when I said a knee to the head in north/south can kill someone.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

I've been looking for the video, cause I have yet to see it. But, I have no doubt that a professional fighter has the strength to kill someone with their knee.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Mx2 said:


> Yeah that's what I was referring to earlier in the thread when I said a knee to the head in north/south can kill someone.


Then ban all dangerous strikes because the same science has revealed that Shogun's thai kicks are deadly as well. If fact they are likely more deadly, as they generate much more force. 

This is the inconsistent part of the argument I don't get. MMA in general is dangerous. Only professionals should be involved. If Anderson Silva was on deadliest warrior he would prove that his thai clinch knees could crush a skull also very easily. 

To me the arguments all seem emotional. There's no argument for banning knees to down opponents that couldn't also be used to ban other strikes.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

Calminian said:


> Then ban all dangerous strikes because the same science has revealed that Shogun's thai kicks are deadly as well. If fact they are likely more deadly, as they generate much more force.
> 
> This is the inconsistent part of the argument I don't get. MMA in general is dangerous. Only professionals should be involved. If Anderson Silva was on deadliest warrior he would prove that his thai clinch knees could crush a skull also very easily.
> 
> To me the arguments all seem emotional. There's no argument for banning knees to down opponents that couldn't also be used to ban other strikes.


They're doing their best to ban the shots that have the _potential_ to do the most damage.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> They're doing their best to ban the shots that have the _potential_ to do the most damage.


Then it's a no brainer. Ban all knees, ban all kicks and make them wear boxing gloves. 

But so far no one has offered a single shred of evidence that knees to a downed opponent are more dangerous then other legal strikes.


----------



## demoman993 (Apr 8, 2007)

Wow, this is a very successful trolling thread. Congrats to the OP for keeping this thread alive even though he/she hasn't contributed any relevant arguments for so many posts and pages.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

demoman993 said:


> Wow, this is a very successful trolling thread. Congrats to the OP for keeping this thread alive even though he/she hasn't contributed any relevant arguments for so many posts and pages.


And thank you for revealing you're out of arguments and moving to personal attacks. This only shows how weak your arguments are.


----------



## sprawlbrawl (Apr 28, 2008)

i saw rashad do this on deadlies warriors.i dont have a link but they tested the impact and the doctors said the guys neck would have been broke i wish i had a link


----------



## Icculus (Oct 4, 2009)

sprawlbrawl said:


> i saw rashad do this on deadlies warriors.i dont have a link but they tested the impact and the doctors said the guys neck would have been broke i wish i had a link


If they did a fight science thing about the Hendo right hand to Bispings face I'll bet it would show that a punch that hard could definitely kill a normal human. 

same with Anderson's knees from the clinch, or a prime Cro Cop LHK.

I agree that the last thing we want to see is a serious injury or death in MMA, but there should be actual evidence that these strikes are so much more deadly than other commonly used brutal techniques to ban their use.

just like a Cro Cop opponent knows that he must be careful to not get his head kicked off, a wrestler would have to make sure he doesnt leave himself open for a knee to the head when he shoots in. 

The 12-6 elbows are not allowed because of possible spinal injury, and I imagine that if knees to downed opponents were allowed then North/South knees to the top of the head would also be banned for the same reason. 

Maybe these techniques are truly that much more dangerous than other legal techniques, I dont know for sure, but at the very least it should be looked into a little more deeply than simply saying that fight science said it could kill a man because Im guessing a good clean punch to the temple by a LHW or HW would also qualify as a potentially life ending situation.

I want to see this presented scientifically. If you are going to pull out some numbers that say how powerful and dangerous knees and soccer kicks are then it should be contrasted with numbers from other tests of legal punches and knees and kicks. I dont necessarily disagree with the bans, I just want to see the reasoning behind the decision.
I suspect that the decision was based more on the public perception of the sport than on fighters saftey, but I could be wrong.


----------



## sprawlbrawl (Apr 28, 2008)

Icculus said:


> If they did a fight science thing about the Hendo right hand to Bispings face I'll bet it would show that a punch that hard could definitely kill a normal human.
> 
> same with Anderson's knees from the clinch, or a prime Cro Cop LHK.
> 
> ...


watch it dude he crushed a vertabray(spelling) in his neck


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

Icculus said:


> If they did a fight science thing about the Hendo right hand to Bispings face I'll bet it would show that a punch that hard could definitely kill a normal human.
> 
> same with Anderson's knees from the clinch, or a prime Cro Cop LHK.
> 
> ...


The Deadliest Warrior experiment wasn't a number based experiment. They took a human torso replica, placed it on the ground, and in one knee Rashad caved the head in and heavily compressed the neck if not broke the neck.

I have a hard, hard, hard time believing that Dan Henderson's punch could cause even close to that kind of damage.


----------



## sprawlbrawl (Apr 28, 2008)

brock coming down full force on someones head with a knee him i think this means death
im sure ther has been some testing done i dont thiink someone just said no knees to a downed oppoinet.
come on


----------



## Mx2 (May 4, 2010)

To everyone looking for the Deadliest Warrior video that's being mentioned, here's a link to the episode.

http://tvshack.net/tv/Deadliest_Warrior/season_2/episode_2/

To go straight to the Rashad part then skip to about 15:20 into the video, when they start looking at Alexander the Great's pankration.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

KillerShark1985 said:


> just because it never happened, don't mean that it was not a time bomb waiting to happen that they caught in time.


And it's still better evidence than the contrary, which is apparently to assume it will happen based on no evidence at all.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

I'm surprised that people are supporting knees on the ground. When you get punched or kneed on your feet, even in a Thai clinch, there is some give. Your head snaps back, you're able to turn your head a bit: there's some give. On the ground, a knee colliding with your head means your head is caught between a crushing knee and the mat. This more than likely equates to a fractured skull. 

It's just not needed. No need to risk it.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Icculus said:


> If they did a fight science thing about the Hendo right hand to Bispings face I'll bet it would show that a punch that hard could definitely kill a normal human.
> 
> same with Anderson's knees from the clinch, or a prime Cro Cop LHK.
> 
> ...


Beautifully put. I'm frustrated more don't see it from this angle. No one seems interested in facts. I would have no problem banning a N/S knee if there is reasonable evidence it is more dangerous to the spine than other strikes. I suspicion that evidence exists. And if I'm not mistaken, N/S knees are still legal on crouched over, but still standing opponents. What I can't stand are the emotional arguments. I could even be convinced of certain punches being illegal (more than those already banned). But the downed opponent rule is too general, and affects the outcomes of fights too much. 

It seems the driver of this is _perception_ rather than science. I'm all for good perception, but I don't want to see good strategic strikes that are just as safe as other strikes being eliminated for perceptive reasons. We let that slippery slope persist, and we lose the sport entirely.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

No way would I ever agree to allowing knees to the head. I would stop competing if it was allowed. 

I have always said it can cause rediculously severe brain damage (I'm an EMT, I know what causes brain damage). But I never had real proof until the episode of Deadliest Warrior when they were testing knees to the head for the sake of Pancration. 

Rashad Evans kneed an anatomically correct human surrogate 1 time in the crown of the head and cracked the skull in more than five places causing a depressed skull fracture...a nearly fatal injury almost every single time, causing guaranteed brain damage regardless of fatality. 

