# Illegal elbow rocked Chael



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

*Illegal elbow rocked Chael?*

So I just noticed Jones rocked Chael with a questionable elbow. Not arguing that Jones needed to cheat to win, just sayin' it happened. Here's a gif of it. Looks 12-6 to me. 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wbvf4IsqDZc/UXylRbEoHmI/AAAAAAAAhp0/4aGiuLxnakM/s1600/1.gif (gif is too big for me to post directly, had to use URL) 

Am I late to the party or is this something new? I haven't seen anyone even acknowledge it yet.

*EDIT: *

Official Rule


> Striking downward using the point of the elbow. All elbow strikes are legal except for an elbow that is thrown in a downward trajectory (hand traveling from 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock). Any elbow thrown with an arc is a legal elbow. The point of the elbow may be used as striking instrument as well as the forearm or the tricep area of the arm.”












His hand is traveling from 12-6, there is no arc and only the point of the elbow lands.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

As far as I know a 12-6 elbow means your arm is vertical and your fist is up in the air. I don't think this would be considered a 12-6 elbow (correct me please).

Luckily there's a gif of Jones doing what I think is a 12-6 elbow.


----------



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> As far as I know a 12-6 elbow means your arm is vertical and your fist is up in the air. I don't think this would be considered a 12-6 elbow (correct me please).
> 
> Luckily there's a gif of Jones doing what I think is a 12-6 elbow.


This man is correct, give him a cookie.


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Nobody has acknowledged it because it wasnt an illegal elbow...


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

Nothing illegal at all. Hammers gif shows 12-6's perfectly. Not even close to anything he threw vs Chael.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

K R Y said:


> Nothing illegal at all. Hammers gif shows 12-6's perfectly. Not even close to anything he threw vs Chael.


Damn thats a nasty elbow. Looks like it would leave severe dent in your face!


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

... who cares if it was illegal? (It wasn't)

The outcome of that fight would not have been any different.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm not seeing any difference. In both gifs he comes down vertically with the point of the elbow. One is just more blatant than the other.


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

That didn't look illegal at all to me. :dunno:


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

AlphaDawg said:


> I'm not seeing any difference. In both gifs he comes down vertically with the point of the elbow. One is just more blatant than the other.


The motion is what is illegal not hitting someone with the point of your elbow. He is using a forward motion on Chael not 12-6. It has to be straight up and straight down like the second gif if you change the motion slightly in any way it is legal. The rule is pretty absurd.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Didn't see any even close to being illegal.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

Term said:


> Didn't see any even close to being illegal.


Yeah I don't see it at all.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> As far as I know a 12-6 elbow means your arm is vertical and your fist is up in the air. I don't think this would be considered a 12-6 elbow (correct me please).
> 
> Luckily there's a gif of Jones doing what I think is a 12-6 elbow.


Dana always says an incompetent ref gave Jones his loss, but if those aren't 12-6 I don't know what is. It may be a stupid rule but it is a rule. I am not a big fan of Mazzagatti but those are 12-6.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

The issue with the Bones loss to Hamill is the elbows didn't end the fight. They were not why Hamill wasn't able to continue. Hamill dislocated his shoulder during a grappling exchange and that was the injury that prevented him from continuing. That is why the DQ is BS IMO.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

First Silva cheats with an illegal knee, and now Jones cheats with an illegal elbow. 

Chael Sonnen - rightful MW and LHW champion!


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Canadian Psycho said:


> First Silva cheats with an illegal knee, and now Jones cheats with an illegal elbow.
> 
> Chael Sonnen - rightful MW and LHW champion!


If he could have just survived a few more seconds in his first shot at Silva or in this fight he would have had a belt. It's his on fault really.


----------



## BOOM (Sep 23, 2012)

Nothing illegal about it, this thread ended at post #2.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

OU said:


> The issue with the Bones loss to Hamill is the elbows didn't end the fight. They were not why Hamill wasn't able to continue. Hamill dislocated his shoulder during a grappling exchange and that was the injury that prevented him from continuing. That is why the DQ is BS IMO.


While Matt Hamill did say he could not continue (because of his shoulder) after the fight was stopped because of the illegal elbows, it was stopped because of the elbows! Its pretty simple!

