# Back of the head punches



## Slug (Apr 8, 2007)

In the Kos/Trigg(3:45 of first round), and Belfort/Franklin(2:03 of first round) fights, both fighters were knocked out of their equilibrium with blows to the back of the head. Also in the CroCop/Dos Santos(3:06 in third round) fight, it looks like CroCop might have been clipped in the back of the head, but I'm not too sure it hit him.

I don't know if fighters are training to do this or not, or it's just coincidence, but it seems to be occurring A LOT lately in MMA. There are countless other fights that this has happened in as well.

I know there are a lot of DIRTY techniques in boxing used to cheat the rules(ex. uppercut followed by an elbow, which is illegal, but so hard to catch because the movements were very quick).

There is a possible chance that yea.. fighters are training to punch the guy in the back of the head but make it look like a regular hook. Not saying this is the case, but it's just a thought that should be looked into.


----------



## Sicilian_Esq (Sep 7, 2008)

The back of the head is just that strip that extands from the spine... it's really not that big an area. 

Unless you have the Ham Hands of Lesnar...


----------



## LCRaiders (Apr 7, 2008)

Sicilian_Esq said:


> The back of the head is just that strip that extands from the spine... it's really not that big an area.
> 
> Unless you have the Ham Hands of Lesnar...


Lol, 'Ham Hands of Lesnar'

Repped.. :thumbsup:


----------



## dario03 (Oct 8, 2008)

To me it seems like if the guy getting hit is standing then they never say anything about it. But if your on the ground and hit any where near the back of the head they constantly say to "watch the back of the head".


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

dario03 said:


> To me it seems like if the guy getting hit is standing then they never say anything about it. But if your on the ground and hit any where near the back of the head they constantly say to "watch the back of the head".


That's because when a fight is standing it's fluid, it's in motion, when you throw a punch and the guy moves his head to get out of the way and you clip him in the back of his head, he moved to the wrong spot. So, it's perfectly legal to hit in the back of the head when the fight is standing, as you can never say where it's going to hit.

On the ground, however, you have control of where you hit the guy, so when you hit him in the back of the head, it's against the rules, as you can prevent from doing so.

As far as fighters training to hit in the back of the head, that would be quite difficult seeing as how fighters move their heads to avoid strikes based on the angle, and you can't really train to hit the back of the head when you don't know which angle he's going to move.

Besides, it has always happened in MMA, and it'll always happen, that's part of having someone throw punches at your face and you trying to avoid them.


----------



## Brainshank (Nov 25, 2008)

Seems to me the refs are quick to call it in a GnP situation where a fighter has control of the fight. However, and I have noticed this a lot more in the last few events, they don't seem to say anything about it at all if there are shots to the back of the head in the final flurry to end the fight right before the stoppage. The only time I have EVER seen a ref stop it or take a point in that situation was when Mazzagati stopped Lesnar and deducted the point when that fight was all but over, and I think Mazz was biased because Lesnar was new to the sport.

Good post, was just talking about this the other day with a friend.


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

Brainshank said:


> Seems to me the refs are quick to call it in a GnP situation where a fighter has control of the fight. However, and I have noticed this a lot more in the last few events, they don't seem to say anything about it at all if there are shots to the back of the head in the final flurry to end the fight right before the stoppage. The only time I have EVER seen a ref stop it or take a point in that situation was when Mazzagati stopped Lesnar and deducted the point when that fight was all but over, and I think Mazz was biased because Lesnar was new to the sport.
> 
> Good post, was just talking about this the other day with a friend.


To be fair Lesnar was just about to get armbarred when Mazzagati stood them up. It infact hurt Mir more than Lesnar like Mir said on the ufc 100 countdown.


----------



## GMK13 (Apr 20, 2009)

it doesnt seem to intentional, but i have some GnP fights where they would keep hitting the guy in the back of the head even after the ref repeating to stop.


