# Can the dwn kick change the Career in UFC??



## SportSubmit (Nov 8, 2008)

i had a discussion in a radio show about if the down kick was in the UFC ..How many fighters career would have changed?? The 2 names i can think is Wanderlei.S and Marko.C. This 2 Fighter use the down kick on there biggest fights and won.Then when they moved to the UFC there matchs weren't as dominating ...What do you think


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

you mean the stomp?

I think more fighters careers would have been changed for the worse as we'd probably have seen alot more brain injuries from this.

Its one thing i didnt like about Pride


----------



## Zemelya (Sep 23, 2007)

is not possible that a lot of UFC fighters would adapt that technique ? if the rule was there - fighters would train it


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> you mean the stomp?
> 
> I think more fighters careers would have been changed for the worse as we'd probably have seen alot more brain injuries from this.
> 
> Its one thing i didnt like about Pride


? Really? Name one fighter who suffered brain damage or any serious trauma due to stomps or kicks while they were on the ground. Whats that? You can't think of any? That's because there are none.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

evilappendix said:


> ? Really? Name one fighter who suffered brain damage or any serious trauma due to stomps or kicks while they were on the ground. Whats that? You can't think of any? That's because there are none.


Okay, but I still don't think it would be good for UFC's publicity. To be honest, even though I like them, stomps (or downkicks...I think) are brutal. That is what every politician or loud mouth with a television show would have clips of to prove that UFC is just "human cockfighting".


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

evilappendix said:


> ? Really? Name one fighter who suffered brain damage or any serious trauma due to stomps or kicks while they were on the ground. Whats that? You can't think of any? That's because there are none.


There is this crazy assumption that because a move is banned, it must necessarily be more dangerous than legal moves. Yeah, ok. Like a soccer kick or a stomp is really more dangerous than a guy jumping past a guys legs and driving his fist into the guys head while his head is against the floor...

The simply fact is that people think that they look more gruesome and they are banned because of that.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

Yeah its silly how that works. Whats odder is that they allow for elbows over here, which cause waaaay more cuts and therefore end fights early and make them look super brutal. Don't get me wrong though, I love me some elbows, I just think silly politicians and Nevada Assletic commision guys need to get there heads screwed on straight and educate themselves a bit before banning certain techniques.

Back on subject, I think most assuredly that many fight outcomes would have been changed if kicks and stomps to grounded opponents were allowed. Its a necessary, viable rule that should be permitted in any mixed martial arts competition.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Elbows are allowed in the UFC, just not straight down, for whatever bullshit reason.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

CornbreadBB said:


> Elbows are allowed in the UFC, just not straight down, for whatever bullshit reason.


See, and that is just more evidence for my point. That blow just looks really bad, but is no where near as dangerous as a knee to the head of a guy shooting in for a TD.

Just stupid I tells ya.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

You're completely right, a knee is much more devastating than any elbow shot. Besides, what the hell is the difference from going north to south with an elbow compared to what Silva did to Lutter, which was like a degree away from going down 90º? (Which was a great point by Joe.)


----------



## Aaronyman (Mar 1, 2007)

we need fight science to prove which strike is indeed harder....


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

Aaronyman said:


> we need fight science to prove which strike is indeed harder....


Yeah we do! 



evilappendix said:


> ? Really? Name one fighter who suffered brain damage or any serious trauma due to stomps or kicks while they were on the ground. Whats that? You can't think of any? That's because there are none.


Youre right, i cant. But i dont like the idea of someone the size of Lesnar, stomping on say Randy's head 3 or 4 times before the ref can jump in. Thats enough to cause serious brain trauma or even death. Why take the chance?


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

Head stomps and kicks on the ground aren't that bad as long as the ref is on his toes, but one thing I don't want to see is a fighter in north-south or while one is turtleing getting kneed in the head (ala sakuraba/arona). That is just asking for serious head/neck/spinal injuries. Also, I have no idea about how much mma in japan, bar the major org (pride/dream/WVR), that allows strikes like these. The only other one I can really think of is Shooto, who don't allow any ground strikes.

I don't think comparing Japanese mma and American mma is fair in dismissing injuries caused by it, because there are SO SO many mma organisations and fighters in America of lower standards/skills that something bad would deffinately happen. I can think of so many dodgy things I've seen, and there have been at least 2 mma deaths already. Factor in head stomps/knees and you're only increasing the risk. 

Also, to the average non-mma watcher head stomps and soccer kicks will only get mma banned.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

pauly_j said:


> Head stomps and kicks on the ground aren't that bad as long as the ref is on his toes, but one thing I don't want to see is a fighter in north-south or while one is turtleing getting kneed in the head (ala sakuraba/arona). That is just asking for serious head/neck/spinal injuries. Also, I have no idea about how much mma in japan, bar the major org (pride/dream/WVR), that allows strikes like these. The only other one I can really think of is Shooto, who don't allow any ground strikes.
> 
> I don't think comparing Japanese mma and American mma is fair in dismissing injuries caused by it, because there are SO SO many mma organisations and fighters in America of lower standards/skills that something bad would deffinately happen. I can think of so many dodgy things I've seen, *and there have been at least 2 mma deaths already*. Factor in head stomps/knees and you're only increasing the risk.
> 
> Also, to the average non-mma watcher head stomps and soccer kicks will only get mma banned.



From what i've read, these 2 fighters didnt have medicals prior to their bouts, and probably werent fit to fight in the first instance.