Honestly, the chance for actual death is not worth the pleasure of the audience. Frankly, I'll stop watching the UFC if they ever made it legal.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

Squirrelfighter said:


> No way would I ever agree to allowing knees to the head. I would stop competing if it was allowed.
> 
> I have always said it can cause rediculously severe brain damage (I'm an EMT, I know what causes brain damage). But I never had real proof until the episode of Deadliest Warrior when they were testing knees to the head for the sake of Pancration.
> 
> ...


I agree. I watched a pro fighter easily cave in a skull with a single knee causing what could be fatal damage. That's all I really need to see.

I've never seen that kind of damage caused in real life or experiment by a punch, or even a kick for that matter. A stomp perhaps, but those are illegal too, and for good reason.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Calibretto9 said:


> I agree. I watched a pro fighter easily cave in a skull with a single knee causing what could be fatal damage. That's all I really need to see.
> 
> I've never seen that kind of damage caused in real life or experiment by a punch, or even a kick for that matter. A stomp perhaps, but those are illegal too, and for good reason.


I think a lot of the support comes from those who really don't get it. And wouldn't get it until a fighter actually became paralysed because his fractured skull sliced open his frontal lobe. Then they'd get it, and it'd be illegal again, but some unlucky guy got paralysed because some jackasses wanted to see something cool!


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

There are 2 main reasons that knees to a grounded opponent are illegal.

1. More probable spinal injuries
2. Much greater weight transfer.

More probable spinal injuries:

When a fighter is on his back, or stomach for that matter, his range of motion is severely limited. The fighters neck can not move down tword the ground and left and right movement is also limited because of the inability to turn either direction. Even more dangerous are the knees to the top of the head such as the ones in the Mark Coleman video posted earlier. They can compress the spinal cord causing massive damage.

Much greater weight transfer:

Most power from any strike comes for weight transfer. When standing and throwing a knee the fighter transfers his weight from one hip, into his toes and lunges at another fighter. This action is in direct opposition of the fighters weight and all efforts are in opposition to gravity causing a loss of power. The fighters weight is NOT put into the knee, only the fighters muscle is.

When throwing a knee to a downed opponent a fighter can not only transfer their weight to get momentum started but can also bring the full force of their weight into the knee. With this action the fighters strength is magnified by his weight and gravity at the same time. Gravity is no longer working against the knee, but is aiding it greatly and putting much more force behind it!

So why not make standing knees against the rules? Simple, they are not nearly as dangerous. Sure, the knees Anderson Silva delivers in a Thai Clinch are brutal, but they are no where near as dangerous as they would be if the fighters where on the ground!


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Squirrelfighter said:


> I think a lot of the support comes from those who really don't get it. And wouldn't get it until a fighter actually became paralysed because his fractured skull sliced open his frontal lobe. Then they'd get it, and it'd be illegal again, but some unlucky guy got paralysed because some jackasses wanted to see something cool!


From what I'm seeing here, I would say this about your side though. It seems the N/S knee issue has been addressed, and conceded it may need to go. And yet you continue to ignore it and cite spinal injuries. Most who want the knees agree certain angles can be regulated (just like elbows). The fact that this keeps getting ignored is proof it's an emotional rather than logical opinion.

Because of fear of a certain injury, we've moved in with a chain saw, when a scalpel would have been sufficient. l like the way elbows and strikes have been regulated in regard to angles. Now it's time to relook at knees and make the same adjustments without changing the entire sport.


----------



## UrbanBounca (Sep 13, 2009)

I'll pull from this thread saying that I completely _disagree_ with making them legal. On a side note, we've given evidence, including an *scientific* episode of _Deadliest Warrior_ showing the damage that one single knee in N/S position can cause, but *Calminian* refuses to take anything, but his own opinion.

*Calminian*, I haven't given you any red, but I can completely understand why you are completely red.

When all is said and done, _we_ have scientific proof showing the damage. You have nothing but chance.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

UrbanBounca said:


> I'll pull from this thread saying that I completely _disagree_ with making them legal. On a side note, we've given evidence, including an *scientific* episode of _Deadliest Warrior_ showing the damage that one single knee in N/S position can cause, but *Calminian* refuses to take anything, but his own opinion.
> 
> *Calminian*, I haven't given you any red, but I can completely understand why you are completely red.
> 
> When all is said and done, _we_ have scientific proof showing the damage. You have nothing but chance.


Thank God you're leaving. You've been trolling with your misinformation long enough. And I like being red. Let's me know I'm ticking off idiots.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Don’t forget, nobody has ever died in a war due to a hydrogen bomb! This does not mean that there is no chance that anybody would if it was used in a war! 

So should the world just use this bomb as a first choice weapon because there is no proof, other than experiments, that it would wipe out an entire city?


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

DanTheJu said:


> Don’t forget, nobody has ever died in a war due to a hydrogen bomb! This does not mean that there is no chance that anybody would if it was used in a war!
> 
> So should the world just use this bomb as a first choice weapon because there is no proof, other than experiments, that it would wipe out an entire city?


Well, the problem is, knees to downed opponents have been around for years. So the example isn't analogous. 

And this again ignores the points made. I wish someone would just address the idea that knees to downed opponents could be regulated without totally banning them. 

And you're still ignoring the point that some legal strikes are just as brutal.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DanTheJu said:


> Don’t forget, nobody has ever died in a war due to a hydrogen bomb! This does not mean that there is no chance that anybody would if it was used in a war!
> 
> So should the world just use this bomb as a first choice weapon because there is no proof, other than experiments, that it would wipe out an entire city?


How many people have had a hydrogen bomb dropped on them and survived? how many have taken knees to the head on the ground in an MMA fight and survived? apples and oranges.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

I did address your questions in post number 72.

BUT, it appears you have chosen to ignore that post as well as any other post that has a counter argument to your thoughts.

In my post I show 2 VERY valid reasons why knees to a downed opponent are not legal and why standing knees are! 

The hydrogen bomb comment was just a ridiculous comment to illustrate how no matter what other people say, the OP is going to think only one way, no matter what is placed in front of him!

And NOBODY has died from a hydrogen bomb in a war so they must not be dangerous! Right?


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Calminian said:


> From what I'm seeing here, I would say this about your side though. It seems the N/S knee issue has been addressed, and conceded it may need to go. And yet you continue to ignore it and cite spinal injuries. Most who want the knees agree certain angles can be regulated (just like elbows). The fact that this keeps getting ignored is proof it's an emotional rather than logical opinion.
> 
> Because of fear of a certain injury, we've moved in with a chain saw, when a scalpel would have been sufficient. l like the way elbows and strikes have been regulated in regard to angles. Now it's time to relook at knees and make the same adjustments without changing the entire sport.


Wait, let me understand this. 
You want to limit the areas where a knee strike to the head of a grounded opponent can occur? 

With this logic you would be unable to knee the following areas:
1. Crown of the skull
2. Temple
3. Orbital
4. Occular Orbit
5. Forehead
6. Neck 

So your idea limits the area you may strike to the jaw area. An area about 2x3 inches. Frankly if you can hold your opponent down, and strike from side control/side mount into a 2x3 inch area over and over, I wanna meet your instructor! 

Now if all of this is BS, which I suspect is the reality of it, you should probably conceit and admit defeat.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

DanTheJu said:


> I did address your questions in post number 72.
> 
> BUT, it appears you have chosen to ignore that post as well as any other post that has a counter argument to your thoughts.
> 
> ...


Which was not my objection. You're still ignoring my points. Why not just take a chance and look at the other side?

