Knees to the Head of a Downed Opponent Not Likely to Be Legalized

by Luke Thomas on Dec 1, 2008 11:30 AM EST in News Comment 18 comments

58265_medium

Lembo, a former wrestler, said there wasn’t much support to allow knees to the head of a grounded opponent, a staple of the Pride Fighting Championships. He said the technique generates too much force, has too much potential to inflict serious damage and could produce ugly scenes that would boost the stigma of brutality that MMA has battled since day one.

"Hardcore fans want knees to head on the ground, and I can tell you it’s not going to happen," Lembo said. "One of main reasons it’s not going to happen is because the industry itself doesn’t want it. It’s not only the doctors who are concerned about it."

Pat Miletich agrees. The UFC’s first welterweight champion, who returns to fighting on Dec. 13 for Adrenaline MMA, was one of several fighters to lend his thoughts to the ABC.

"I don’t see a need for knees to the head on the ground," Miletich said. "That’s something that has potential for some serious fractures. Being concerned for athletes’ overall longevity and health, I don’t think that’s something that’s needed."

I tend to think there's more play here with the rule than officials are letting on. I do believe knees to the head of a prostrate opponent can be damaging past the tipping point, but I don't feel that way about an opponent who is simply down by three points of contact. In other words, the knees Kevin Randleman drove into the head of Kenichi Yamamoto are far less troublesome than a knee to the head of a fighter who gets a double leg shot stuffed and is stalling. It might be too difficult to clearly enforce a rule where a fighter can knee the head of a downed opponent with three points as opposed to four points of contact, but it's worth admitting not all knees to the head of a downed opponent are created equal.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree, BUT...........

I agree that knees on the ground have the potential to cause serious injury(see Sakuraba). But, it would prevent turtling and the positions on the ground where fighters KNOW that cant really be damaged by turtling and covering up. There, you cant be hit in the back of the head AND you cant be struck with a knee…SO FOR a wrestler, or any fighter, it is advantageous to turtle up.

Although I would LOVE to see them, knees to the ground will NEVER be implemented because they’ll eventually cause someone to be SERIOUSLY injured. IMO. Although, it would really show who the better fighter is, and prevent time to recover

by fightfan on Dec 1, 2008 11:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

You can still be drilled in the ribs when you’re turtled up. I think you’re agreeing with me where fighters are locked up facing each other, one is down and the other is not but the one who is not can’t knee him in the head. In that instance, I can see a case for knees.

by Luke Thomas on Dec 1, 2008 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree,

if a fighter is shooting in and does not have all four points on the ground, they should be fair game to knees to the head.

by dnevil001 on Dec 1, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, also..........

I wish more fighters would use this when they face “turltled” opponents, a la Herring about anytime he is on the ground….Brock used a couple against Heath. GSP used them to end the Serra fight. I really wish more fighters would use knees to the body. When you cant knee them in the head…a relentless barage of knees to the body/ribs would be quite effective. I would really like to see it. You know repeated knees to the body/ribs, thrown with bad intentions would end a fight

by fightfan on Dec 1, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you have a valid point that there is a difference depending on the points of contact, but the problem arises when officials are asked to draw a line somewhere. Amending the rule to allow knees if there are three points of contact could arguably produce a level of uncertainty that would still lead to injuries. That ability for a referee to stop the action in the time it takes for a fighter to go from three points to four points is fairly quick. The well-being of the fighters is what these commission are looking out for and I think the current rule serves that purpose.

by dropkick101 on Dec 1, 2008 11:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fighters should be protected.

I want to see fighters tp have reasonably long careers and a healthy enjoyable lives after their careers are over. There is definitely instances when knees to the dome of a grounded opponent would be effective and “safe”(the end of round one between Vera and Jardine comes to mind) but more instances when it is not. In the case of the turtles the ref is there to stand them up and as Luke pointed out being kneed in the ribs sucks. I think it is more important to protect these fighters from serious long term injuries than to figure out the right rule interpretation.

"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"

by Warhand on Dec 1, 2008 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As an aside...

I just watched the Randleman/Yamamoto fight again yesterday (on my trip back through all the PRIDE shows) and those were some pretty sick looking knees…but as you said, they are nowhere near as potentially damaging as the knees to the top of a fighter’s head while he is downward on all four.