The amount of deaths on streets that have been caused by someone being kicked in the head and stomped on though makes me think that it would only contribute to a ban on MMA, and thats not good


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

Only pussies don't like stomps and soccer kicks, fact.

Just don't have the Yakuza pay the refs to not stop Wandy holding onto the ropes/cage while he does it and it will be fine.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Youre right, i cant. But i dont like the idea of someone the size of Lesnar, stomping on say Randy's head 3 or 4 times before the ref can jump in. Thats enough to cause serious brain trauma or even death. Why take the chance?


Well then, why not just emulate the Pride rule in which they stipulated if there was a weight difference of 10kg(22lbs) or more, the smaller fighter had the option of disallowing said strikes? I always liked this rule, especially since they had some BIIIG size differences in those David vs Goliath fights they'd arrange...




XitUp said:


> Only pussies don't like stomps and soccer kicks, fact.


HaHa I concur! :thumb02:


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> Only pussies don't like stomps and soccer kicks, fact.
> 
> Just don't have the Yakuza pay the refs to not stop Wandy holding onto the ropes/cage while he does it and it will be fine.


only a coward would use them .

I say that as a fighter that would never use them even if allowed. Just like I refuse to use foot stomps. It's just dirty fighting. Just as bad maybe even worse than kicking a man in the balls.


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

it might... but i am sure they will never be legal in us


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

69nites said:


> only a coward would use them .
> 
> I say that as a fighter that would never use them even if allowed. Just like I refuse to use foot stomps. It's just dirty fighting. Just as bad maybe even worse than kicking a man in the balls.


Why?

I don't get why someone would intentionally limit themselves.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

XitUp said:


> Why?
> 
> I don't get why someone would intentionally limit themselves.


Well, i for one would agree with 69nites and wouldnt use them even if i could. I play football (soccer) and have a damn good kick, and i'd be seriously worried about the damage that would do to someone on the floor.

Each to their own i guess, but it sickens me when i hear that someone was attacked in the street and kicked in the head when on the floor. As 69nites says, its cowardly.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I think calling stomps and soccer kicks cowardly is the single stupidest MMA related thing I hear.:dunno:
Seriously, it makes zero sense. I put it on par with bpxing fans saying MMA is brutal, takes no skill and merely takes from the "sweet science" of boxing.

Not much would have changed, everyone woud just have trained for them. Sure some guys would have been more adept at it, some camps would have focused more on it (chuteboxe in Pride) but thats about it.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Me, I used to be a pro boxer, so I have a seriously powerful right hook. Therefore, I'm not going to use it when I fight. Only jabs and kicks. 

Come on, that is just stupid. If kicks were allowed, people would learn to adjust to them. It seems like you have this image in your mind of an unconscious fighter on the ground, and you teeing off on his head. the isn't how it works. The ref should step in if the fighter isn't protecting himself and the fighter should know how to avoid them.


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

Soccer kicks are a bit silly anyway. I imagine trying to soccer kick someone would hurt your foot loads.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> Why?
> 
> I don't get why someone would intentionally limit themselves.


I prefer to win with honor.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

If someone used stomps and soccer kicks on you during a fight, would you still not use them? Isn't that just giving your opponent a big advantage to not use all the tools allowable?


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> If someone used stomps and soccer kicks on you during a fight, would you still not use them? Isn't that just giving your opponent a big advantage to not use all the tools allowable?


Just as I have been foot stomped and not retaliated with foot stomps I wouldn't stomp or soccer kick back. However if someone were to soccer kick me and I were to recover I can't say I wouldn't be motivated to pull harder on a submission.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Each to their own i guess, but it sickens me when i hear that someone was attacked in the street and kicked in the head when on the floor. As 69nites says, its cowardly.


We're talking about MMA, not a street fight. This makes no sense.



69nites said:


> I prefer to win with honor.


LoL, what is dishonorable about them?


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> We're talking about MMA, not a street fight. This makes no sense.
> 
> 
> LoL, what is dishonorable about them?


Kicking a man in the head while he's grounded and stomping him are dirty dishonorable ways to win. If you could kick a man in the balls would you do it? All dishonorable ways to win.


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Do you think headkicks are dishonorable also?


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> Do you think headkicks are dishonorable also?


nope. not to a standing opponent.

I'm actually getting decent at those .


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

69nites said:


> Kicking a man in the head while he's grounded and stomping him are dirty dishonorable ways to win. If you could kick a man in the balls would you do it? All dishonorable ways to win.


You keep saying it's dishonorable but fail to state why.

No, I wouldn't kick someone in the balls in an MMA fight as it is not something I would want to happen to me. But if I had let myself get into a position where someone could deliver a soccer kick or stomp I would expect them to do so.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

XitUp said:


> We're talking about MMA, not a street fight. This makes no sense.
> 
> 
> LoL, what is dishonorable about them?


Kicking a guy in the headwhen he's on the floor, whether its in the street or in a cage/ring, its still kicking a guy in the head on the floor. I got morals and i have them for reason. And this is something i wouldnt like to see.

You guys want to see it, and i'm sure you have reasons equally as acceptable as mine, i'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> You keep saying it's dishonorable but fail to state why.
> 
> No, I wouldn't kick someone in the balls in an MMA fight as it is not something I would want to happen to me. But if I had let myself get into a position where someone could deliver a soccer kick or stomp I would expect them to do so.


the same exact reason it's dishonorable to kick a man in the balls. because it's dirty fighting. the same as kicking in the balls, throwing dirt in someone's eyes, gouging eyes, scratching, ect.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

Christ, this is hard, WHY is it dirty?