The illegal elbows stopped the fight, Hamill could not continue. The only option then is to DQ the fighter who caused the fight to be stopped because of illegal elbows. 

If Jones did not throw illegal elbows there is no question he would have won that fight, but one must follow the rules when Maz is the ref!


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

DanTheJu said:


> While Matt Hamill did say he could not continue (because of his shoulder) after the fight was stopped because of the illegal elbows, it was stopped because of the elbows! Its pretty simple!
> 
> The illegal elbows stopped the fight, Hamill could not continue. The only option then is to DQ the fighter who caused the fight to be stopped because of illegal elbows.
> 
> If Jones did not throw illegal elbows there is no question he would have won that fight, but one must follow the rules when Maz is the ref!


The fight was stopped because of the elbows to inform Jones the elbows were illegal. But the fight didn't continue due to a shoulder injury. If there was no shoulder injury then Matt could have potentially been given time to recover and continue the fight.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Agreed.

Chael won that fight 2 different ways. Jon really should have been DQ'd, any other ref would have did it. 

Chael was able to out-last Jon on the battle field as he injured Jones. But the ref didn't realize Chael was perfectly fine and was intelligently defending himself and stopped the fight prematurely. 

Chael won that fight.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Chael won that fight 2 different ways. Jon really should have been DQ'd, any other ref would have did it.
> 
> ...


when did Chael injure Jones? i missed that part of the fight,and Chael would be the biggest joke in MMA if that's how he won a title.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

Jones mangled his foot because Sonnen was that good at defending the takedowns. Jon may have won the battle, but Chael won the war.


----------



## Sports_Nerd (Apr 23, 2012)

I think we all know that Chael broke Jon's foot with his mind.

And given more time, he would've gone on to do the same to the rest of Jon Jones.


----------



## malice (Sep 28, 2007)

PheelGoodInc said:


> ... who cares if it was illegal? (It wasn't)
> 
> The outcome of that fight would not have been any different.


not true at all. jones had a broken big toe. i think that could effect a fight.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

It isn't illegal, but it doesn't really matters.
Chael had 0% chances of winning this fight.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Dont know what the OP is on about. Jones forearm is parallel to the ground when he its, he`s not spiking with the tip of the elbow.

Next issue to save Chael please.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Iuanes said:


> Dont know what the OP is on about. Jones forearm is parallel to the ground when he its, he`s not spiking with the tip of the elbow.
> 
> Next issue to save Chael please.












You have no idea what the word parallel means. Come back when you find out.


----------



## BOOM (Sep 23, 2012)

Bknmax said:


> when did Chael injure Jones? i missed that part of the fight


He did'nt, it's all made up and there's a few posters still trying to do their best impersonation of him because they still think it's the "in" thing to do on internet forums.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

BOOM said:


> He did'nt, it's all made up and there's a few posters still trying to do their best impersonation of him because they still think it's the "in" thing to do on internet forums.


:laugh:


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

Some people just love to suck the fun out of any situation


----------



## dave-stjohn (Nov 10, 2009)

Iuanes said:


> Dont know what the OP is on about. Jones forearm is parallel to the ground when he its, he`s not spiking with the tip of the elbow.
> 
> Next issue to save Chael please.


The correct word would be perpendicular to the ground and as such means he was delivering a 12 to 6 elbow strike which is illegal as far as I know. Considering Chael hasn't demanded a rematch ala Nick Dickass those elbows must have not been ruled illegal or they had no effect on the outcome of the fight. As I know I will be, correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## kney (Jan 16, 2012)

The first time I watched the fight, it looked pretty legal to me. But now that I've seen it more times, it's definitely illegal. 

But who cares, he would've lost anyway


----------



## Killz (Oct 5, 2009)

Opened again after an accidental lock.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Just checking in to say that I changed my mind, it does look like a 12-6 elbow in the picture AlphaDawg posted. Didn't see it live, didn't see it in the gif but when his elbow touches Chael's head his arm is vertical and his fist is up in the air. Nice catch.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Added the picture to the OP so people know which elbow I'm talking about. 



kney said:


> The first time I watched the fight, it looked pretty legal to me. But now that I've seen it more times, it's definitely illegal.
> 
> But who cares, he would've lost anyway


Well not necessarily. You'd have to think the fight would be stopped if the doctor checked out Jones' toe. If Jones didn't land the elbow, Chael might've survived till the second. He could be champ right now. Granted an illegitimate champ, but a champ nonetheless.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

The pic shows the end of that elbow and I guess it looks like 12-6 but that is not where it started from. It came from his side and across, not from over his head.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Term said:


> The pic shows the end of that elbow and I guess it looks like 12-6 but that is not where it started from. It came from his side and across, not from over his head.