I was very open creating this thread. I'm concluding the ban is not well thought out and emotionally driven. But it was the response the drove me to this.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

The ban is VERY legit! The two points I showed you are the main reasons... That is science not emotion!


----------



## Hawndo (Aug 16, 2009)

http://www.spike.com/video/rashad-evans/3372558 

I think this way be it, can't watch it in my country though :thumb02:

And IIRC he cracks the skull and breaks the neck with a single knee.

As much as I enjoy watching MMA I'd rather not see a fighter killed of become paralysed just so we can see a pretty cool and brutal move applied to a fighter.

If it saves one fighter from irreparable damage I'm cool with it being illegal.

I think it is just a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt over in Japan. Could just be me being a worrier though. :thumb02:


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

Squirrelfighter said:


> Wait, let me understand this.
> You want to limit the areas where a knee strike to the head of a grounded opponent can occur?
> 
> With this logic you would be unable to knee the following areas:
> ...



I'd think knee to the head while the opponent is on one knee _could_ be legal as as soccer kick in said position. N/S dropping knees would obviously be too much and I think the OP stated as much. The point is some kick/knee on the ground should at least be looked into.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

DanTheJu said:


> The ban is VERY legit! The two points I showed you are the main reasons... That is science not emotion!


You're points were _non sequiturs_. Science can only be applied correctly when it is applied rationally. I'm not disagreeing your science. I'm disagreeing with where you're applying it. You can keep knocking down the same straw man.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

FatFreeMilk said:


> I'd think knee to the head while the opponent is on one knee _could_ be legal as as soccer kick in said position. N/S dropping knees would obviously be too much and I think the OP stated as much. The point is some kick/knee on the ground should at least be looked into.


I'm encouraged someone at least read my posts. :thumbsup:


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

FatFreeMilk said:


> I'd think knee to the head while the opponent is on one knee _could_ be legal as as soccer kick in said position. N/S dropping knees would obviously be too much and I think the OP stated as much. The point is some kick/knee on the ground should at least be looked into.


The major reasoning behind banning both soccer kicks and knees to a downed opponent's head is the inherent risk for SEVERE injury. Examples are:

Kneeing a downed opponent in the forehead. In this instance the energy of the knee is coupled with gravity and is not even close to at the peak of the motion(limiting energy transferance). A depressed skull fracture to this area of the skull can cause total paralysis, loss of motor control (the shakes), as well as death. 

Soccer kicks to a downed opponent. Frankly, would you like to be kicked with a shin kick while you were down. 88lbs per square inch of force (according to ESN2's MMA Live prior to Machida vs Rua 2). Its almost a guaranteed cracked jaw, or severe brain trauma if it impacted the temple or crown. 

All in all on both counts, the dangers outweigh any supposed advantage. 



Calminian said:


> You're points were _non sequiturs_. Science can only be applied correctly when it is applied rationally. I'm not disagreeing your science. I'm disagreeing with where you're applying it. You can keep knocking down the same straw man.


Science is being applied correctly. 

Knee strikes to the head have been proven to KILL from a N/S position. FACT.

The skull is thicker on the orbital than on the temples. FACT. 

A depressed fracture of the skull to the forehead can cause severe brain trauma and potentially death. FACT. 

Shattering the occular orbital can cause permanent detachment of the occular nerves causing blindness. FACT. 

What is the issue here?


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

Squirrelfighter said:


> The major reasoning behind banning both soccer kicks and knees to a downed opponent's head is the inherent risk for SEVERE injury. Examples are:
> 
> Kneeing a downed opponent in the forehead. In this instance the energy of the knee is coupled with gravity and is not even close to at the peak of the motion(limiting energy transferance). A depressed skull fracture to this area of the skull can cause total paralysis, loss of motor control (the shakes), as well as death.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to dispute the risks involved in those particular manoeuvres, I'd need to research that myself, but what I was referring to in my initial post was what I think the OP was insinuating at. I.e. that _some_ kick/knees while the opponent is crouched on their knees but not on their back (thus still having room for the head to jerk back) _could_ be incorporated into modern MMA. The sport is looked down upon too much ATM so these moves just don't/won't even be considered which I think is wrong.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

FatFreeMilk said:


> I'm not trying to dispute the risks involved in those particular manoeuvres, I'd need to research that myself, but what I was referring to in my initial post was what I think the OP was insinuating at. I.e. that _some_ kick/knees while the opponent is crouched on their knees but not on their back (thus still having room for the head to jerk back) _could_ be incorporated into modern MMA. The sport is looked down upon too much ATM so these moves just don't/won't even be considered which I think is wrong.


I understand that you weren't try to suggest that. Sorry if I appeared to go off on a tangent, it happens sometimes!

I think it does have a lot to do with bringing the sport into the mainstream, but a lot more with safety and money. If fighters could knee each other in the head the way the OP implied, the UFC would be shelling out millions in medical coverage. All professional promotions must provide medical coverage for all contracted fighters. Also, if fighters were injured all the time, they would fight less or be unable to fight at all(the shakes thought from the previous post). 

Its just good business to ban knees to the head of a downed opponent as well as soccer kicks.

Health dangers were discussed in my reply to Calminian.


----------



## The_Senator (Jun 5, 2008)

As a fan, I liked PRIDE rules (including yellow cards), the only thing that bothered me was prohibited elbows to the head on downed opponent which were allowed in UFC. Japanese doctors and management of PRIDE didn't have problems with this and, as it seems to me, nobody has been terribly injured in so many fights during, what, 10 years. If you train well enough, you're not gonna get high-kicked by Cro Cop (in UFC Mirko's technique failed to have any impact against fighters with good defense). If your technique is excellent, nobody will catch you in north-south position where you're gonna get kneed to the face (for example, I don't remember Dan Henderson or Fedor or Anderson Silva being kneed in the head in PRIDE). If you're terrified by all that and know that it may very well happen to you than go train better and don't leave the gym until you're ready to go to the ground with anybody and be able to avoid Cro Cop's high kicks. If it happened and you are getting kneed than tap for Christ's sake and admit your loss instead of displaying your "toughness" and stupid pride (like Mir showing that he's fine while Brock was destroying his face on UFC 100) leading to an injury, your corner-man is there for a reason as well, he can throw a towel. In other words, we need real fighters, real well-rounded professionals, not some babies crying about being kneed in a face. If you got knocked out by high kick, in other fight stomped to death, then soccer kicked, then you should blame yourself, not the rules and make the right conclusions to leave fighting to people who can fight on high level. If it's too much, then go watch K-1, or boxing, or WWE, or play chess, it's safer there. But then again, I'm in minority and the rules won't change anyway, so we all just have to accept it.

The bottom line is, work on your technique. High kicks are legal only because fighter's current level of training allows them to avoid being kicked which is why it doesn't happen often, so it's more like an exception that doesn't bother doctors and commission. If we had seen people getting knocked out by high kicks 4-5 times during every UFC PPV, they would've been banned by now.

*You can stop fighting at any time by saying I quit and tapping and admit that your opponent is simply a better fighter. The fight would last shorter and we wouldn't see a fighter laying under somebody and enjoying the privilege of soft rules. This is boring.*


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

Knees, stomps, and soccer kicks should all be legal. This is probably the umpteenth thread about this, but I'll always gladly jump on and voice my opinion on the matter. All you Nancy neigh-sayers have zero evidence that can prove they are more detrimental. In fact, empirical evidence proves otherwise. The only reason they are barred is because the majority of the American fan base is soft. Or at least, those in charge of policy making and sanctioning are soft.