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> Christ, this is hard, WHY is it dirty?


the same unexplainable reason kicking someone in the balls is .

go tell your parents, your grandparents that you got in a fight and won. Tell them you pushed the man to the ground and booted him in the face. They'll explain to you why it's wrong.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

If it's legal under the rules, how is it dirty or dishonorable?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

69nites said:


> go tell your parents, your grandparents that you got in a fight and won. Tell them you pushed the man to the ground and booted him in the face. They'll explain to you why it's wrong.


Lol, they'd think the same thing if I described taking a guy to the floor, pinning him by sitting on his chest and elbowing him repeatedly in the face.

Your points make no sense. You feel it is dishonourable fine, a lot of people think kicking is dishonourable, or choking is, wrestling is. Do those people make a lot of sense to you?


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

69nites said:


> the same unexplainable reason kicking someone in the balls is .
> 
> go tell your parents, your grandparents that you got in a fight and won. Tell them you pushed the man to the ground and booted him in the face. They'll explain to you why it's wrong.


Kicking someone in the balls can pop them and leave someone infertile. Kicking them in the head can't.

You remind me of those people who think MMA is barbaric but can't give a reason why.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> If it's legal under the rules, how is it dirty or dishonorable?


it's not against the law to cut off your wife's head for cheating on you in some countries too... Does that make it an honorable thing to do to you?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Is that all you have to explain why you think it's dishonorable, something totally unrelated? And if she is cheating, seems she is breaking the law in those countries so she would get punished anyways.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

69nites said:


> it's not against the law to cut off your wife's head for cheating on you in some countries too... Does that make it an honorable thing to do to you?


Nice strawman, we're talking about what is legal in MMA, not in the rest of the world
If I did stuff you see in any MMA match to someone outside of a ring/cage or gym I would get into a lot of trouble.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

TheNegation said:


> Lol, they'd think the same thing if I described taking a guy to the floor, pinning him by sitting on his chest and elbowing him repeatedly in the face.
> 
> Your points make no sense. You feel it is dishonourable fine, a lot of people think kicking is dishonourable, or choking is, wrestling is. Do those people make a lot of sense to you?


a soccer kick can break your neck, break off your nose cartilage and lodge it in their brain, dislodge their brain, and a few other things... Yeah infertility is for sure worse than death...


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> Is that all you have to explain why you think it's dishonorable, something totally unrelated? And if she is cheating, seems she is breaking the law in those countries so she would get punished anyways.


you're saying because you're allowed to do something it couldn't be dishonorable. I gave an example exposing your extremely flawed theory.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

69nites said:


> a soccer kick can break your neck, break off your nose cartilage and lodge it in their brain, dislodge their brain, and a few other things... Yeah infertility is for sure worse than death...


So can kicks while standing and punches, knees and elbows. Do you think they are dishonorable?



69nites said:


> you're saying because you're allowed to do something it couldn't be dishonorable. I gave an example exposing your extremely flawed theory.


No, you came up with a strawman because you can't think of any thing to back up your opinion.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

I didn't say it was, your lack of comprehension is amazing. I asked how could something that is legal be considered dishonorable.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> So can kicks while standing and punches, knees and elbows. Do you think they are dishonorable?
> 
> 
> No, you came up with a strawman because you can't think of any thing to back up your opinion.


it's one of those common knowlege things. Something everyone knows.

it's allowed in japan. The same place they'll sanction a 130lb vs 300lb fight. That's hardly a backing for it being an honorable thing. Being sanctioned in the land of freakshows.

it's common knowledge that it's dishonorable to kick a man while he's down. So much so that it's a common phrase used by almost everyone.

you can keep doing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmrd1MbNkFs as long as you please tho.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

I see you ignored my question. Should all other strikes be banned as they can cause they same damage?


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

these forums are great, but one thing that really p!sses me off is some people fail to accept that people will have conflicting opinions. And instead of accepting it, they argue, sometimes bitterly, trying to tell the other person why they are wrong.

Chill out and quit verbally tearing chunks out of each other? :dunno:


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

XitUp said:


> I see you ignored my question. Should all other strikes be banned as they can cause they same damage?


so you're going to bring in an asinine argument that is completely irrelevant?

more force can be put into a soccer kick than any other strike and you can literally do nothing to defend it...


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> so you're going to bring in an asinine argument that is completely irrelevant?
> 
> more force can be put into a soccer kick than any other strike and you can literally do nothing to defend it...


Tell that to Cro Cop when Gonzaga KO'ed him.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> Tell that to Cro Cop when Gonzaga KO'ed him.


what does a standing head kick have to do with this?

completely defendable and less powerful than a soccer kick...


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

If Cro Cop was able to defend against it don't you think he would have? 

And how are soccer kicks not defendable, I didn't realize they had a success rate of 100%.


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

Society says they're cheap. I agree with society.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> If Cro Cop was able to defend against it don't you think he would have?
> 
> And how are soccer kicks not defendable, I didn't realize they had a success rate of 100%.


block with your arm it's likely to get broken. Take it in the face and you're going to sleep. if you're in a position to be soccer kicked you're either rocked on the ground or struggling to get up. Either way there's no defense.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> block with your arm it's likely to get broken. Take it in the face and you're going to sleep. if you're in a position to be soccer kicked you're either rocked on the ground or struggling to get up. Either way there's no defense.