----------



## Soakked (Feb 5, 2007)

You know what annoys me? When a fighter on the ground intentionally turns his head (back of the head) towards the direction of the punch. It's like they know that they cant get hit in the back of the head so they use that as a tactic. I've noticed that happens alot when an opponent has their back.


----------



## AceofSpades187 (Apr 18, 2009)

Soakked said:


> You know what annoys me? When a fighter on the ground intentionally turns his head (back of the head) towards the direction of the punch. It's like they know that they cant get hit in the back of the head so they use that as a tactic. I've noticed that happens alot when an opponent has their back.


i noticed that too what a bitch tactic:thumbsdown:


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Michael Carson said:


> That's because when a fight is standing it's fluid, it's in motion, when you throw a punch and the guy moves his head to get out of the way and you clip him in the back of his head, he moved to the wrong spot. So, it's perfectly legal to hit in the back of the head when the fight is standing, as you can never say where it's going to hit.
> 
> On the ground, however, you have control of where you hit the guy, so when you hit him in the back of the head, it's against the rules, as you can prevent from doing so.
> 
> ...


yes, this ^


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

Soakked said:


> You know what annoys me? When a fighter on the ground intentionally turns his head (back of the head) towards the direction of the punch. It's like they know that they cant get hit in the back of the head so they use that as a tactic. I've noticed that happens alot when an opponent has their back.


Eh... it's more manly to let them just hit you in the face? It's a natural response to tuck your head in like that, the fact that it's illegal is just a bonus.


----------



## Seperator88 (Jul 12, 2009)

yea i don't think its dirty, i know what you're talking about but the punch probably would've landed on their face anyways, so a couple inches further back it wraps around and hit them in the side of the ear, just happens, should've blocked better or got out of the way, now a straight jackhammer forehead into the ground punch to the top of the spinal colum is what is illegal


----------



## Slug (Apr 8, 2007)

Michael Carson said:


> That's because when a fight is standing it's fluid, it's in motion, when you throw a punch and the guy moves his head to get out of the way and you clip him in the back of his head, he moved to the wrong spot. So, it's perfectly legal to hit in the back of the head when the fight is standing, as you can never say where it's going to hit.
> 
> On the ground, however, you have control of where you hit the guy, so when you hit him in the back of the head, it's against the rules, as you can prevent from doing so.
> 
> ...


I would have to disagree with you. You can't say that you have control just because you're on the ground. If you're standing and you "accidentally" clip someone in the back of the head, how is it any different from clipping someone accidentally when they are on the ground(Brock/Mir 1)? Brock was not intentionally aiming for the back of Mir's head, but he still hit it because Mir turned the back of his head into those punches.

I don't think it's that difficult to train for. You throw a hook and you try to extend it a little so you can wrap it around the opponent's head and possibly hit the back of the head. But of course this is only my opinion.


----------



## LCRaiders (Apr 7, 2008)

Belfort nailed Franklin with a nasty hammerfist to the back of the head that made Franklin go limp. It was really bad but hey Belfort still won


----------



## Terror Kovenant (Nov 16, 2008)

Accidents do happen, like Brock vs Mir I. I would certainly hope that someone doesn't intentionally turn into punches to force a stand up. Nor would I hope someone intentionally strikes the back of the head for an advantage. Belfort vs Franklin was 100% decided by an illegal shot(s) to the back of the head. Its very dangerous, the brain stem and the entire back of the head is a very sensitive area and a good shot can cause paralysis and death. Franklin got lucky last night, as those shots were ******* brutal.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Slug said:


> I would have to disagree with you. You can't say that you have control just because you're on the ground. If you're standing and you "accidentally" clip someone in the back of the head, how is it any different from clipping someone accidentally when they are on the ground(Brock/Mir 1)? Brock was not intentionally aiming for the back of Mir's head, but he still hit it because Mir turned the back of his head into those punches.
> 
> I don't think it's that difficult to train for. You throw a hook and you try to extend it a little so you can wrap it around the opponent's head and possibly hit the back of the head. But of course this is only my opinion.