----------



## Icculus (Oct 4, 2009)

Calibretto9 said:


> The Deadliest Warrior experiment wasn't a number based experiment. They took a human torso replica, placed it on the ground, and in one knee Rashad caved the head in and heavily compressed the neck if not broke the neck.
> 
> I have a hard, hard, hard time believing that Dan Henderson's punch could cause even close to that kind of damage.


OK I watched it and as they said, that guy would be dead from a knee to the crown of the head. I didnt really doubt that to begin with. Knees would never be allowed to the crown of the head. Im with you there, without question. 
But are knees from side control to the side of the head any worse than if Hendo's right hand would have landed square on the temple?
Then again, can we count on Cheick groin-kicker Kongo not to accidentally paralyze someone by caving in their skull?

I dont know for sure, but I do know that it worked for many years in Pride without any serious injuries to my knowledge. that may not be enough evidence for lifting the ban, but it does make me want the UFC to at least give serious consideration to it. If they have very good scientific reasons for keeping the ban in place then fine, the fighters safety obviously must come first. 

I know its not a likely rule change for the near future becusae of the politics of the UFC's plans for world domination, Im just arguing that Im not convinced that knees to a downed opponent dont have SOME place in MMA (not necessarily having anything to do with the idea of allowing the strikes to help curtail boring LnP as suggested by the OP).


----------



## Shevy19 (Jun 28, 2009)

Just think of this, if they allowed knees to the head on a down opponeny and somebody died or was crippled. That wouldn't completly jeopardize the ufc and get people saying that the mma is a cockfighting blood sport. Players saftly has become an important issue in other sports(hockey,football). By going backwards in this you would states or provinces to continue to ban it and it would probably lead to some states to ban it again espcially if somebody was to die.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

What proof or evidence is there that knees to a downed opponent is going to cause anymore serious injuries than elbows, high kicks to the head, knees to the head Anderson style, brutal ground and pound with elbows/punches, etc?

I've seen many, many, many fights where knees were allowed on the ground, and not once have I seen any sort of serious injury. In fact, I've seen more injuries (cracked jaws, broken noses, busted orbital bones, etc) via regular punches, than I have seen any sort of injury with knees on the ground.

Until there is proof and fact that, in MMA under MMA fighting and training, that in an MMA bout it is MORE dangerous than other strikes, then I will support knees on the ground.

As for worrying about certain knees, like kneeing the top of the head, those can be banned just as north south elbows can be banned, no difference.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DanTheJu said:


> I did address your questions in post number 72.
> 
> BUT, it appears you have chosen to ignore that post as well as any other post that has a counter argument to your thoughts.
> 
> In my post I show 2 VERY valid reasons why knees to a downed opponent are not legal and why standing knees are!


But you didn't actually prove anything, and I disagree with the opinions you posted. The evidence that we can all see by watching Pride shows among others demonstrates that you may not be correct. Why should I weight your opinions greater than, say, anyone else's in the world?


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

Michael Carson said:


> What proof or evidence is there that knees to a downed opponent is going to cause anymore serious injuries than elbows, high kicks to the head, knees to the head Anderson style, brutal ground and pound with elbows/punches, etc?
> 
> I've seen many, many, many fights where knees were allowed on the ground, and not once have I seen any sort of serious injury. In fact, I've seen more injuries (cracked jaws, broken noses, busted orbital bones, etc) via regular punches, than I have seen any sort of injury with knees on the ground.
> 
> ...


I couldn't disagree with this opinion more. Essentially what this says to me is that you'll have to actually see people hurt before you'll believe that knees on the ground shouldn't be legal.

In addition, I see a lack of common sense in this thread (I don't say this to be insulting, just my perception of this conversation). Not only has a video been provided with a knee going into a skull (the proof everyone keeps asking for), but the common sense of the conversation seems to be throw to the wind. A knee to the head, while on the ground, allows no snap back for the neck to absorb the damage. The head is caught between the knee and the ground, meaning more than likely the skull is going to crack if the knee hits right.

Orbital cracks, broken jaws, etc. don't compare to a hole in your skull. Breaking the cranium is a lot harder than breaking a jaw or a cheek.

I also suspect there are a lot in this thread who have never actually been caught with a knee as opposed to a punch and experienced the difference, even standing.


----------



## punchbag (Mar 1, 2010)

KillerShark1985 said:


> just because it never happened, don't mean that it was not a time bomb waiting to happen that they caught in time.


I think as long as the ref is doing their job right, there shouldn't be any problems, there isn't a whole lot of difference to getting a knee to the head standing,if anything you can't generate as much power with a knee on the ground, that you could in a muay thai clinch IMO.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

punchbag said:


> I think as long as the ref is doing their job right, there shouldn't be any problems, there isn't a whole lot of difference to getting a knee to the head standing,if anything you can't generate as much power with a knee on the ground, that you could in a muay thai clinch IMO.


On the ground you can lean your body weight into it, driving not just the knee but the entire body behind it. You can't get your full body weight behind a standing knee like you can when drilling someone on the ground.

In addition, on the feet your head and body can snap back dispersing some of the force. On the ground you're screwed. The head is caught between the knee and the ground.

Again, as you said, this is just my opinion on the matter.


----------



## Nefilim777 (Jun 24, 2009)

Tight debate. I say no. I don't think they're entirely necessary, and if it gives joe public one more reason to call the sport 'brutal'then I'd rather it not be there.


----------



## Hector Lombard (Jun 1, 2010)

Yes! Please legalize it asap..would love to see it incorporated


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Calibretto9 said:


> I couldn't disagree with this opinion more. Essentially what this says to me is that you'll have to actually see people hurt before you'll believe that knees on the ground shouldn't be legal.
> 
> In addition, I see a lack of common sense in this thread (I don't say this to be insulting, just my perception of this conversation). Not only has a video been provided with a knee going into a skull (the proof everyone keeps asking for), but the common sense of the conversation seems to be throw to the wind. A knee to the head, while on the ground, allows no snap back for the neck to absorb the damage. The head is caught between the knee and the ground, meaning more than likely the skull is going to crack if the knee hits right.
> 
> ...


Yes, if you go into detail about a strike it can be very dangerous. Did you know that 1 punch to the temple, if hit properly standing, can kill you? Did you know that if you get kicked in the temple, it can kill you? Did you know if you simply take too many shots on the ground via ground in pound, it can kill you? Did you know that, if someone like GSP picks you up and slams you down, you can potentially break your neck or your back, if he's slamming you down?

Pretty much everything outside of joint submissions can potentially kill you in MMA. Now, how many injuries have we seen, in MMA, during an MMA fight under MMA refs/professional training, have we seen get hurt via knee to the head of a downed opponenent? I've seen LOTS of knees on the ground in fights, and I've never once seen someone get anymore hurt than normal strikes. 

In _theory_, kneeing to the head on the ground is very dangerous, but also in _theory_ a kick to the temple, something used often in fights, could kill you just as quickly.

We're talking about MMA fights, where professionals fight and have professional refs to make sure things don't get out of control, and, certain knee strikes, like to the top of the head, can be banned, the same way north-south elbows are banned.