But was Cro Cop able to defend the kick?

So if you get dropped by a punch and are on the ground, how is a soccer kick any different then someone following up with punches, you are in the same position to "not defend yourself". I would like actual examples to prove that soccer kicks do more damage in this position.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> But was Cro Cop able to defend the kick?
> 
> So if you get dropped by a punch and are on the ground, how is a soccer kick any different then someone following up with punches, you are in the same position to "not defend yourself". I would like actual examples to prove that soccer kicks do more damage in this position.


just because he didn't defend the kick doesn't mean he wasn't able.

High kicks are easily defended simply by raising your arm. You're also in a controlled position where you could easily move your head away from the kick. There's very very few guys with the power to break your arm with a high kick.

Soccer kicks aren't defendable in any way that they can be used.

Punches aren't going to break your arms as you're covering up. and you can defend them.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> *just because he didn't defend the kick doesn't mean he wasn't able.*
> 
> *High kicks are easily defended simply by raising your arm. You're also in a controlled position where you could easily move your head away from the kick.* There's very very few guys with the power to break your arm with a high kick.
> 
> ...


Claims that you need to prove in order for your argument to be considered are in bold. Using your opinion as fact is a no no.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> Claims that you need to prove in order for your argument to be considered are in bold. Using your opinion as fact is a no no.


go to a muay thai class and ask them how to defend a high kick. 

then go talk to a BJJ instructor about how to defend punches on the ground.

while you're there ask both of them how to defend a soccer kick. 

These aren't opinions. I'm trained in how to defend all these. Except the Soccer kick. Because there is no defence for it in any art I am aware of...


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-31349553.html

AAP General News (Australia)
09-05-2000
Vic: Man suffers fractured skull after being kicked in the head

MELBOURNE, Sept 5 AAP - A 19-year-old man suffered a fractured skull when he was allegedly
kicked in the head in Melbourne's north-west yesterday, police said.

The Glenroy man was in a critical but stable condition after undergoing emergency surgery
at the Alfred Trauma Centre, a police spokesman said.

He had apparently been assaulted at the intersection of Glenroy and Station roads in
Glenroy ...


An 11-year-old student trying to leave his classroom in upper Manhattan died yesterday afternoon after being kicked in the head by another student, the police said.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...F936A35751C0A96F958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


The first officer to lose his life was 31-year-old PC Joseph Grantham on June 28, 1830. He collapsed and died after being kicked in the head when arresting a drunken man outside a pub.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20081106/tuk-police-to-honour-fallen-officers-45dbed5.html

The worst of the lot for me is this, as it happened not too far from where i live. . .

While returning home, Lancaster and Maltby were subjected to a "vicious mob attack" from "a large group of people" between 01:10 hours and 01:20 hours on Saturday, 11 August 2007, at the skate park area of Stubbylee Park, Bacup.[2] The couple were walking home and came across a group of teenagers at the entrance to the park. The group followed them, but there was no trouble until some of them suddenly assaulted Robert Maltby without provocation. When he was knocked unconscious *the gang attacked Sophie Lancaster, who was trying to protect him by cradling him in her arms. A 15-year-old witness told police: "They were running over and just kicking her in the head and jumping up and down on her head."* One distraught witness used a mobile to call for emergency services saying: "We need... we need an ambulance at Bacup Park, this mosher has just been banged because he’s a mosher." [5] Witnesses revealed that afterwards: "The killers celebrated their attack on the goths — or "moshers" - by telling friends afterwards that they had, "done summat [something] good," and claiming: "There's two moshers nearly dead up Bacup park — you wanna see them — they're a right mess." [6] The injured couple were assisted by some of the teenagers who called emergency services, and then stayed with the couple and tried to tend their wounds. At the trial they were commended by the judge.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Lancaster


Now, whether you think its dishonourable or not, is it something we really want to be encouraging?


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

I know this isn't a viable argument, but I've been punched in the face and kicked in the face (while on the ground) by the same dude, and the kick to the face was a lot easier to block because I could see him doing it before it hit me. The punch is was hurt the next day.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> I know this isn't a viable argument, but I've been punched in the face and kicked in the face (while on the ground) by the same dude, and the kick to the face was a lot easier to block because I could see him doing it before it hit me. The punch is was hurt the next day.


was he a trained fighter kicking at 100%?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> go to a muay thai class and ask them how to defend a high kick.
> 
> then go talk to a BJJ instructor about how to defend punches on the ground.
> 
> ...


How about we go back to your post and look at what you really said.



> just because he didn't defend the kick doesn't mean he wasn't able.


Your opinion


> *High kicks are easily defended simply by raising your arm.* You're also in a controlled position where you could easily move your head away from the kick. There's very very few guys with the power to break your arm with a high kick.


Bolded part is you opinion especially since you said easily defended.



> Soccer kicks aren't defendable in any way that they can be used.


Opinion



> Punches aren't going to break your arms as you're covering up. and you can defend them.


Opinion.

And Ricco Rodriguez says guys are able to defend against everything. Interesting that the topic he was talking about involved soccer kicks which he said he is ok with.

http://mmajunkie.com/news/4116/elbows-soccer-kicks-and-knees-in-mma.mma


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

About the killing someone with a kick to the head article, go to google and search for "killed by a punch". There are tons of articles about it, should we ban those too?