When you're on the ground and you're on top of someone, he turns to the side, you can aim for the back of his head or for the side of his head. You can almost always aim where you want to when you are on the ground and in control. As such, the rule states no hitting in the back of the head. The distance of punches is very small on the ground, which is why almost all back of the heat shots are on the ground, as your punches come so quickly that when you aim for a part of their head, that's what you hit. You can pick and choose where you hit on the ground. 

When the fight is standing, you have NO control whatsoever on your opponent, as well as being so far away that by the time your strike reaches where you want it to go, he has moved his head in whichever way he wanted, and you take a chance of clipping him in the back of the head.

Your Brock example doesn't really work. Mir put his head in that position so Brock couldn't hit him, Brock would have to stop, get a new position/posture, and then hit more, as it is illegal to hit in the back of the head. That was Mir's strategy at that moment to control Brock's GnP, to put him in a position where he couldn't hurt Mir, as he could only hit the back of his head. The whole thing about that is the ref didn't call it a warning as he should have, that's why it's such a big deal. Usually there are a few warnings then a point, as hitting once in the back of the head when he is moving isn't a point taking move, but if you do it multiple times it is, as you have general control of where you hit on the ground.

Jones vs. Bonnar is the perfect example. He uses that nice spinning elbow to hit Bonnar, but it ended up hitting him in the back of the head. It wasn't illegal as it was in motion, you cannot tell where that hit was going to go, it's impossible to know.


----------



## Slug (Apr 8, 2007)

Michael Carson said:


> When you're on the ground and you're on top of someone, he turns to the side, you can aim for the back of his head or for the side of his head. You can almost always aim where you want to when you are on the ground and in control. As such, the rule states no hitting in the back of the head. The distance of punches is very small on the ground, which is why almost all back of the heat shots are on the ground, as your punches come so quickly that when you aim for a part of their head, that's what you hit. You can pick and choose where you hit on the ground.
> 
> When the fight is standing, you have NO control whatsoever on your opponent, as well as being so far away that by the time your strike reaches where you want it to go, he has moved his head in whichever way he wanted, and you take a chance of clipping him in the back of the head.
> 
> ...


You are right that, yes, you do have some control of the opponents on the ground. But standing, to some extent you can have control via clinch. If you clinch with someone, you might as well throw a looping hook that will hit the person in the back of the head even if they use their arm to block the side of their head.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

Slug said:


> You are right that, yes, you do have some control of the opponents on the ground. But standing, to some extent you can have control via clinch. If you clinch with someone, you might as well throw a looping hook that will hit the person in the back of the head even if they use their arm to block the side of their head.


Well, in the clinch you have some control, that's a whole different story than "standing", as you're not exchanging strikes, you're close enough to each other to hit where you want to hit. As far as that being a strategy, you couldn't do it too well, as as soon as you do it it'll be seen. It would be very obvious, as your opponent is facing you, so hitting them in the back of the head means you would have to go out of your want to aim for the back of the head.


----------



## Brainshank (Nov 25, 2008)

Diokhan said:


> To be fair Lesnar was just about to get armbarred when Mazzagati stood them up. It infact hurt Mir more than Lesnar like Mir said on the ufc 100 countdown.


I have to disagree. Yeah, Mir says he was about to throw some slick armbar, but all he was really gonna throw was a blanket over himself to go to sleep. I've rewatched that fight several times. All Mir was doing was flailing around and getting donkey konged. Mazz gifted that stoppage, and Brock put the bow on it with an amateur mistake. I hate to argue in Brock's favor on anything, but thats the way I see it. 

Main point, though, is that Mazz stood it up and took a point where he would have issued a warning in any other fight; and with the trend I've been seeing lately it might well have been ignored and stopped and called a TKO.