I'm not seeing any sideways movement. All I see is forward and vertical.

And although he may not have lifted his elbow over his head, I feel like it has the same movement overall. Just less blatant as the Hamill one.

EDIT: 

*Official Rule*



> Striking downward using the point of the elbow. All elbow strikes are legal except for an elbow that is thrown in a downward trajectory (hand traveling from 12 o’clock to 6 o’clock). Any elbow thrown with an arc is a legal elbow. The point of the elbow may be used as striking instrument as well as the forearm or the tricep area of the arm.”


His hand is traveling from 12-6, there is no arc and only the point of the elbow lands.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

AlphaDawg said:


> I'm not seeing any sideways movement. All I see is forward and vertical.
> 
> And although he may not have lifted his elbow over his head, I feel like it has the same movement overall. Just less blatant as the Hamill one.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying this is the case with this fight... but what if the arm starts perpendicular to 12-6 but actually contacts in a vertical position.... that would more be like 3-6 because the arm started in a horizontal position.

As I'm reading the rule, it doesn't talk about the angle of the elbow only when it contacts, but more the travel of the elbow when it's thrown. So could one surmise that you could start with a horizontal elbow and finish the strike vertically?


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

amoosenamedhank said:


> As I'm reading the rule, it doesn't talk about the angle of the elbow only when it contacts, but more the travel of the elbow when it's thrown. So could one surmise that you could start with a horizontal elbow and finish the strike vertically?


It's certainly possible. Osmium made a similar point earlier in the thread. The rule isn't specific enough in that regard so it's hard to say. 

The way I see it, he started with forward motion, sort of 3-6 like you said, and made his way to 12-6. So although the strike began differently, it ultimately ended as a 12-6. In my opinion, that's enough to make it illegal.


----------



## amoosenamedhank (Sep 2, 2009)

AlphaDawg said:


> It's certainly possible. Osmium made a similar point earlier in the thread. The rule isn't specific enough in that regard so it's hard to say.
> 
> The way I see it, he started with forward motion, sort of 3-6 like you said, and made his way to 12-6. So although the strike began differently, it ultimately ended as a 12-6. In my opinion, that's enough to make it illegal.


In my interpretation of the 12-6 elbow rule; what they are attempting to do is to reduce the amount of power generated by the elbow strike. 

To start with a vertical arm and drive it directly downwards, you can create a ridiculous amount of force. So while a "3-6" elbow ends in the same orientation as the 12-6 elbow, it's going to dramatically reduce the amount of energy you can deliver with the strike because you are changing the angle of attack mid throw. 

That's why I only see true 12-6 elbows (like the hamill fight) as the illegal blow.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

osmium said:


> The motion is what is illegal not hitting someone with the point of your elbow. He is using a forward motion on Chael not 12-6. It has to be straight up and straight down like the second gif if you change the motion slightly in any way it is legal. The rule is pretty absurd.


I don't think it's that absurd, at least when the target is the face, because a downward spiking elbow could severely damage the eyes, while when the motion is not straight downward the force is less directly on the eyes, but rather distributed to the bone around the eye. I would allow 12-6 elbows to any other legal area than the face though.


----------



## kney (Jan 16, 2012)

AlphaDawg said:


> Well not necessarily. You'd have to think the fight would be stopped if the doctor checked out Jones' toe. If Jones didn't land the elbow, Chael might've survived till the second. He could be champ right now. Granted an illegitimate champ, but a champ nonetheless.


Yeah but if Jones didn't land that elbow he would've landed 5 or more other elbows so I think it doesn't matter because Chael was not fighting back in the first place.

He wasn't rocked though and could continue obviously, but we all know how vicious Jones' elbows are and I think Jones would've won in those other seconds he had left in the round.

But if Chael somehow made it to the 2nd then he would be Champ because I don't think the doctor would allow Jones to continue with that foot.