Until there is _proof_ and _fact_ that knees to a downed opponent can kill or seriously hurt _*more*_ than a kick to the temple, or elbow to the temple, or any of the other dangerous, potentially life threatening attacks in MMA, then there's no reason to not have it in MMA, considering that knees on the ground have been tested many, many times in MMA, and absolutely no serious injuries have happened. It's been tested in MMA for 10 years, during the PRIDE era, and there have been no serious injuries.

That's 10 years of testing vs... well, why is there a need to go on? 10 years nothing went wrong, not only did nothing go wrong, but we've seen worse from regular punches standing, than we have from knees on the ground.


----------



## makavelitraind (May 30, 2010)

Michael Carson said:


> Yes, if you go into detail about a strike it can be very dangerous. Did you know that 1 punch to the temple, if hit properly standing, can kill you? Did you know that if you get kicked in the temple, it can kill you? Did you know if you simply take too many shots on the ground via ground in pound, it can kill you? Did you know that, if someone like GSP picks you up and slams you down, you can potentially break your neck or your back, if he's slamming you down?
> 
> Pretty much everything outside of joint submissions can potentially kill you in MMA. Now, how many injuries have we seen, in MMA, during an MMA fight under MMA refs/professional training, have we seen get hurt via knee to the head of a downed opponenent? I've seen LOTS of knees on the ground in fights, and I've never once seen someone get anymore hurt than normal strikes.
> 
> ...




IMO having a bouncy ring is a lot safer than ufc's hard floor. I don't know what that thing is made of , but it looks very hard. All slams become infinitely more dangerous. As for knees i think that no fighter throws their knees 100 percent , at least anytime i've seen knees thrown , maybe one or two hard ones , then the fighter sort of is reluctant to throw hard , maybe because of fear of injuring his opponent severely. That could explain why such painful strikes such as knees have produced no major wrong.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

No knees to the head of a downed opponent, no soccer kicks. 
But i would like to see the "12 to 6 elbows" legalized. Those elbows would mean, you have done something to get a strong dominant position, so you deserve to use a strong technique like that.


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Michael Carson said:


> That's 10 years of testing vs... well, why is there a need to go on? 10 years nothing went wrong, not only did nothing go wrong, but we've seen worse from regular punches standing, than we have from knees on the ground.


That's the part can't get by. I don't see how anyone can ignore this. 

There are some banned strikes I agree with, like strikes to the back of the head, and strikes to the top of the head (I don't believe it's legal right now to strike straight down on the top of the head). If knees to downed opponents were legalized would you want them regulated at all? Knees to the back of the head or top of the head (north/south)?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

makavelitraind said:


> IMO having a bouncy ring is a lot safer than ufc's hard floor. I don't know what that thing is made of , but it looks very hard. All slams become infinitely more dangerous. As for knees i think that no fighter throws their knees 100 percent , at least anytime i've seen knees thrown , maybe one or two hard ones , then the fighter sort of is reluctant to throw hard , maybe because of fear of injuring his opponent severely. That could explain why such painful strikes such as knees have produced no major wrong.


The reason why knees haven't injured anyone seriously is because no one has ever stood there on the ground still, let someone get a north south position, and slam knees into their skull over and over.

In theory, it's very dangerous, but in actaul use, you cannot just used knees over and over and over and kill your opponenent. These are professional fighters, they know how to avoid knees, they train for it, or they did in PRIDE, not only that but the refs are there to make sure it's safe.

In theory, if someone were to kick you hard in the temple, you'll die. However, in actaul use in an MMA fight, it just doesn't work that way. These are professional fighters, they train to avoid/block/counter these attacks, and normally when they do hit, they are semi-blocked, or are done when you are falling back so that it doesn't do as much damage.

Knees are the same way, in PRIDE, no one was ever able to really just slam knees to the top of your head over and over and over, cuase people train to avoid it, people train to block them, and if you do use knees, it opens up holes so your oppoenent can escape, so you use them carefully.

Knees are perfectly ok in MMA bouts, it's been tested for 10 years, and nothing went wrong.


----------



## makavelitraind (May 30, 2010)

Michael Carson said:


> The reason why knees haven't injured anyone seriously is because no one has ever stood there on the ground still, let someone get a north south position, and slam knees into their skull over and over.
> 
> In theory, it's very dangerous, but in actaul use, you cannot just used knees over and over and over and kill your opponenent. These are professional fighters, they know how to avoid knees, they train for it, or they did in PRIDE, not only that but the refs are there to make sure it's safe.
> 
> ...



I agree. What separates mma from boxing to me is the level of defense. Boxers take horrible amounts of punishment , mama fighters semi block almost all attacks and when they do get hit it's not nessesarily clean and perfect. Also i agree that throwing knees opens holes to be used against you , since knee throwing requires some significant momentum and springloading. Knees on the ground don't bother me , i'd rather ban suplexes.


----------



## The_Senator (Jun 5, 2008)

For example, watch Coleman vs Vovchanchyn in PRIDE GP 2000 (the third fight in one night for both fighters). In the end Coleman landed 18(!) knees to the top of the head, now, most of them were partially blocked but you can't block them well enough being caught in north-south, and this it heavyweights we are talking about, not some FW,WW or MW, Coleman does have some serious power. Referee could've stopped it much earlier, but the truth is that after so much punishment taken, Igor looked OK and his next fight was after just 1 month and once again after 3 months, both he won by TKO. Nothing happened. It seem to me, he was hurt way more by LHK from Cro Cop than from 18 Coleman's knees. Nowadays, fighters don't even fight every month without all "vicious knees, stomps and soccer kicks" and they don't fight more than once during one event, they can dance 5 rounds then rest 4 months. Now, everything is very civilized, if I may say so. Some of the rules simply compensate your inability to defend yourself in some positions like Leites's ridiculous actions during UFC 97 when he so vehemently wanted to go to the ground with Anderson Silva. In PRIDE he would've been soccer kicked by fighters like Shogun into oblivion for this, but under current rules you may not be afraid of being stomped or soccer kicked, so why not just lay down in front of your opponent if you're not that good standing (maybe your opponent will follow?) like Leites publicly demonstrated? It's boring and it's stupid.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Senator is correct.

Knees on the ground are not anymore dangerous, in MMA fights, than most of any other attack. In THEORY knees are dangerous, but in THEORY just about every single attack in MMA, especially kicking as hard as you can to the temple (cro cop comes to mind).

When put into play, knees on the ground are not anymore dangerous than any other strike out there.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Michael Carson said:


> Senator is correct.
> 
> Knees on the ground are not anymore dangerous, in MMA fights, than most of any other attack. In THEORY knees are dangerous, but in THEORY just about every single attack in MMA, especially kicking as hard as you can to the temple (cro cop comes to mind).
> 
> When put into play, knees on the ground are not anymore dangerous than any other strike out there.


Sadly I think the kind of real-world, in the sport evidence Senator (and I, and others) talked about is not going to convince any of the educated MD's in this thread listing their professional opinions of why knees to the head on the ground are so much more dangerous 

We could also mention Randleman's skyscraper knees that finished the Yamamoto fight, guy didn't look too bad afterward and fought again 3.5 months later, which is about as often as most UFC fighters fight.


