The Ultimate Fighter 10 Finale Results: Jon Jones Disqualified Against Matt Hamill
by Kid Nate on Dec 5, 2009 11:18 PM EST
in MMA Events
Email
Print
Jon Jones used his incredible greco-roman skills to get Matt Hamill on his back and followed with a vicious barrage of ground and pound to stop the fight in the first round. Unfortunately Referee Steve Mazzagatti declared a disqualification for an illegal 12 to 6 elbow strike. Jones threw an elbow straight down into Hamill's face and the ref stopped the action to deduct a point but since Hamill was unable to continue and the fight was ruled a disqualification.
A collision of two highly skilled wrestlers, this was the fight that had the hardcore MMA fans the most pumped. Jones came out using a very unusual striking stance that capitalized on his very long reach. Hamill came out firing jabs and a spinning strike of his own. Hamill shot in for a single leg around the three minute mark but Jones evaded the take down attempt. Then Jones dropped Hamill with a beautiful trip around 2:30 and quickly took mounted position. Jones rained down elbows and punches from the top position.
Announcer Joe Rogan pointed out the ridiculous reasoning behind the downward elbow strike being banned when the unified rules of mma were adopted -- a member of the original athletic commission had seen a demonstration of a martial artist breaking an ice block with a downward elbow and insisted on banning the move. Once again the poorly thought out rules set adopted from boxing has come back to bite MMA fans and fighters.
[UPDATE] via MMAJunkie:
Nevada State Athletic Director Keith Kizer just informed MMAjunkie.com that the disqualification result was the first-ever use of instant replay in the commission’s history. After halting the bout, Mazzagatti asked for the replay to determine whether the illegal blows contributed to the ending of the fight. When replays showed that the elbows scored directly to the eye, the disqualification result was issued. Because the illegal blows landed as part of the sequence that ended the fight, the ruling was made.
230 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Huge Jones Fan
went to Syracuse, and have met both his brothers, but he needs to clean up his technique. A good counter striker would tear him up…. well Lyoto would… for now.
There is that
I’m a enthusiastic Jon Jones fan, but no way is he ready for Shogun, Machida, Rampage, or Evans yet.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
Hot Tub screws up again
Why the hell was that fight allowed to cointinue that long? And before someone says ,“Well, Hammill was defending himself,” how, exactly, was he defending himself – holding the sides of his head? That match had been over for at least 10 seconds before Jones got frustrated and went 12-to-6.
Hot Tub, I swear. How is he still an official?
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
by duck on Dec 5, 2009 11:23 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
because Hammill was not close to going out and he had no way of knowing that his shoulder was broken.
Getting mount does not end the fight.
by Phildo on Dec 6, 2009 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Getting mount and then throwing strikes that clearly indicate your opponent’s inability to intelligent defend himself usually does, though.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Hammil was still moving.
I hate the “intelligent defense” crap. TKO’s should be used to stop people from going to sleep, Hammill was not even close to that point before the elbow.
Hammil was still moving.
Rashad was still twitching after Machida KO’d him
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
by ufc4 on Dec 6, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
but he was KO’d. Hammil was not.
Was Jones dominating? yes
Was it going to knock him out? It’s very likely.
Did he do it yet? no.
Does a guy need to be knocked out for a fight to be stopped? no.
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
no, he needs to be close to being knocked out, which he wasn’t.
He was on the way to being knocked out, not close.
Was Kimbo close to being knocked out against Nelson? No, he was laying there, helpless, getting hit, and mounting no offense. Sounds a helluva lot like what happened here, except Hamill was taking big damage while Kimbo wasn’t
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
And I think this was a bad non-stoppage.
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
I just rewatched it on DVR
he was defending, and grabbing Jones arms, up until the end. At no point was he not defending.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
while that
might be true, the ones that where getting through were devestating, Hammil was getting messed up long before the 12-6 elbows. I think it could be argued either way, but I have my doubts that after the first couple of shots that Matt was defending intelligently, turtling doesn’t denote intelligent defence, more like, oh crap I’m getting rained on.
Rewatch it
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
unfortunetly I can't
I don’t have a dvr, but even without rewatching it, Matt was taking some hard shots, like I said, you could argue that one either way, stop it too early, or after the 12-6 blows.
was Vera close to being knocked out by Werdum?
who reffed that fight? was it Yves?
by OZON3 on Dec 6, 2009 2:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
bad stoppage
and the ref was margelotta (sp?) actually it was shortly after the kimbo fight
I hate the "intelligent defense" crap.