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

To be honest its not worth discussing simply because it had zero contribution to the outcome.


----------



## NoYards (Sep 7, 2008)

If there was an illegal elbow there it was borderline at best.

Here's a link to a good quality gif, from a 60 frame per second video ... it's about 200MB, so be patient it will take a while to load.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7352295/anim1.gif

The first elbow may have looked to be technically a 12-6 on the poor quality gif, but it looked to me on a better quality view to be a very short elbow going down and forward, and a ref would be a complete moron to call that a foul as at that point any short elbow from the top would have to be called a foul since it's basically a couple of inches of downward and forward movement.

The second elbow was an obvious arc across Chael's face moving from Jon's right to left.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

I don't particularly care. Chael didn't complain, and frankly, I'm not inclined to complain on his behalf. But this idea that rule breaking should only be of consequence when it effects the ultimate outcome is a bit ridiculous. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. 

Chael didn't defeat Anderson, so maybe he shouldn't have been suspended for six months for testing high. I mean, it didn't effect the end result!


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Canadian Psycho said:


> Chael didn't defeat Anderson, so maybe he shouldn't have been suspended for six months for testing high. I mean, it didn't effect the end result!


Good point.:thumbsup:


----------



## dave-stjohn (Nov 10, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Good point.:thumbsup:


Same for Nick Diaz. I'm thinking he should have had an extra point or something, if you can come in in that kind of shape and fight that well while smoking weed that's some serious willpower.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Opinion's on drugs aside, in fight fouls committed by fighters are not the same thing as a fighter being non-compliant with drug usage policy.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

Jesus people it was not an illegal elbow. Jones arm may have been straight up and down but that was not the motion of the elbow. He thrust forward with the elbow. For it to be illegal the elbow has to come straight down.

This whole thread shows an appalling lack of education on what is allowed by the rules.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

They're both contrary to the rules. No one is arguing that they're the exact same, but you can certainly make the comparison that if breaking the rules during a fight is okay if it's ultimately of no consequence, then breaking the rules outside of a fight must also be okay if it's ultimately of no consequence. 

You can't just brush it off by saying they're different scenarios. That's a cop-out. We're talking about rule breaking and people having no problem with it because it made no difference. Last I checked, that wasn't the point of having rules.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Are you arguing that a fighter can break any rule in or out of the cage he or she wants so long as they are not ultimately victorious as a result of it? If that is not right, what are you arguing?

Never mind, I'm reading the wrong posts.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

dave-stjohn said:


> Same for Nick Diaz. I'm thinking he should have had an extra point or something, if you can come in in that kind of shape and fight that well while smoking weed that's some serious willpower.


you would be surprised by how many mma and bjj guys smoke weed. it really doesn't affect your cardio if you train hard. I smoke every day and then go to train and spar.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

El Bresko said:


> you would be surprised by how many mma and bjj guys smoke weed. it really doesn't affect your cardio if you train hard. I smoke every day and then go to train and spar.


Yeah it's far more impressive that he competes in triathlons. Way more extreme cardio then MMA.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

GDPofDRB said:


> Are you arguing that a fighter can break any rule in or out of the cage he or she wants so long as they are not ultimately victorious as a result of it? If that is not right, what are you arguing?


:sarcastic06:

People are claiming that even if it was an illegal elbow, it made no difference to the ultimate outcome. My response was that if we adopt that mindset, then why suspend fighters who test positive for steroids, marijuana, or elevated levels of testosterone if they ultimately lost their fights? After all, their drug use didn't effect the outcome of the fight. 

I was knocking the idea of forgiving, excusing, or ignoring rule breaking when it bears no weight on the end result (not condoning it). Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, whether it occurs outside the cage or in. The idea that we can just brush aside in-cage infractions because they had no impact is nonsense, imo.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

Right, I saw I was misreading from your response to previous posts.

What I'm getting at with the difference between in cage and out of cage violation differences is that they are both the same in that they are violations of the outlined rules, but very different in their nature and details. 

I agree, there is no argument to be made that illegal actions in a fight should be allowed so long as they don't create an advantage. But in cage illegal actions really only becomes illegal if it is deemed as such by the in cage official or through an appeal through the governing body after the fight itself. Things like being over the contracted weight for a fight or failing to adhere to commission drug usage policy are procedural violations subject to discipline out side of subjective or assumed levels of violations that occur in almost every MMA contest.