----------



## sprawlbrawl (Apr 28, 2008)

Mx2 said:


> To everyone looking for the Deadliest Warrior video that's being mentioned, here's a link to the episode.
> 
> http://tvshack.net/tv/Deadliest_Warrior/season_2/episode_2/
> 
> To go straight to the Rashad part then skip to about 15:20 into the video, when they start looking at Alexander the Great's pankration.


thanks for the link


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

If the legality of strikes were based on the results of performing them on science dummies, there would be very few left. I can think of very few leg strikes that wouldn't crush the skull of a motionless dummy. No doubt in my my a knee from a thai clinch would crush a dummy's skull. They are pulling the head down as the knee rises. If you've ever taken drivers-ed you know this potentially quadruples (not just doubles) the impact. There are probably fighters that could crush a dummy skull with fists and elbows as well. It's hard to believe this has become the #1 objection.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Actaully, in sports science, when they did the MMA show, Bas hit the dummy so hard it would have caused bleeding in the brain and a crushed skull.

Tell me, when was the last time someone had bleeding in the brain from a Bas right hand?

These shows are just that, tv shows, they don't take into account actaul fighting and the technique of the opponenet avoiding the strike. 

They are just for entertainment.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

What happened in Sports Science is almost irrelevant. Knees to the head of a grounded opponent were tried/tested in Pride for a period of 10 years, without serious incident. That there, is evidence enough. 

One difference in the UFC of course would be the cage, though I'm not convinced that this plays a significant role in the amount damage taken. 

Although I wouldn't campaign or support a "knees to head of downed opponent" rule change, I wouldn't be "all up in arms" if they did it, either. However, like some have already said, a much better solution to the problem, would be to introduce the yellow card system.


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

In my opinion it should all be legal as its "fighting" and i think the rules in japan where better. But i never think we will see this in the UFC, if anything they will remove even more. I can see why stomps and soccer kicks and such is banned...not that i like it but i see why. IMO if not legalize knees etc. to a downled oponent (because of the damage to the head when its not able to move backwards) atleast allow knees and kicks to the head of an opponent with one or two knees down. That should do no more damage than a knee from the thaiclinch...and also it would take away the adantage that wrestlers have when theey try a takedown and the other fighter is afraid to use knees as it might hit after the wrestler puts one or two knees down (Koscheck, daley, fakeknee for example).
Look at the fight with Gilbert Melendez and Shinya Aoki where Aoki just scooted around on his ass...would have been sweet to allow Melendez
to soccerkick him in the face there imo...and his head would not have been hitting the fround as he was sitting on his ass...so to be fair...keep the ban on kicks,knees,stomps to a downed opponent but allow them when not 100% down and the head isnt on the ground.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

Michael Carson said:


> Yes, if you go into detail about a strike it can be very dangerous. Did you know that 1 punch to the temple, if hit properly standing, can kill you? Did you know that if you get kicked in the temple, it can kill you? Did you know if you simply take too many shots on the ground via ground in pound, it can kill you? Did you know that, if someone like GSP picks you up and slams you down, you can potentially break your neck or your back, if he's slamming you down?
> 
> Pretty much everything outside of joint submissions can potentially kill you in MMA. Now, how many injuries have we seen, in MMA, during an MMA fight under MMA refs/professional training, have we seen get hurt via knee to the head of a downed opponenent? I've seen LOTS of knees on the ground in fights, and I've never once seen someone get anymore hurt than normal strikes.
> 
> ...


Not trying to be difficult, but you discredit your own thread. You talk about professionals: How these professionals keep the fight safe, how these professionals keep fighters from being hurt, etc. It's these professionals that are banning the use of knees. Again, not trying to be difficult. It's just that the same guys you're using in your discussion disagree with you.

Furthermore, I hesitate to say that guys came out of Pride without serious injury. For starters, many of the guys we saw in Pride fell off the map to baby shows or completely left the sport. How do we know they didn't suffer? And for the guys that stayed? Let's be honest: Many of the former Pride fighters are husks of their former selves. And I keep remember that fight were Sakuraba's skull was puffed up and fractured... I can't remember if that was knees or stomps from Arona, or soccer kicks. http://www.mmarocks.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/sakuraba0qs.jpg 
No serious damage indeed...

And again, my other point I believe is still valid: In karate, boxing, kickboxing, Muay Thai: Really, you name it and the instances of death from a single strike to an area of the body are extremely low. The possibility of something killing you and the likelihood are different animals.

Furthermore, I'll still stand on what I consider the common sense of the argument. If I want to kill a guy, and I'm given the option to punch him in the face, kick him in the head, or drill him with a knee on the ground, I'm definitely taking the knee on the ground. The amount of force you can generate isn't in the same ballpark in my opinion.

(I hope none of this seems sharp. I'm not an Internet tough guy.)


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

I voted against.

Part of MMA is ensuring fighters can have a long and healthy career. MMA fighters with brain damage as a result of multiple concussions at the end of their career when they're set to enter retirement isn't the way anyone wants to see things go down.

Thus, potentially damaging techniques like knees to the head and soccer kicks, which can be nearly impossible to defend against, should be illegal.

Its not difficult to imagine a scenario where someone is taken down, pushed up against the side of the fence by someone with side control and kneed repeatedly in the head as they're unable to defend themselves or move out of the way. And, there's nothing really cool or exciting about it, either.

The whole point of MMA is to have a competitive atmosphere where there a really no "unblockable" techniques or things that are impossible to counter. If someone gets taken down, it just means they need to work on their wrestling or takedown defense. If someone gets out-striked, they need to work on their striking more. And, if they get submitted, they work on their jiu jitsu.

But, if someone gets pressed against the side of the cage and kneed in the head, there's really no defense for that. Its not a competitive or skill intensive part of the game. Its just a cheap tactic that no one can really defend against, which can potentially result in serious injury or brain damage.

Thus, I would say there's no reason for it to be included.

If you want to knee someone it the head, simple solution: do it when they're standing. The risk and timing involved is what makes it a skill.

Doing it on the ground where they can't defend it, or get out of the way just makes it lame.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Calibretto9 said:


> Not trying to be difficult, but you discredit your own thread. You talk about professionals: How these professionals keep the fight safe, how these professionals keep fighters from being hurt, etc. It's these professionals that are banning the use of knees. Again, not trying to be difficult. It's just that the same guys you're using in your discussion disagree with you.
> 
> Furthermore, I hesitate to say that guys came out of Pride without serious injury. For starters, many of the guys we saw in Pride fell off the map to baby shows or completely left the sport. How do we know they didn't suffer? And for the guys that stayed? Let's be honest: Many of the former Pride fighters are husks of their former selves. And I keep remember that fight were Sakuraba's skull was puffed up and fractured... I can't remember if that was knees or stomps from Arona, or soccer kicks. http://www.mmarocks.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/sakuraba0qs.jpg
> No serious damage indeed...
> ...


There is no serious damage compared to other strikes.

Pride was around for 10 years, and there have been 0 damages WORSE than normal damage from other strikes. What proof do you have?

I can throw you all sorts of links if you want me to, about puffed up skulls and fractures from punches/kicks. I can also throw you up links to fights where guys used knees on the ground and did 0 more damage than normal attacks standing. I have 10 years worth of pride fights I can find links for you to watch if you so please, where it shows that knees have no more impact than other strikes.

Can you show me a link where there is proof, over the course of 10 years testing, that knees are more damaging and more dangerous than say, a kick straight to the temple as hard as you can (which happens often in MMA)?

Common sense? Ok, let's use common sense. 10 years of fighting and no injuries anymore serious than what we've seen from kicks and regular ground and pound.