And I think it’s one of the sport’s saving graces. I probably wouldn’t watch MMA without it.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
i don’t want everyone to go unconscious to lose the fight, but asking for this to be stopped is going to far.
Hamill hadn’t lost yet, I’m glad it wasn’t stopped.
But how do you determine when a person is appropriately close to going out, without using an intelligent defense criterion? (Setting aside the issue of whether this particular fight should have been stopped earlier on those grounds.)
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
Re-watch it
He was defending himself.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
The criterion is intelligent defense. There’s the rub.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:03 AM EST up reply actions
He was. He was alternating between covering up and grabbing Jones arms. The same as most people do when defending GnP from the mount.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
The difference, for me, is that he was doing no more than grabbing arms and covering up for such a sustained period. No attempts to break posture or get half guard or even roll.
After a while, covering up just good enough anymore.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:07 AM EST up reply actions
20/20 hindsight
A lot of people do exactly that same thing, then power out of it suddenly. If he stopped it earlier, and Matt wasn’t hurt, the calls for his head would be deafening.
Mazz was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Matt
wasn’t exactly doing good before the 12-6 elbows either. When Jones started dropping the elbows, Matt was in a world of hurt. yes the 12-6 elbows ultimately finished it, but even before that you could argue that Matt was more reacting to the blows then intelligently defending. I hope they at least have a rematch to settle any argument that ensues.
Just a note
You’re last part of the statement is so true, with the microscope that refs are put under these days, what where his choices? Stop “early” and get chastised by everyone, or DQ “Bones” and have the conversation we are now. Sometimes you just can’t win.
Mazz was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think referees should take the potential objections of internet fans into account in their officiating.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed 100%
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
In that case, you should be able to see how my position on the stoppage/lack thereof is not an instance of “20/20 hindsight.”
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
I think the questioning of it is 20/20 hindsight. The refs do their job the best they can, in real time. It’s easy to look back, knowing that Hamill was hurt, and say that he should have stopped it earlier. But watching the fight again, its also easy to see that Hamill was defending himself and didn’t look to be hurt.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Except my position on the stoppage has nothing to do with knowing Hammill was hurt in hindsight and everything to do with my opinion that he wasn’t defending himself intelligently.
If Mazzagatti had stopped it before the illegal blows, and Hammill and gotten up and protested that he wasn’t hurt, I would still have called it a good stoppage.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions
BUT
He WAS defending himself intelligently. That’s the thing. Mazz had no way of knowing how badly hurt he really was, and he looked very much like every other fighter who gets mounted and is defending himself.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
This
he was face up and at no time did he try and turn to turtle up and quit. Hammill kept watching jones trying to block punches and if he lasted through that round (no idea if he would have) it was possable that jones would have been gasses, he has a history of it. Many guys weather the early storm and go on to win, or lose in a different manner
Disagree.
Fighters who are defending the mount intelligently—not just staving off the inevitable—make efforts to break posture, regain half guard, and/or roll.
Hammill was blocking and deflecting some shots, but he was doing nothing to stop the barrage of strikes itself.
And again, “how hurt he really was” is 100% irrelevant.
by JRN on Dec 7, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
when they are rocked to the point that they aren’t defending themselves and are in danger of being ko’d.
I think rocked needs to be part of the discussion.
But in a situation like this, where one guy is flat on his back, how can you tell whether he is or isn’t rocked? By his defensive behavior, right? Say, whether he’s… defending himself intelligently?
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:10 AM EST up reply actions
I give up, you can use intelligent defense.
Kimbo wasn’t intelligently defending the leg kicks, that fight should have been stopped. ROBBERY!!!!
I do think it was a bad decision, and the leg kicks have something to do with that.
But as it pertains to this discussion: leg kicks don’t cause brain trauma.
by JRN on Dec 6, 2009 2:19 AM EST up reply actions
Nah, KImbo won Rounds 2 & 3
but whomever gave him Round 1 was smokin’ sumthin’.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
I had 10-10, 10-8 Kimbo, and 10-10 (though I can see the argument that Alexander got the 10-9 in the third).
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 6, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
If it was stopped, we’d be hearing the non-stop bitching about how bad a ref Mazz is.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
That's because he IS a bad ref.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
by duck on Dec 6, 2009 8:09 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Thanks for making my point duck.
No matter what he does, people will complain that he did the wrong thing simply because they want to.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Yes, say it brother
I was screaming “just stop the damn fight”. Hamill was destroyed way before the DQ
The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering BROCKLESNAR; to the last I grapple with thee.
by judonerd on Dec 6, 2009 12:11 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
This was as good as a win for Bones...