----------



## Brainshank (Nov 25, 2008)

Michael Carson said:


> Jones vs. Bonnar is the perfect example. He uses that nice spinning elbow to hit Bonnar, but it ended up hitting him in the back of the head. It wasn't illegal as it was in motion, you cannot tell where that hit was going to go, it's impossible to know.


It was technically illegal, but it wasn't intentional and they were not in a position where it was likely to happen again. I think those are the defining factors; intent and likelihood of recurrence. As I said earlier, what I don't understand is the recent trend to overlook it in a final flurry that leads to a TKO.


----------



## ufcrules (Jan 11, 2007)

VERY tough to referee. Possibly the toughest. Especially when guys are trying to finish. It can be a wild flurry and frankly, hard to see until you have the luxury of slow-mo replay which the refs never have. Generally, I think UFC refs do a great job.


----------



## steveo412 (Sep 27, 2006)

I thought maybe the new instant replay rule might come into effect in the Belfort Franklin fight. Like Franklin might have been out before he hit the ground but Belfort landed 2-3 strikes right in the back of his head before the round was over which was definetly illegal and could have been avoided.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

They should stop the fight for illegal blows more often you shouldn't let someone take advantage of cheating to finish a fight just because they only cheated once or twice. I see fights all the time where in GNP guys are reigning down illegal blows in a wild flurry and the fight gets awarded to them when it clearly impacted the finish.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Sicilian_Esq said:


> The back of the head is just that strip that extands from the spine... it's really not that big an area.
> 
> Unless you have the Ham Hands of Lesnar...


Actually this is no longer the case. The association of boxing commissions clarified the back of the head as strip you refer to with a band that extends the width of the base of the skull to both ears.


----------



## taz1458 (Aug 16, 2009)

It is interesting...I've seen the back of the head dela quite a bit lately.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

I don't agree with it as a rule.


----------



## Breadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm pretty sure I most recently heard that if a glove is touching the ear, it's a legal punch. 


essentially the "back of the head" consists of Chuck's Mohawk from the base up to the top of his head.


----------



## Soakked (Feb 5, 2007)

khoveraki said:


> Eh... it's more manly to let them just hit you in the face? It's a natural response to tuck your head in like that, the fact that it's illegal is just a bonus.


Who said anything about manlyness? It's might be a natural response to tuck your head, but it's also a natural response to hit an opponent anywhere that would finish him. Now one is illegal and one is not, which is fine as it should be. But my beef about it is that it looks like it's being used as a defensive tactic, or loop hole to exploit. To me it's not real fighting because in a street fight you would not willingly give the back of your head to someone. I know I know this is a sport and not a street fight, but I still feel like it's taking advantage of a rule in place that's suppost to protect a fighter, not allow him another defensive option.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Breadfan said:


> I'm pretty sure I most recently heard that if a glove is touching the ear, it's a legal punch.
> 
> 
> essentially the "back of the head" consists of Chuck's Mohawk from the base up to the top of his head.


That used to be the model. Now it would be a mohawk with a triagle wedge that goes from ear to ear in the back and comes down to cover the entire base of the skull. You can see it here http://mmajunkie.com/files/NewOrleansABCMMARulesReport.pdf on page 10.


----------



## Breadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

I wish that said Nevada instead of New Orleans.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Breadfan said:


> I wish that said Nevada instead of New Orleans.


That's from the Association of Boxing Commissions' annual convention in NOLA. That is a rule that has been passed by the ABC and is now in the unified rules (all states' commissions).


----------



## Breadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

mma_official said:


> That's from the Association of Boxing Commissions' annual convention in NOLA. That is a rule that has been passed by the ABC and is now in the unified rules (all states' commissions).



Right. Well I looked up the Unified rules, which include the same info as your post (source http://mmajunkie.com/news/15729/abc...ine-clears-up-back-of-the-head-definition.mma )

and in it says


> "Basically, if a punch touches the ear, it should be OK."