----------



## El Bresko (Mar 12, 2010)

OU said:


> Yeah it's far more impressive that he competes in triathlons. Way more extreme cardio then MMA.


You say that, and it is true, but a Triathlete would gas in a 3 round MMA fight..


----------



## NoYards (Sep 7, 2008)

Canadian Psycho said:


> They're both contrary to the rules. No one is arguing that they're the exact same, but you can certainly make the comparison that if breaking the rules during a fight is okay if it's ultimately of no consequence, then breaking the rules outside of a fight must also be okay if it's ultimately of no consequence.
> 
> You can't just brush it off by saying they're different scenarios. That's a cop-out. We're talking about rule breaking and people having no problem with it because it made no difference. Last I checked, that wasn't the point of having rules.


I don't think there is any obvious brushing off of the rules going on here at all ... there are at least two phase of 'justice' when it comes to 'the rules'.

Phase 1: was there a rule violation?
Phase 3: if so, what is the prescribed punishment?
Potential other phases: How much did the rule violation effect the fight (ie: *refs discretion*, as in "_The following acts constitute fouls in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts and may result in penalties, *at the discretion of the referee*, if committed:_")

So, there are rules against 12-6 elbows, and there are rules against 'eye gouging' for example.

If a fighter pokes their opponent in the eye, that is a foul, just like a 12-6 elbow is a foul, but the prescribed punishment is not simple 'stop the fight, you're disqualified, no questions asked." ... there is discretion allowed, and the ref can do anything from ignore that it happened, to calling time to allow the fighter to recover, to calling time and taking points off the offending fighter, to stopping the fight and calling for a decision based on current judges score cards, to stopping the fight and DQing the offender.

So, even assuming there was technically a 12-6 elbow thrown (and that's not obvious to me at all,) the ref was well within his right to ignore it given the situation (or he could have simply warned Jones about elbows if he though the elbows were questionable) ... what would have been more questionable would be if he had stopped the fight and DQed Jones.

Now, fair or not, getting caught with weed in your blood after a fight has stricter rules and prescribed punishments, so unfortunately while I would have no issue if Diaz had simply been given a warning, the rules did not allow for that (or did not allow for that easily. ie, without appeals, court cases, and lots of money.)

So, rules are great, and applying the rules evenly is even better ... but that applies to all phases of the rules, not just some phases of the rules (ie: pretending that the rules say 'here is a list of fouls, and if you commit a foul, you are disqualified" ... when in actuality the rules are much more nuanced that that.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

El Bresko said:


> You say that, and it is true, but a Triathlete would gas in a 3 round MMA fight..


Yeah grappling cardio and running cardio are very different animals lol. I played soccer and I wrestled. Sure it helps being in general "shape". But both require their levels of cardio.


----------



## GDPofDRB (Apr 18, 2013)

I think the ref made the right call about the elbow not being a violation of the rule. 

12 O-clock to 6 O-clock elbows, has they were originally and time and time again described, are not only being about a 90 degree angle but being brought down from the high 12 o-clock position, as in an elbow or at least fist raised high, like above the head, and brought straight down to the 6 O-clock position. They are described as ceiling to the floor elbows, implying their high originating position.

Looking at the two gif animations,, (edit that, I could of swore the OP had originally posted a gif of the elbow sequence, I'm assuming what I'm saying here was pointed out and it was switched with an image after the fact) (and edit again, the OP confirms he originally posted a gif about 6 or 7 posts down, but now, it is the .png we see today...)in the first two posts it's very clear to see the difference between short, what I would call 6 O-clock to 6 O-clock, 90 degree elbows and the brought down from high, true 12 O-clock to 6 O-clock elbows Jones landed on Hamill. 

Now the part I don't know if it is or is not true is that they made the rule as a response to professional martial arts stone/brick/block breakers using the move to break large quantities of solid materials and the implications of using such moves on fighters in MMA matches.

I don't consider there to be a argument on this, imo there is no legitimacy to the complaints levied towards that one elbow.

