Are Elbows Bad for MMA?
by nk on Jan 1, 2009 10:18 PM EST
Email
PrintI have recently read a couple of posts saying how elbows to the head of a grounded opponent should be banned. The first argument I always hear is "All too often fights are ended because of cuts." That got me to thinking of when the last fight I can remember ended by cut. So I looked it up. In the TUF era only four UFC fights have ended by cut:
- Rich Franklin vs Evan Tanner at UFC 53.
- Joe Stevenson vs Yves Edwards at UFC 61.
- Alan Belcher vs Kalib Starnes at UFC 77.
- Thiago Alves vs Chris Lytle at UFC 78.
The second most popular argument I hear is "Elbows negate submissions from the bottom." I don't know about any of you but I see a lot of submissions from the bottom. Also, just because one style/technique makes it difficult for another does not mean you outlaw it.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
53 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You take away elbows...
Kenny Florian’s career is pretty much done because they are one of his biggest assets.
Myth.
What fights has Florian won with elbows? He uses them, as does every top fighter, but that’s not how he wins.
Great standup, amazing jiu jitsu, good TDs, and great strategy are how Florian wins.
What fights has Florian won with elbows?
Joe Lauzon.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Not myth...
Its one of his skills that he uses to WEAR DOWN his opponents. I didn’t say he has won all his fights by using his elbows alone… but he does use them quite a bit when his opponents take him to the ground.
by Gunslinger20 on Jan 3, 2009 12:00 AM EST up reply actions
If doing away with elbows...
Is going to end anybody’s career, it’s going to be Mr. Ortiz’s.
If you take away elbows
then you’re basically declaring that bottom position in guard is dominant. Personally, I can’t think of a simpler, more efficient way to make every single fight more boring.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Personally, I can’t think of a simpler, more efficient way to make every single fight more boring.
I agree.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 1, 2009 11:53 PM EST up reply actions
They don't need to be taken out
But you need to have knees to a downed opponent added. Elbows to a downed opponent allow Lay’n’pray artists a way to “stay busy”
Knees to the head
would allow for so many more weapons, both for the guy who takes the shot and the guy defending it.
It seems so unnatural to me that they’ve been removed. Removing Elbows would have a similarly unnatural effect on fights, and while I’m sure the sport would survive, it would make for a far less exciting product.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Even though I rebel at the thought of elbows going by the wayside,
it’s a good point for debate. Good post, nk.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
I wouldn't mind seeing them go..
only for the sake of sanctioning. If only four fights have been stopped due to elbows, many more cuts due to elbows have been the cause for the majority of bloodshed in the ring. If you eliminate some of the gruesome, yet semi-harmless, cuts from elbows there’s less footage to display the “brutality” of the sport to statutory decision makers.
I hope they remain and, at a minimum, standing elbows should always be allowed.
^^This points out an important distinction which has been horribly blurred.
Lacerations on the scalp or face are really not that dangerous to a fighter, either short- or long-term. Repeated impacts to the skull from all sorts of angles with four ounce gloves, on the other hand, are very dangerous and capable of causing long-term damage.
I’m interested why none of the sanctioning bodies (or even the UFC) has never actively defended the blood stoppages as being a point in favor of fighter safety. People can be taught about these things, it’s not like the PR campaign would be impossible.
(this was a reply simply because SizeDoesMatter touched on the ‘brutality’ issue of bloody images, which are generally leveraged by opponents of MMA into arguments suggesting that MMA fighters are not protected…because they lost 50-100mL’s of blood? It just seems silly to me)
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
by misterjonez on Jan 2, 2009 4:34 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
100000% correct
A stoppage on cuts isn’t brutal…it’s safe and kind. It shows that the sport isn’t about bloodlust…if it were stopping a cut would be kind of against the point.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 2, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
oh...and rec'd
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 2, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
As of note, only 4 fights have been stopped due TO CUT. In my research I did not find how many were cuts due to elbows.
by nk on Jan 2, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions
If they get rid of them...
…this site will have to shut down.
by mythbuster on Jan 2, 2009 10:05 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
8 - O
NOOOOO!
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Jan 2, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Great point.
We should probably just shut off comments on this thread now because I think you’ve ended the debate.
Bolts from the Blue // "It is what it is." - A.J. Smith
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
Great thread
From the headline I thought you were going to argue ageainst elbows but I agree 100% with your points as well as those of several commenters including misterjonez who made the point that it would give the bottom position dominance.
"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy
I don’t like elbows on the ground, but elbow standing are fine with me. In the big picture I don;t think it is that much of an issue, so I don’t feel strongly either way.
Eliot Marshall: Bader won. Like I said in the episode, I'm not going to make any excuses. It's my job to be able to deal with when somebody's doing that. It's not his job to change up his tactics.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
I don’t like elbows on the ground, but elbow standing are fine with me
Says the jiu jitsu guy ;)
by mythbuster on Jan 2, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Eliminating these kinds of elbows, and allowing the knees, would make for more exciting fights. Not because elbows finish fights, as you’ve pointed out, but because elbows don’t finish fights. Knees would definitely end fights.