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

I am tired of back of the head shots being allowed to finish a fighter after he gets dropped with a legit shot. e.g. rich vs. vitor, Sodollah vs. Hendricks...

If a fighter is basically done, and his opponent bombs him in the back of the head, the fighter who got his should get 5 min to recover. It doesn't matter to me one bit if the fight was almost over, because the back of the head rule is to promote fighter safety. If the refs started taking points away and handing out DQ's/NC's for fighters finishing their opponents with GnP to the back of the head, fighters would definitely start taking notice and picking their shots more carefully.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

This is the back of the head, according to the July 30th 2009 commission ruling:










They do also say in the report that if a punch touches the ear, it should be ok, so it seems that part of a punch could land in the pictured zone and still be legal if it touches the ear.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Davisty69 said:


> I am tired of back of the head shots being allowed to finish a fighter after he gets dropped with a legit shot. e.g. rich vs. vitor, Sodollah vs. Hendricks...
> 
> If a fighter is basically done, and his opponent bombs him in the back of the head, the fighter who got his should get 5 min to recover. It doesn't matter to me one bit if the fight was almost over, because the back of the head rule is to promote fighter safety. If the refs started taking points away and handing out DQ's/NC's for fighters finishing their opponents with GnP to the back of the head, fighters would definitely start taking notice and picking their shots more carefully.


Man people freak out when you take a point for headshots. It's almost as though people have no concept of how vulnerable the brain stem is. Think of an orange sitting on a toothpick! Not that I care what anyone in the crowd thinks, but its just a shame that more people don't realize how important this rule is. 

That's like eye gouges. I've had people threaten to kill me because I disqualified someone for trying to intentionally gouge someone's eyes out with their fingernails. I'm not talking a casual glancing blow, I'm talking about nail marks and blood on the guys eyelids! Fans can be really stupid some times!


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

HexRei said:


> This is the back of the head, according to the July 30th 2009 commission ruling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right. Essentially you're trying to prevent the _focus_ of the blow from being placed inside the lines. The hand can make contact, as long as the energy is being directed to the side rather than to the vulnerable occipital ridge.


----------



## ZaoSyn (Aug 22, 2007)

I have a question about being punched in the back of the head. What's so special about it? I've been punched in the back of the head and got knocked down, I felt dizzy but I don't know why. What makes the back of the head so more sensitive than the side of the head or the jaw? Just really curious because I was boxing with a friend of mine and I turned into it and BOOM I went down. Since then I've always thought I was really easy to get knockedout/knocked down. is that the case? Or will anyone go down with a nice shot to the back of the head? If so why :3


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

ZaoSyn said:


> I have a question about being punched in the back of the head. What's so special about it? I've been punched in the back of the head and got knocked down, I felt dizzy but I don't know why. What makes the back of the head so more sensitive than the side of the head or the jaw? Just really curious because I was boxing with a friend of mine and I turned into it and BOOM I went down. Since then I've always thought I was really easy to get knockedout/knocked down. is that the case? Or will anyone go down with a nice shot to the back of the head? If so why :3


If you've ever seen a picture of the brain and how it is supported it makes sense. The back of the skull is thinner than the front. What really makes a blow to the base of the skull so bad is what it does to the brain. What causes concussion and brain injuries is the brain bouncing around inside the skull (and in some cases actually bouncing off of the wall of the skull). The brain stem is the thinnest part of the brain and it supports the brain as well connecting it to the spine. The analogy I like to use is an orange balancing on a toothpick, but you could also think of it like shaking the trunk of a young tree. A small blow at the bottom has an out-sized effect on what happens as a result at the top the tree.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Punches to the back of the head are referred to as rabbit punches as hunters would use a quick blow to the back of the head to kill rabbits. (Kidney punches are also known as rabbit punches). This is the area of your cervical vertebrae and is a vulnerable point to attack the spinal cord. This can lead to neurological damage, paralysis, or death.