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 1, 2008 12:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's part of the mainstreaming of the sport

We don’t get to see 200-400 lb weight differences anymore, and we don’t get to see knees/soccer kicks to the head.

Sorry.

by subo on Dec 1, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I always sort of felt that one big knee to the head, which could end a fight, was better than, say, allowing a fighter to take upwards of 20 punches to the face while mounted, forcing a referee stoppage. I have no medical evidence to back this up, it just seems like a quick KO is better than sustained bludgeoning to the head.

by Brett Jones on Dec 1, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I am probably wrong but....

I think that the issue is spinal damage when it comes to knees to the head of a downed opponent. Being repeatedly punched in the head while mounted will cause cuts and a cuncussion but it doesn’t effect spinal allignment.

"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"

by Warhand on Dec 1, 2008 1:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s a good point I hadn’t even considered. Although, I think we are learning just how serious concussions can be. As serious as potential paralysis? I’m not sure I’d go that far, but in some cases it’s probably not far behind.

by Brett Jones on Dec 1, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Concussions usually only become a problem when they happen repeatedly. Post concussion syndrome is seen predominately in pro wrestling and football, sports where athletes receive tremendous force to their head and/or neck on a regular basis. Bret Hart and Chris Nowinski from the WWE come to mind, as well as Ted Johnson from the Patriots.

At first glance it may seem as though MMA falls into that category but the difference is that most MMA fighters only fight 3-5 times a year. After fights, combat athletes are looked at by a physician and if they are deemed to have received a concussion they are required to take a certain amount of time off. I don’t know the specifics but I do know that health regulations on fighters are much more stringent than those seen in the NFL and especially pro wrestling, which is basically self-regulated.

by dropkick101 on Dec 1, 2008 3:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Major Rule Changes

I don’t think we will see any changes like these until MMA is legalized in most if not every state in America. Currently MMA is fighting an uphill battle against uninformed men and women of power in trying to be able to put on shows. These people view the current state of the sport as barbaric and primitive so there is no way something like knees to the head will even be considered to be passed until MMA is more broadly accepted.

by Pete Smart on Dec 1, 2008 4:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is all Gan McGee’s fault.

by ilostmydog on Dec 1, 2008 7:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I’m a staunch supporter of knees to the head on the ground.

We had almost 10 years of Pride allowing knees to the head (mostly), and various other organizations have implemented the rule from time-to-time. I certainly don’t know for sure, but I don’t recall any serious neck/spinal injuries as a result. If there have been, it’s certainly still less risky than, say, playing professional football week-to-week.

by Mike Fagan on Dec 1, 2008 8:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

THINK LONG TERM PEOPLE

we are not talking about neck/spinal injuries or even making fights more exciting. i will use the example of muhammad ali, repeated blows to the head cause damage later on in life, and those are just punches. having the ability to knee the head of a downed opponent will produce a whole bunch of muhammad alis. these fighters do this sport because its the only thing they know or like to do, so to manipulate the manner in which they fight to cause more damage will reduce the amount of time a fighter has to fight. i for one, am against the knees to a downed opponent. MMA is exciting enough, do we really need to keep making changes to keep up with the sick imaginations of fans? Rome anyone?

by georgehouse on Dec 2, 2008 12:14 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I agree with a few of your points…but the “keep up with the sick imaginations of fans” thing makes no sense. this isn’t a “new idea” by any means nor is it about the sick imaginations of the fans. The point of knees to the head on the ground is to punish positional mistakes.

I’m not in favor of the rule being put in place here in the states…but still…I think your points are a bit off.

Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Dec 2, 2008 12:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There was a pretty awesome video posted here a long while ago of great knees on the ground. A discussion about whether or not knees to the head ensued, and the point that I made that seemed to get a little support was that knees to the head of a turtled opponent were troubling because the ref had just about no way of knowing if the fighter was conscious or not.

There were several clips of knees to the head at the edge of the ring where the cameraman outside the ring could see that the fighter was clearly out of it, but the ref in the middle of the ring just couldn’t get a clear view. While I see a lot of good points about allowing knees to the head, there doesn’t appear to be a way for the refs to protect the safety of the fighters in that kind of scenario. And really, that’s got to be the first priority.

Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones

by jemaleddin on Dec 2, 2008 10:12 AM EST reply actions 1 recs