In fact, I'm trying to find a this discussion somewhere, anywhere else on the web. Mmaforum.com is really the only place on the web I've seen this conversation take place, even onshitdog I haven't seen a thread about this. Fact that this thread is second only to a site called IllegalElbow.com that has a preview article about UFC 159 on a google search of illegal+elbow+sonnen+forum is enough that I'd shut this fradulent conversation down to the garbage section for the rep of this site.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

GDPofDRB said:


> Right, I saw I was misreading from your response to previous posts.
> 
> What I'm getting at with the difference between in cage and out of cage violation differences is that they are both the same in that they are violations of the outlined rules, but very different in their nature and details.
> 
> I agree, there is no argument to be made that illegal actions in a fight should be allowed so long as they don't create an advantage. But in cage illegal actions really only becomes illegal if it is deemed as such by the in cage official or through an appeal through the governing body after the fight itself. Things like being over the contracted weight for a fight or failing to adhere to commission drug usage policy are procedural violations subject to discipline out side of subjective or assumed levels of violations that occur in almost every MMA contest.


Fair point. And I can respect that view. I'd also say that illegal activities inside the cage are a trickier matter in that most happen in the heat of the moment and are rarely intentional. Which is hardly the case with steroid use, etc.

But in the end, I take no issue with how things played out. As I said, if a fighter doesn't complain, I'm rarely inclined to do so on his behalf.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

El Bresko said:


> You say that, and it is true, but a Triathlete would gas in a 3 round MMA fight..


Yeah there is actually a scientific reason for this that iv read before. A Triathlete can usually breath while running but if you are wrestling or in an MMA fight your breathing gets disrupted pretty often and you dont truly get your breathing rhythm back until you are in the guard or standing and separated. Shorter bursts with less air intake require a different sort of Cardio. They have a term for this but im unfamiliar with it. Anyway its part of the reason people put their hands over peoples mouth to disrupt their breathing. And obviously it could mentally make them go in a panic (But unlikely if you ask me.)


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

SideWays222 said:


> Yeah there is actually a scientific reason for this that iv read before. A Triathlete can usually breath while running but if you are wrestling or in an MMA fight your breathing gets disrupted pretty often and you dont truly get your breathing rhythm back until you are in the guard or standing and separated. Shorter bursts with less air intake require a different sort of Cardio. They have a term for this but im unfamiliar with it. Anyway its part of the reason people put their hands over peoples mouth to disrupt their breathing. And obviously it could mentally make them go in a panic (But unlikely if you ask me.)


The difference is that endurance sports like triathlon are good for your cardio base and aerobic endurance, in particular lung capacities and how much oxygen your blood can transport, but wrestling training has more influence on how well your muscles make use of that oxygen in your blood and how fast there is an overproduction of lactic acids. While triathlon is almost completely aerobic, fighting is both aerobic and anaerobic.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

GDPofDRB said:


> I think the ref made the right call about the elbow not being a violation of the rule.
> 
> 12 O-clock to 6 O-clock elbows, has they were originally and time and time again described, are not only being about a 90 degree angle but being brought down from the high 12 o-clock position, as in an elbow or at least fist raised high, like above the head, and brought straight down to the 6 O-clock position. They are described as ceiling to the floor elbows, implying their high originating position.
> 
> ...


Nope, I only posted one gif. I don't know why you're making shit up. Oh wait. After looking at your other posts, it looks like you have trouble reading. You should work on that some time.

Also, you probably shouldn't post in a thread if you hate it so much. Otherwise you're just keeping the "fraudulent" conversation going. I imagine this is all going over your head though, since you can't read.


----------



## OU (Sep 26, 2012)

AlphaDawg said:


> Nope, I only posted one gif. I don't know why you're making shit up. Oh wait. After looking at your other posts, it looks like you have trouble reading. You should work on that some time.
> 
> Also, you probably shouldn't post in a thread if you hate it so much. Otherwise you're just keeping the "fraudulent" conversation going. I imagine this is all going over your head though, since you can't read.


Are you really that offended that he doesn't agree with you? Plenty of people don't think that was an illegal elbow, myself included.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

OU said:


> Are you really that offended that he doesn't agree with you? Plenty of people don't think that was an illegal elbow, myself included.


Not at all. If I was offended by people not agreeing with me, wouldn't I be going after majority of the people in this thread? 

He implied I removed something from my post because someone pointed out I was wrong. He then somehow confirmed that through one of my posts, even though I never even mentioned it.


----------