This whole arguement is mute because the commisions would never allow for the change.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
I hate the “elbow’s don’t finish fights” argument.
When was the last time an omoplata finished a fight?
Being able to finish fights doesn’t make something not necessary to the sport.
Couldn’t agree more. On top of that, mma-dude’s comment is a little funny given its timing: the beginning of the end for Forrest in the Rashad fight came from an elbow. So…yeah. Guess they do finish fights.
by Rundownloser on Jan 2, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions
How about the 'elbow'
Lesnar caught Couture with? Without that particular strike happening when it did, I’d wager that fight would have lasted quite a bit longer.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZiWDoFLnYg
owned
also Gil Castillo did one in IFC and i’ve seen someone do a rolling one that I could no longer find
Gimme 1 Round!
actually I think the rolling oma was Gil Castillo but the video isn’t around anymore that I can find.
Gimme 1 Round!
Here we go :D
Nino Schembri from ADCC 99 I beleive I know he did one there I think this is it
Gimme 1 Round!
I think i've proved
The omaplata is the single most devastating and foolproof submission in all grappling
Gimme 1 Round!
by skwirrl on Jan 3, 2009 4:39 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good job.
There are also elbows that end fights.
We’ve established that they’re rare, that doesn’t mean they should be removed from the rules.
the point is...
What would you rather watch? Omoplata attempts or elbows from the guard?
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
What point does that establish?
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 3, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions
no
the point is that both are part of the game.
There is no reason to choose. The only reason I brought up omoplatas is because of your stupid statement that elbows don’t finish fights.
Constantly finishing fights is not a requirement for being legal. Elbows, like the omoplata, are an important part of fighting, just because they don’t finish fights as often as other moves, that doesn’t mean they should be made illegal.
Don't you guys pay attention to the threads or are you just being argumentative?
Allow me to briefly summarize:
Eliminating elbows on the ground would eliminate the lay n pray technique which is very boring and encouraged by the rules. This would help to make more exciting fights. This is my point.
And then some dumb ass said something about eliminating omoplatas — but why the hell would you want to eliminate such an exciting technique that has proven time and time again that it can either cause submissions or immediately lead to a submission.
Now you guys should be caught up.
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
If you eliminate elbows from the ground it does not follow that lay and pray would also be eliminated. That ‘technique’ is also used with hammer fists. And, I would venture to assume lay and pray is used with hammer fists more often than elbows.
You talk of this lay and pray as if the person on the bottom is not as culpable in the situation you find so offensive. They are being layed on and prayed on and if they cannot handle that; if they cannot scramble, attempt a submission, or use elbows themselves: tough luck. What rules would you change so that the person in the guard cannot break down the posture of the person on top and hold them there until the ref stands them up?
Additionally, as for your omoplatas, they do not ‘time and time again’ cause submissions. We realize you think they are sexy; however, they ‘time and time again’ only lead to sweeps and ‘time and time again’ transition to a different submission.
Futhermore, just because you do not find elbows to be ‘exciting’ that does not mitigate an elbow’s effectiveness when one cannot posture up and extend one’s arm fully for a punch. Any attempt to change the rules so the fight is more exiting is an attempt one should be wary of.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 5, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
My point appears to have gone over your head completely.
You said that elbows don’t finish fights. I said that’s an irrelevant argument because not all moves finish fights, I used the omoplata as an example.
why the hell would you eliminate such an exciting technique as elbows, that has proven time and again that it can either cause a TKO or immediately lead to a TKO. Does that argument make any more sense than yours?
My entire point is that “elbows don’t finish fights” has no relevance to the discussion of their legality. You’re going to have to ban lots of things if they need to have a high percentage of finishing fights to be legal.
Here's the thing...
Here’s the thing, elbows to the back of the head shouldn’t be allowed, but what are elbows to the back of the head? That’s the most important question. I remember vaguely Lauzon having gashes on the back of his head, and it was explained later that if you put headphones onto a person’s head, behind the band that goes over the top of your head would be considered illegal.
Okay, so what’s the story with Lauzon vs. Florian. Obviously he had two enormous gashes in the back of his head. I’m sure they warned him, but at what point do downward strikes while on your back to someone’s head potentially injury someone horrifically? It’s going to happen.
Elbows anywhere else, I’m down with. Elbows in top control to the face, fine. I only have problems with the downward strike while on your back, or anywhere for that matter, that is borderline top/back of the head.
Editor-in-chief of MMA-Analyst.com
by Leland Roling on Jan 2, 2009 4:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
If I understand the rules correctly, downward strikes with an elbow are strikes which are at right angles to the mat. As such, they would be very hard to do from one’s back.
As for the back of the head, there are two opinions on that definition. Big John uses the “Mohawk” definition and ref’s like Herb Dean use the “Earphones” definition. I guess it is on the fighters and the ref before the fight to make sure they are on the same page as to what they can and cannot hit, as the rule by itself is not clear.
Did you know we are in high demand, Laura?
by Eugene Schelfaut on Jan 2, 2009 6:25 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