----------



## Breadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

Davisty69 said:


> I am tired of back of the head shots being allowed to finish a fighter after he gets dropped with a legit shot. e.g. rich vs. vitor, Sodollah vs. Hendricks...
> 
> If a fighter is basically done, and his opponent bombs him in the back of the head, the fighter who got his should get 5 min to recover. It doesn't matter to me one bit if the fight was almost over, because the back of the head rule is to promote fighter safety. If the refs started taking points away and handing out DQ's/NC's for fighters finishing their opponents with GnP to the back of the head, fighters would definitely start taking notice and picking their shots more carefully.


^So true!

It's so easy to get excited and throw punches like crazy when your opponent is covering up, but you shouldn't be able to finish a fight with an illegal (or several illegal) blow.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Breadfan said:


> ^So true!
> 
> It's so easy to get excited and throw punches like crazy when your opponent is covering up, but you shouldn't be able to finish a fight with an illegal (or several illegal) blow.


vitor wasnt meaning to hit rich in the back of head, rich turtled and rolled his head around. i doubt vitor could have thrown strikes to the head without hitting the back of the head at least once in that context.

and imho it would have been more dangerous for the ref to halt the action and let rich recover after those blows, and take more punishment. he couldnt even remember being dropped. and having the fight called a DQ or NC would have ruined the whole PPV- he was in stoppage territory as soon as he dropped so vitor deserved the win. just my opinion.


----------



## Breadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

HexRei said:


> vitor wasnt meaning to hit rich in the back of head, rich turtled and rolled his head around. i doubt vitor could have thrown strikes to the head without hitting the back of the head at least once in that context.
> 
> and imho it would have been more dangerous for the ref to halt the action and let rich recover after those blows, and take more punishment. he couldnt even remember being dropped. and having the fight called a DQ or NC would have ruined the whole PPV- he was in stoppage territory as soon as he dropped so vitor deserved the win. just my opinion.


I can respect that, but I don't think Rich was OUT until a few bonks to the back of the noggin. He went limp after a few of those, and I'm willing to bet (even though I can't prove it) that those blows knocked his memory of the fight right out of his brain.

Vitor obviously fought a better fight. I just think SOMEONE needs to be made an example of one of these times. Vitor throws BOMBS... i don't want him to kill any of my favorite fighters.


War Vitor though!!


----------



## Freiermuth (Nov 19, 2006)

Breadfan said:


> Vitor obviously fought a better fight. I just think SOMEONE needs to be made an example of one of these times. Vitor throws BOMBS... i don't want him to kill any of my favorite fighters.


Haha nice, hopefully it won't take something like that for the UFC to get tough on the subject.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Terror Kovenant said:


> Yeah, theres one that grazes him but pushes him over. Rich turning into them? No way, Vitor was on his back and the punches were almost straight down. Everytime I watch it I see 3 illegal shots.


Rich did turn his head into Vitor's direction. Perhaps not intentional, but it happened. Anyway by the Unified Rules I see only one clearly illegal shot in that video and it was at the very end when the fight was already over.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Breadfan said:


> Vitor obviously fought a better fight. *I just think SOMEONE needs to be made an example of one of these times.* Vitor throws BOMBS... i don't want him to kill any of my favorite fighters.


This is exactly my point. These illegal blows keep being allowed because everyone argues that the fighter is practically finished, and that the back of the head is the only spot he could have hit. That is going to go right out the window as soon as a fighter drops a guy, lands 3-4 shots right to back of the head to finish it, and the guy gets permanent damage or dies. This needs to get nipped in the bud soon.

We'll have to agree to disagree on how many shots were to the back of the head. I see more than one and one is really too many. Plus, like I said, it wasn't like Rich was flipping all over. He was exposed, leaving a perfect target for a trained fighter like Vitor to strike the temple or some other legal spot. It seems especially worse IMO, when the shots land to the base of the neck.


----------



## name goes here (Aug 15, 2007)

Perhaps a pay dock.


----------