Pride had 68 total events, including Bushido and other events, and on average they had around 10 fights per event, sometimes more.

That means, if you were to do the math, it comes to around 680 fights that NO serious injuries from knees to a downed oppoenent happened. Out of 680 fights, not one single person got *more* injuried than other fighters have gotten injured via kicks and punches.

Wouldn't you say that's just common sense, that knees aren't any worse than other strikes?

I have 10 years, 680 fights worth of proof that states that knees are no more dangerous than other strikes. What proof do you have to support your claim that knees to a downed opponent are *worse* than a kick to the temple?

As for "falling off the map", if the UFC didn't take them (the UFC took the good fighters), then they joined smaller shows that pretty much no one knows about. It has nothing to do with injuries, it has to do with not being hired by the UFC, thus not having a place to make good money = not fighting often if at all.

There's absolutely no proof or anything that states these guys don't fight because of injuries, they just aren't fighting.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

Calibretto9 said:


> Not trying to be difficult, but you discredit your own thread. You talk about professionals: How these professionals keep the fight safe, how these professionals keep fighters from being hurt, etc. It's these professionals that are banning the use of knees. Again, not trying to be difficult. It's just that the same guys you're using in your discussion disagree with you.
> 
> Furthermore, I hesitate to say that guys came out of Pride without serious injury. For starters, many of the guys we saw in Pride fell off the map to baby shows or completely left the sport. How do we know they didn't suffer? And for the guys that stayed? Let's be honest: Many of the former Pride fighters are husks of their former selves. And I keep remember that fight were Sakuraba's skull was puffed up and fractured... I can't remember if that was knees or stomps from Arona, or soccer kicks. http://www.mmarocks.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/sakuraba0qs.jpg
> No serious damage indeed...
> ...



Well getting in your car and driving to work is potentially deadly every day. Should we therefore make the automobile an illegal form of transportation? Do you refrain from driving or riding in cars because you could, in theory, be killed at any moment by a reckless driver? Doubtful...

Also, trying to say Pride fighters have fallen off since the folding of their organization has nothing to do with the damage they took from knees and stomps. That's probably the most irrelevant argument I've ever heard for the banning of the moves in question.


----------



## FatFreeMilk (Jan 22, 2010)

Michael Carson said:


> Actaully, in sports science, when they did the MMA show, Bas hit the dummy so hard it would have caused bleeding in the brain and a crushed skull.
> 
> Tell me, when was the last time someone had bleeding in the brain from a Bas right hand?
> 
> ...


:thumb02:

I'll be damned if I took a show titled 'Deadliest Warrior' too seriously.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Calibretto9 said:


> Not trying to be difficult, but you discredit your own thread. You talk about professionals: How these professionals keep the fight safe, how these professionals keep fighters from being hurt, etc. It's these professionals that are banning the use of knees. Again, not trying to be difficult. It's just that the same guys you're using in your discussion disagree with you.
> 
> Furthermore, I hesitate to say that guys came out of Pride without serious injury. For starters, many of the guys we saw in Pride fell off the map to baby shows or completely left the sport. How do we know they didn't suffer? And for the guys that stayed? Let's be honest: Many of the former Pride fighters are husks of their former selves. And I keep remember that fight were Sakuraba's skull was puffed up and fractured... I can't remember if that was knees or stomps from Arona, or soccer kicks. http://www.mmarocks.pl/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/sakuraba0qs.jpg
> No serious damage indeed...
> ...


This is definitely overall the best explanation. 

Lets use another sport as a reference:
The best part of NASCAR is when the cars crash and burn right? So lets only let them use bald tires so they can crash! It'll look cool and they might not get seriously injured. Or baseball, they don't need helmets when they're up to bat. How often does a fastball hit the helmet? It won't cause too much brain swelling or possible death...

These may have been exaggerated examples, but the point remains. There have been extremely few incidences of severe injuries from in-ring knees to the head, but does that mean its impossible? No, absolutely no, its certainly possible, and far more likely than other injuries resulting from strikes in the cage that are legal. 

I get its more entertaining to some when someone is dropping knees to the head of a grounded opponent. I can understand that raw violent draw. However for the sake of fighter safety and the legitimization of the sport in the eyes of the general public, strikes like that must be banned.


----------



## Icculus (Oct 4, 2009)

Squirrelfighter said:


> This is definitely overall the best explanation.
> 
> Lets use another sport as a reference:
> The best part of NASCAR is when the cars crash and burn right? So lets only let them use bald tires so they can crash! It'll look cool and they might not get seriously injured. Or baseball, they don't need helmets when they're up to bat. How often does a fastball hit the helmet? It won't cause too much brain swelling or possible death...
> ...


To me its not about blood lust at all. As an MMA fan yourself you should know how ******* annoying it is to have someone assume you are in it for the brutal violence alone. I want to see a (basically) "no holds barred" fight because I like the idea pitting all of the fighting styles against each other in the closest thing to actual no rules hand-to-hand combat as you can have and still have the fighters live long into retirement. Watching the sport and its fighters evolve is what Im here for.

Allow me to exaggerate. What if a case was made that punches from posture to a downed opponents head are just as dangerous as the knees? or that 'air chokes' can crush the trachea causing asphyxiation? How different would the sport be if you couldnt rain down haymakers or choke people out? 

And which strikes are far more dangerous than legal strikes?
-A Knee to a guy on one or both knees VS A knee from the clinch?
-Knees to the temple on the ground VS Knees and Kicks to the temple standing up?

If it is so much more dangerous because the head is on the mat with no where to go then why not at least allow knees to a downed opponent who doesnt have his head and back/stomach on the ground? Then instead of 'butt-scooting' around the cage in relative safety, a guy like Lietes would have to lay out completely flat on his back if he wanted to coax Silva to get on top of him without getting the knee to the face he rightly deserved for such an act.


----------



## sprawlbrawl (Apr 28, 2008)

And which strikes are far more dangerous than legal strikes?
-A Knee to a guy on one or both knees VS A knee from the clinch?
-Knees to the temple on the ground VS Knees and Kicks to the temple standing up?
For me a knee to the head of an downed oppoinet is more dangerous because your head is against the cage floor and you can come down with all your weight,picture brock.as for clinch knee,your lifting the knee no weight behind it,but you are pulling the head,but i think a knee to a downed oppoinet is more dangerous
as for knees to the temple on the ground are more dangerous because again your head is isolated on the floor when your standing you absorb less impact the head will bouce ,


----------



## Icculus (Oct 4, 2009)

sprawlbrawl said:


> For me a knee to the head of an downed oppoinet is more dangerous because your head is against the cage floor and you can come down with all your weight,picture brock.as for clinch knee,your lifting the knee no weight behind it,but you are pulling the head,but i think a knee to a downed oppoinet is more dangerous
> as for knees to the temple on the ground are more dangerous because again your head is isolated on the floor when your standing you absorb less impact the head will bouce ,


If it is so much more dangerous because the head is on the mat with no where to go then why not at least allow knees to a downed opponent who doesnt have his head and back/stomach on the ground? Then instead of 'butt-scooting' around the cage in relative safety, a guy like Lietes would have to lay out completely flat on his back if he wanted to coax Silva to get on top of him without getting the knee to the face he rightly deserved for such an act.