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> About the killing someone with a kick to the head article, go to google and search for "killed by a punch". There are tons of articles about it, should we ban those too?


People dying from punches to the head are generally due to hitting the ground after the punch, hence why MMA organisations use padded mats.

And you cant tell me that you'd be equally as sickened by the Sophie Lancaster incident if they'd punched her. Kicking her in the head and jumping on her head. . . ??


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

Jumping on her head and kicking her are two different things and yes it does sound terrible, but she wasn't a trained MMA fighter.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> How about we go back to your post and look at what you really said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you can call them opinions.

they're what are taught in martial arts.

I've never seen anyone defend a soccer kick. Maybe once or twice seen one miss. Never deffended tho. You have an example I'd love to see it.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> Jumping on her head and kicking her are two different things and yes it does sound terrible, but she wasn't a trained MMA fighter.


not much difference since the guys who did it weren't trained MMA fighters either. . .

And stomping on someone's head isn't too different to jumping on it.

Again, i dont think its something that should be encouraged, therefore i'm glad its not part of the UFC


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

CornbreadBB said:


> About the killing someone with a kick to the head article, go to google and search for "killed by a punch". There are tons of articles about it, should we ban those too?


actually as long as your other foot touches the mat first you can jump on someone's head when stomps are allowed...


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> you can call them opinions.


You said, "just because he didn't defend the kick doesn't mean he wasn't able." This is an opinion since you don't know whether or not he was able to defend that kick.

"High kicks are easily defended simply by raising your arm." By saying easily you make this your opinion. If it was so easy, why have there been so many KO's via headkick?

"Soccer kicks aren't defendable in any way that they can be used." You don't think they are, I provided where an actual mma fighter (unlike yourself) says that fighters are able to defend against everything.

"Punches aren't going to break your arms as you're covering up. and you can defend them." This is actually funny, you are trying to tell me how the human body is going to react. 





> I've never seen anyone defend a soccer kick. Maybe once or twice seen one miss. Never deffended tho. You have an example I'd love to see it.


Defend a soccer kick, just roll to your back so that your head is away or you can even try and catch the kick and go for a takedown. Do you think Ricco and Bas would be ok with something if they didn't think that soccer kicks weren't defendable?

And here is shogun showing how he set's up his soccer kick and shows ways to defend it.

http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/?go=training.detail&gid=97727


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

The Lone Wolf said:


> not much difference since the guys who did it weren't trained MMA fighters either. . .
> 
> And stomping on someone's head isn't too different to jumping on it.
> 
> Again, i dont think its something that should be encouraged, therefore i'm glad its not part of the UFC


She probably would have been better able to protect herself.....but about it being in the UFC, I kinda agree only beacuse that's what would be talked about when people would bash the UFC.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> You said, "just because he didn't defend the kick doesn't mean he wasn't able." This is an opinion since you don't know whether or not he was able to defend that kick.
> 
> "High kicks are easily defended simply by raising your arm." By saying easily you make this your opinion. If it was so easy, why have there been so many KO's via headkick?
> 
> ...


that video is a joke. 80% of soccer kicks don't start with both men on the ground. they start with one being knocked down/tripping the the other guy booting them in the face.

He's just trying to make his go to BS move seem legitimate...

Sure it's defendable when it's not even the practice move to do...In that position knees to the head would be far more effective.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> that video is a joke. 99% of soccer kicks don't start with both men on the ground. they start with one being knocked down/tripping the the other guy booting them in the face.
> 
> He's just trying to make his go to BS move seem legitimate...
> 
> Sure it's defendable when it's not even the practice move to do...In that position knees to the head would be far more effective.


You say they can't be defended, I show how they can be by an actual fighter (unlike yourself). 

Also as per the video I supplied, Ricco also told how knees can be defended and aren't that effective.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> You say they can't be defended, I show how they can be by an actual fighter (unlike yourself).
> 
> Also as per the video I supplied, Ricco also told how knees can be defended and aren't that effective.


sure they can be defended when the person using them is using them in the wrong position. If only he demonstrated how to defend the soccer kick the way he actually uses them in his fights!

a gunshot can be defended if the shooter is stupid enough to allow you to grab the gun...


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> sure they can be defended *when the person using them is using them in the wrong position.* If only he demonstrated how to defend the soccer kick the way he actually uses them in his fights!
> 
> a gunshot can be defended if the shooter is stupid enough to allow you to grab the gun...


Lol

So what do you have to say about Ricco (again, an mma fighter unlike yourself) who says fighters are able to protect themselves from everything.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

In the video the "defending" part isnt very effective at all, since he'd have simply kneed him in the head at that point, then soccer kicked and knocked a 60 yard pass with his head



MLS said:


> Lol
> 
> So what do you have to say about Ricco (again, an mma fighter unlike yourself) who says fighters are able to protect themselves from everything.


I wonder if Ricco has ever got caught in a crucifix postion ala Bj Penn vs Matt Hughes? Penn ate a ton of elbows and was completely defenceless


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> Lol
> 
> So what do you have to say about Ricco (again, an mma fighter unlike yourself) who says fighters are able to protect themselves from everything.


I'm 4-0 amateur as of last Saturday...

apparently you haven't followed any of my post history. maybe if you hit up the training forums you'd learn a little something.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> In the video the "defending" part isnt very effective at all, since he'd have simply kneed him in the head at that point, then soccer kicked and knocked a 60 yard pass with his head


It's like this thread emits stupidity. As shogun stated, the fighter getting up would go for the takedown, thus eliminating the knee.