----------



## JWP (Jun 4, 2007)

absolutely yes. I have lots of ppl that come and watch ufc at my house, and we all say the same thing about inactivity. The few that know about pride prefer those rules too

Its probably the one and only problem with the sport 

I love GSP but the way he got past Dan Hardy did not say 'champion fighter' to me. Just my opinion of course


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Icculus said:


> To me its not about blood lust at all. As an MMA fan yourself you should know how ******* annoying it is to have someone assume you are in it for the brutal violence alone. I want to see a (basically) "no holds barred" fight because I like the idea pitting all of the fighting styles against each other in the closest thing to actual no rules hand-to-hand combat as you can have and still have the fighters live long into retirement. Watching the sport and its fighters evolve is what Im here for.
> 
> Allow me to exaggerate. What if a case was made that punches from posture to a downed opponents head are just as dangerous as the knees? or that 'air chokes' can crush the trachea causing asphyxiation? How different would the sport be if you couldnt rain down haymakers or choke people out?
> 
> ...


You seem like a pretty smart guy so I'm gonna suggest you look into two concepts I think you should have already known:

The effects of GRAVITY. Kinetic Energy.

A punch coming over the top on a downed opponent is brutal YES. See Thiago Silva vs Lyoto Machida, perfect example. But you are only able to focus so much energy into a fist falling downward. The elbow, wrist, and shoulder blade are loose enough to disperse a remarkable amount of energy on impact. 

That is not the case with a knee. The muscles that enshroud the thigh are much stronger and more powerful than those of the arm. A person is able to control and cancel out any kind of deviation by the knee, and there's only one joint to move and thus exponently less energy to waste. A knee to the head is capable of doing enough damage to literally shatter the skull(Medically speaking, shatter, is any bone broken in two or more places). You can literally die from a knee to the head. You cannot DIE from a haymaker to the head. Last time I checked Bisping was still alive!


----------



## Calminian (Feb 1, 2009)

Icculus said:


> If it is so much more dangerous because the head is on the mat with no where to go then why not at least allow knees to a downed opponent who doesnt have his head and back/stomach on the ground? Then instead of 'butt-scooting' around the cage in relative safety, a guy like Lietes would have to lay out completely flat on his back if he wanted to coax Silva to get on top of him without getting the knee to the face he rightly deserved for such an act.


Exactly. This is what I don't understand. Instead of using a knee or hand on the mat to regulate a knee, why not use common sense, and only ban angles that have been proven dangerous. I don't want to see knees to the back of the head anymore than I want to see punches to the back of the head. But how many times have we seen fighters keep a knee on the ground just to draw a foul? Their heads are upright, yet this is illegal too. If the issue is a head against a matt, then ban strikes on a head against the mat. I'm just not personally sold any of these strikes are that dangerous. If I could punch a guys head against the mat, vs. knee a head against a mat, I think I could generate more power and windup with a punch. And if the issue is a knee to the crown, then ban that angle. Why on earth would you use a hand or knee on the ground as your criterion? I don't see how the common sense is missed here.


----------



## Indestructibl3 (Apr 2, 2009)

If they were allowed, Sonnen would be dead (see Sonnen v Marquardt, Round 3, ~4min mark).


----------



## HellRazor (Sep 24, 2006)

Michael Carson said:


> Actaully, in sports science, when they did the MMA show, Bas hit the dummy so hard it would have caused bleeding in the brain and a crushed skull.
> 
> Tell me, when was the last time someone had bleeding in the brain from a Bas right hand?
> 
> ...


That's not entirely true. There's an equivalent to the knee to the head in another sport. American Football.

Some poor schmuck gets paralyzed virtually every year (combining high schools, college and the pros) because of what they call 'spearing'. That's leading with your helmet when tackling. THey thing is, raise your head ever so slightly, you so can see the target, and the force of the tackle get transmitted right down the spinal column of the _tackler_.

Impact-wise, it's the same as the knee strike to the head.

However, let me address the fighters on this forum. How many of you would be willing to fight knowing you were going to be the guy TAKING the knees to the head?


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

So, in a completely different sport with completely different rules/training some guys have issues with being kneed in the head each year.

Well, in THIS sport, we have 10 years of proof that, not one single time has anyone ever been injured more than any other strike via knees to the head.

As for your question, I'd rather take a knee to a random part of my head, than a full swinged kick straight to my temple, which happens often in MMA, and has shown more knockouts/issues than any knee on the ground ever has in MMA.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Here is the most reasonable solution to this problem, change the definition of a downed opponent. The whole "3 points of contact" rule is crap. A guy on his hands and knees can take a knee to the head without causing any more damage than a guy diving for a takedown, or a guy having his head pulled down in the plum. I think this rule gives wrestlers too much leeway when diving in for takedowns and attempting to secure them. Not to mention a fighter laying in side control dropping weak ass elbows. If the guy on the ground were able to knee the head of the guy on top (which you have to admit is no more damaging than a standing knee) it would prevent some Lay N Pray on the ground, and make the wrestlers become more active.

I really don't have a problem with knees to a downed oppoenent all. However, I realize that people freak out about the idea of a guy getting a knee dropped on the head of a guy who's head is against the mat, thereby causing wicked amounts of damage because the mat doesn't give or something like that. this issue can be solved using a rule just like the 12-6 rule for elbows(also a completely crappy rule). Simply say that a knee cannot be dropped on an opponents head that is against the mat. Easy peasy, done rule.


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Davisty69 said:


> Here is the most reasonable solution to this problem, change the definition of a downed opponent. The whole "3 points of contact" rule is crap. A guy on his hands and knees can take a knee to the head without causing any more damage than a guy diving for a takedown, or a guy having his head pulled down in the plum. I think this rule gives wrestlers too much leeway when diving in for takedowns and attempting to secure them. Not to mention a fighter laying in side control dropping weak ass elbows. If the guy on the ground were able to knee the head of the guy on top (which you have to admit is no more damaging than a standing knee) it would prevent some Lay N Pray on the ground, and make the wrestlers become more active.
> 
> I really don't have a problem with knees to a downed oppoenent all. However, I realize that people freak out about the idea of a guy getting a knee dropped on the head of a guy who's head is against the mat, thereby causing wicked amounts of damage because the mat doesn't give or something like that. this issue can be solved using a rule just like the 12-6 rule for elbows(also a completely crappy rule). Simply say that a knee cannot be dropped on an opponents head that is against the mat. Easy peasy, done rule.


The 12-6 elbow is a complete bullshit rule, the AC that put that rule in thought it was dangerous because they seen people breaking blocks on T.V with it and said it would crack someones skull.....Another great example of ignorant uneducated people affecting the sport.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

I'm still up in the air on the subject of knees to a downed opponent. I am however in support of soccer kicks and possibly stomps. Just because those are so natural to fighting that you'd run into them in almost any street fight and they're very effective. I don't practice them in kickboxing, but I got jumped a few weeks ago and when he ended up on the ground it just came.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Look guys, fighters are smart guys. They prepare for the rules that they are going to fight under. If they add knees, guys will train to defend knees and the sport will evolve. The safety record for Japanese is very similar to the U.S. so the world would not end if they added knees. 

That said, I think that the most important thing is to get MMA passed and regulated in all states and provinces and the whole knee thing would not help perceptions in places like NY and Ontario. So it shouldn't even be considered until they're onboard. 

I really do not think you'll see a change to this rule any time soon. Even if the ABC passed such a measure (which it's never even gotten out of committee) several states would absolutely not pass the rule in their state legislature and it would destroy the "unified" rules.


----------