> I wonder if Ricco has ever got caught in a crucifix postion ala Bj Penn vs Matt Hughes? Penn ate a ton of elbows and was completely defenceless


So are you saying that the crucifix should be eliminated because you can't defend yourself?



69nites said:


> I'm 4-0 amateur as of last Saturday...
> 
> apparently you haven't followed any of my post history. maybe if you hit up the training forums you'd learn a little something.


I'm 2000-0 and have KO'ed Anderson, Fedor, GSP, and BJ.

You're right I haven't followed your posts because when you make a post like you did saying Machida hadn't fought Bonnar I tend to realize the level of knowledge that people have and if I don't find it sufficient I don't read the posts.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> It's like this thread emits stupidity. As shogun stated, the fighter getting up would go for the takedown, thus eliminating the knee.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that the crucifix should be eliminated because you can't defend yourself?


it's hard to take someone down after you've been knocked out by a knee...


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> *It's like this thread emits stupidity.* As shogun stated, the fighter getting up would go for the takedown, thus eliminating the knee.
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that the crucifix should be eliminated because you can't defend yourself?


Its never been my arguement that it should be banned because it cant be defended. I offered that scenario as an example of a position where you cant defend yourself, and putting a hole in Ricco's suggestion

now who's stupid?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> it's hard to take someone down after you've been knocked out by a knee...


My conclusion of stupidity is confirmed by this post. Because to setup the kick you have to keep the head down, if the head isn't kept down it gets sucked up to the body eliminating the kick and knee since there isn't space for it. And when the head is that close the takedown is there. 



The Lone Wolf said:


> Its never been my arguement that it should be banned because it cant be defended. I offered that scenario as an example of a position where you cant defend yourself, and putting a hole in Ricco's suggestion
> 
> now who's stupid?


You because you are using the wrong argument to defend your intelligence. At least look at what I said was stupid.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> You because you are using the wrong argument to defend your intelligence. At least look at what I said was stupid.


I understood to what you were implying was stupid, but then you made a "stupid" point, so i figured i'd throw the remark back at you :thumb02:

can i also say this thread is smokin'!! :smoke01:


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> My conclusion of stupidity is confirmed by this post. Because to setup the kick you have to keep the head down, if the head isn't kept down it gets sucked up to the body eliminating the kick and knee since there isn't space for it. And when the head is that close the takedown is there.
> 
> 
> 
> You because you are using the wrong argument to defend your intelligence. At least look at what I said was stupid.


you don't have to "keep down" the head of a downed opponent. as previously stated soccer kicks almost never start with both men on the ground. he demonstrated the only position in which a soccer kick is defendable which also so happens to be the least often time it is ever used.

and you're right I didn't see a fight from brazil in 2003. I know it makes everything I say totally unbelievable. Let me pick apart your post history and put up everything you've ever said that's been wrong. Given the 4892 posts I'm pretty sure I could make you look like the biggest idiot on the forum...


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I understood to what you were implying was stupid, but then you made a "stupid" point, so i figured i'd throw the remark back at you :thumb02:
> 
> can i also say this thread is smokin'!! :smoke01:


Go back and read the posts because the stupid point you say I made wasn't made by me but by Ricco.



69nites said:


> you don't have to "keep down" the head of a downed opponent. as previously stated soccer kicks almost never start with both men on the ground. he demonstrated the only position in which a soccer kick is defendable which also so happens to be the least often time it is ever used.


See here is the gaping whole in this argument. You argued that you would eat a knee before you could get the takedown. I showed why this isn't true because you do have to keep the head down. This type of soccer kick is dependent on the head being down to which you are arguing isn't true. Shogun says you are wrong. And you said soccer kicks weren't defendable, are you now going back on this?



> and you're right I didn't see a fight from brazil in 2003. I know it makes everything I say totally unbelievable. Let me pick apart your post history and put up everything you've ever said that's been wrong. Given the 4892 posts I'm pretty sure I could make you look like the biggest idiot on the forum...


Go ahead but what's funny about yours is instead of looking it up you just went ahead and posted something that was wrong.

But you really want to go there just look at this thread and read here or the whole thing either way.

http://www.mmaforum.com/general-mma-discussion/45555-anderson-fedor-13.html


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> Go back and read the posts because the stupid point you say I made wasn't made by me but by Ricco.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was refering to the kick not the knee. to land the knee all you have to do is keep your hand on his head and lay into him with the outside knee. He's got little chance of reversal and it's a much much safer and effective move than trying to stand up and soccer kick him. by standing you're giving him room. You don't have to give him anything to land the knee.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> I was refering to the kick not the knee. to land the knee all you have to do is keep your hand on his head and lay into him with the outside knee. He's got little chance of reversal and it's a much much safer and effective move than trying to stand up and soccer kick him. by standing you're giving him room. You don't have to give him anything to land the knee.


O rly?



69nites said:


> it's hard to take someone down after you've been knocked out by a knee...


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> Go back and read the posts because the stupid point you say I made wasn't made by me but by Ricco.


I was referring to you implying that my arguement for not wanting soccer kicks involved in the UFC was because they couldnt be defended. _instead of looking it up you just went ahead and posted something that was wrong. _:mistress01:


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> O rly?


you and your damn multiquote.



> Because to setup the kick you have to keep the head down, if the head isn't kept down it gets sucked up to the body eliminating the kick


the part of the quote in MY post that I was referring to.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I was referring to you implying that my arguement for not wanting soccer kicks involved in the UFC was because they couldnt be defended. _instead of looking it up you just went ahead and posted something that was wrong. _:mistress01:


I asked a question, how did I imply anything?


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> I asked a question, how did I imply anything?


dont you try and weasle your way out of this. you mistook 69nites arguement for my own, hence the reason you asked if it should be banned. i know it, you know it, and we both know it . . . :confused02:


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> the part of the quote in MY post that I was referring to.


So what you are saying is that your argument to my statement (that was showing why you wouldn't eat a knee in the position shogun was in) wasn't actually a argument to what I posted?



The Lone Wolf said:


> dont you try and weasle your way out of this. you mistook 69nites arguement for my own, hence the reason you asked if it should be banned. i know it, you know it, and we both know it . . . :confused02:


Gonna have to prove that one.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> Gonna have to prove that one.


Not really, since we both know that i'm right. thats enough for me :thumb02:


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> So what you are saying is that your argument to my statement (that was showing why you wouldn't eat a knee in the position shogun was in) wasn't actually a argument to what I posted?
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna have to prove that one.


in all honesty now you have me confused as to what I'm arguing with. I'm dizzy from the array of multi-quotes and attempts to twist words.

what exactly was your point? Because there's no danger whatsoever in that postion to throwing knees with the outside leg.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> Not really, since we both know that i'm right. thats enough for me :thumb02:


No...



69nites said:


> in all honesty now you have me confused as to what I'm arguing with. I'm dizzy from the array of multi-quotes and attempts to twist words.
> 
> what exactly was your point? Because there's no danger whatsoever in that postion to throwing knees with the outside leg.


Let me help you with the sequence of events.

Wolf guy said that in the video I posted that the fighter on the ground would eat a knee from the fighter standing.

To which I responded with why this was wrong because the fighter on the ground would get a takedown.

To which you then responded to me (and quoted) that "it's hard to take someone down after you've been knocked out by a knee"

Then I again explained why in that situation you wouldn't eat a knee.

Then you went off on some tangent.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> No...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd actually argue that it would depend on the feet position of the guy standing whether the guy would eat a knee or get the takedown. but then i wonder if its worth it?

And now, we're arguing about the he said she said, instead of discussing stomps and head kicks. 

crazy


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

The Lone Wolf said:


> I'd actually argue that it would depend on the feet position of the guy standing whether the guy would eat a knee or get the takedown. but then i wonder if its worth it?


Guy on the ground could actually take the back if he wanted.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> No...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


okay.

Danger of a takedown is what the issue with the knee was.

Throwing the outside knee keeps your firmly planted on the inside knee. If they try to roll away from the knee they just opened up for a mount. they can't grab that knee thus no takedown just an opportunity for clean knees to the head. The only danger would occur if he was throwing the inside knee.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> Guy on the ground could actually take the back if he wanted.


possible. but then there are a number of other possibilites too. and i think the most effective way of "defending" a soccer kick, is evasion. i dont think i've ever seen anyone try anything else other than evade, and sakuraba evading and ankle picking. Dude was lucky not to get caught like that


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

There really is no danger of a knee because they show you what happens if you don't keep the head down and that is a quick takedown or you could have your back taken because of where you end up if your head isn't kept down.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

69nites said:


> okay.
> 
> Danger of a takedown is what the issue with the knee was.
> 
> Throwing the outside knee keeps your firmly planted on the inside knee. If they try to roll away from the knee they just opened up for a mount. they can't grab that knee thus no takedown just an opportunity for clean knees to the head. The only danger would occur if he was throwing the inside knee.


totally agree


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> There really is no danger of a knee because they show you what happens if you don't keep the head down and that is a quick takedown or you could have your back taken because of where you end up if your head isn't kept down.


yes that is all good technique to land the knee.

but there's no reason to stand up for the soccer kick. There's far more chance for escape standing for the soccer kick. Thus why I said in that position a knee would be far more effective.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> yes that is all good technique to land the knee.
> 
> but there's no reason to stand up for the soccer kick. There's far more chance for escape standing for the soccer kick. Thus why I said in that position a knee would be far more effective.


There is reason to stand for the soccer kick because if you don't stand you can't soccer kick. The knee wouldn't be effective because of the guy's positioning on the body. Look where Ninja is when Shogun tries to kick and in an actual fight, shogun would be taken down or had his back taken.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> There is reason to stand for the soccer kick because if you don't stand you can't soccer kick. The knee wouldn't be effective because of the guy's positioning on the body. Look where Ninja is when Shogun tries to kick and in an actual fight, shogun would be taken down or had his back taken.


it's a perfect position for a ground knee. You're in a position to use your hands to pull the head into the knee and they can't get either of their arms up to attempt to block the knee. Really the only escape from the knees is to roll on to their back and likely give up the mount.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> There is reason to stand for the soccer kick because if you don't stand you can't soccer kick. The knee wouldn't be effective because of the guy's positioning on the body. Look where Ninja is when Shogun tries to kick and in an actual fight, shogun would be taken down or had his back taken.


There are also other positions Shogun could have taken that would have minimised the chance of a takedown, whilst still having the option of throwing an outside knee or a soccer kick


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Knee can be stopped just as easily.

The point of this is, you said that soccer kicks can't be defended. I showed a situation and how then can.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

MLS said:


> Knee can be stopped just as easily.
> 
> The point of this is, you said that soccer kicks can't be defended. I showed a situation and how then can.


you showed me one situation, where the knee is a more logical choice, where a soccer kick is rarely used and can be defended.

I gave you the 2 were it's completely undefendable and is most commonly used.


----------



## The Lone Wolf (Sep 23, 2008)

MLS said:


> Knee can be stopped just as easily.
> 
> The point of this is, you said that soccer kicks can't be defended. I showed a situation and how then can.


you actually showed us a way the soccer kick can be avoided, not defended.

Anyway, i dont think theres much more to add to this so i'm gonna go play Fable 2 for a bit before UFC 91

Have a good fight night guys :thumb02:


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

69nites said:


> you showed me one situation, where the knee is a more logical choice, where a soccer kick is rarely used and can be defended.
> 
> I gave you the 2 were it's completely undefendable and is most commonly used.


That one situation debunks your theory that they aren't defendable.


----------



## XitUp (Jan 11, 2007)

This topic brings the lolz. 

Soccer kicks and stomps are great, no one has given a good reason why they are 'dishonerable' other than a few people who are not trained fighters getting killed by them in the street, amazing.

p.s. you kick with your foot rather than your shin in a soccer kick so you can't cause as much damage unless you have shoes on.



pauly_j said:


> Society says they're cheap. I agree with society.


Society says your love for Baroni is wrong, do you agree with that?


----------



## pauly_j (Nov 28, 2006)

Who is society to say our love is wrong?


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

Boy, you fellas have been at it huh? I can't see how stomps and kicks on the ground are dishonorable at all. Eye gouging, biting, and groin kicks are dishonorable attacks in a professional bout. If you're on the ground and about to be on the receiving end of a stomp or a soccer kick get up! Most guys who wind up taking punishment from these attacks are guys who like to turtle up or jits back pedal in an attempt to get the guy winning the stand up war to come lay in their guard. You do that, and you've earned a one way ticket to stomp street if you ask me...

Doing these in a street fight is like comparing apples and oranges. A street fight IS NOT a controlled situation at all, nor does it have a ref to stop the action if one guy is taking too much punishment and is typically on a much harder surface than a ring(ie a street). Not to mention if you get in a street fight, your ass better be prepared for anything because you have no idea what the other guy intends to throw at you.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

evilappendix said:


> Boy, you fellas have been at it huh? I can't see how stomps and kicks on the ground are dishonorable at all. Eye gouging, biting, and groin kicks are dishonorable attacks in a professional bout. If you're on the ground and about to be on the receiving end of a stomp or a soccer kick get up! Most guys who wind up taking punishment from these attacks are guys who like to turtle up or jits back pedal in an attempt to get the guy winning the stand up war to come lay in their guard. You do that, and you've earned a one way ticket to stomp street if you ask me...
> 
> Doing these in a street fight is like comparing apples and oranges. A street fight IS NOT a controlled situation at all, nor does it have a ref to stop the action if one guy is taking too much punishment and is typically on a much harder surface than a ring(ie a street). Not to mention if you get in a street fight, your ass better be prepared for anything because you have no idea what the other guy intends to throw at you.


disallowing stomps and soccer kicks is what makes a professional fight a controlled environment.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

69nites said:


> disallowing stomps and soccer kicks is what makes a professional fight a controlled environment.


Well the rules are one part of that equation, yes. Yet not all professional organizations have disallowed these in the past. Would you say Pride wasn't a controlled environment? Or Vale Tudo? In truth the only reason these moves are banned is to coddle to soft American veiwers who seem to think they're more barbaric than say, splitting someones forehead wide open with an elbow, or cranking on a joint lock after the opponent has submitted...


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

evilappendix said:


> Well the rules are one part of that equation, yes. Yet not all professional organizations have disallowed these in the past. Would you say Pride wasn't a controlled environment? Or Vale Tudo? In truth the only reason these moves are banned is to coddle to soft American veiwers who seem to think they're more barbaric than say, splitting someones forehead wide open with an elbow, or cranking on a joint lock after the opponent has submitted...


in pride brock lesnar could have been sanctioned to fight migel torres under the rules.

no they were not a controlled environment.


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

69nites said:


> in pride brock lesnar could have been sanctioned to fight migel torres under the rules.
> 
> no they were not a controlled environment.


..:confused05:..If the fighter agrees to the fight thats his decision. Not to mention there were special rules for such matches. They allowed that over there bc the Japs love to see the little guy topple the master blaster. Albeit its rare, but it happens, and thats entertaining to them. Kinda like the UFC using the NSAC's watered down rules to appease American fans.:thumb02:


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

evilappendix said:


> ..:confused05:..If the fighter agrees to the fight thats his decision. Not to mention there were special rules for such matches. They allowed that over there bc the Japs love to see the little guy topple the master blaster. Albeit its rare, but it happens, and thats entertaining to them. Kinda like the UFC using the NSAC's watered down rules to appease American fans.:thumb02:


Agreed. To say that banning soccer kicks and stomps allows for a controlled environment is just crazy. You are basically saying that the UFC is civilized fighting, and Pride was simply some backwoods, hillbilly kind of fighting where anything goes. 

That just isn't so. All a controlled environment means is that there are rules in place, and referees there to enforce them. It doesn't have anything to do with what particular moves are allowed. 

I think to say that these two moves are so bad that allowing them is tantamount to a all out brawl is just grasping at straws to try and prove a point that isn't working.


----------