Most impressive performance yet. He just fucking destroyed Matt Hamill. Screw a Hamill rematch, put Jones up against a top-10 guy.
Rich Franklin?
Luiz Cane?
Anton would be hospitalized.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Dec 6, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
I can live with both of those
As long as Anton was released soon after with a clean bill of health, I could go either way on Vera. :)
Hospitalized
Due to taking ridiculous bet for his homerism of Vera. If this fight happens I’m going to try to make a bet with him…
AWmusic - mp3 blog.
http://twitter.com/awmusicblog
Fucking ridiculous. First UF getting manhandled and now Jones “losing” a fight he controlled the whole time. How was that not a NC? Matt Hamill was never in a position to “win” the fight…
My Saturday and, to a lesser extent my weekend, has been ruined.
Well, according to the rules it was correct to call it a DQ, but it’s a stupid fucking rule (the 12-6 elbow) and it should have been stopped before that.
No, it was illegal strike and Hammill couldn’t continue because of it (well not really because of that) so he gets the W
Right, but am I wrong in thinking that unless the illegal strike caused the stoppage...
It’s suppose to be a NC? Not only did I think that is what the rules were, even if the initial ruling of a point deduction was given, and then Hammill decided he couldn’t continue it’d be probably be 9-9 for the only round?
This is just a really bad taste in the mouth end to a fight.
What I wonder is what about the elbow to the spine after the round ended by McSweeney against Schoonover? That shit and the fingers in the eyes while on the ground really make me dislike him.
Guillotine.
I get the update, but I still don't know that it's the right call...
He stopped the fight to give the point deduction to Jones, then Hamill said he couldn’t continue and with what I could make out of the post fight interview it was because his shoulder was broken and he couldn’t move it to defend himself.
Since the elbow had nothing to do with Hamill’s broken shoulder wouldn’t that make it a NC and not a DQ?
I’m not trying to be an asshole here, I’m just not following the stoppage and the DQ as it happened. If it was a stop due to cut I would have thought the ring docs would have had to be involved, and I definitely agree that should be a DQ, but if it was due to the broken shoulder I just don’t understand how that should be ruled a DQ.
by Jacob Hayes on Dec 6, 2009 12:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Right
The stoppage was due to the illegal elbows. After the stoppage Hammil couldn’t continue, therefore he wins.
That's about the only part of the fight Hot Tub got right.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
No
the fight was paused because ofthe elbow. then after the point was taken away, hamill said he couldnt continue. mazzagatti assumed it was from the elbow, but hamill later admitted it was because of the shoulder. therefore the commission needs to change the decision to a NC because the elbow did not cause hamill to say he couldnt continue – he said it was the shoulder
by mctapout on Dec 6, 2009 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
bullshit
don’t mean to sound like a dick, but bullshit.
Welcome to the Machida Error.
by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 6, 2009 1:46 AM EST up reply actions
I think you’re reading “the damage caused by the elbow stopped the fight” when he means “the referee stopped the fight to deduct a point because of the illegal elbows”.
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
Here’s the way I see it. Fight arguably could have been stopped before as a tko, arguably not. The elbows were illegal as hell, and I agree with the rule. Hamill couldn’t continue because of his shoulder…with him being deaf (and surely dazed) he probably didn’t know for sure if the fight was over, if it was a pt deduction, or what. But a DQ loss…I understand the call AT THE TIME, I was predicting it while Joe and Goldie were saying TKO. Knowing what we know now, I think it should be changed to a NC. I don’t see Jones trying for this, though.
Welcome to the Machida Error.
by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 6, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
It’s not bullshit. The ref did not know about the shoulder. He paused the fight because of the foul. that was when they decided to stop the fight.
Fight stopped because of foul, foul intentional, DQ, there’s no discussion, no debate. That’s the way it works.
Sorry, you're wrong.
Fight stopped by TKO due to injury that was an illegal blow that was not noticed at first until the replay. Like Johnson/Burns. Thats the rule. Knowing what we know now, that Hamill didn’t continue because of his shoulder…Mazz can’t be faulted in this case, he didn’t know. But this is definitely grounds for change to a NC.
Welcome to the Machida Error.
by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 6, 2009 2:11 AM EST up reply actions
There is no grounds to change anything. nevada can’t change anything after the fact. They couldn’t change Burns, they can’t change this (even though there is no reason to change this)
The fight was stopped because of a foul. No one has said that anyone officially declared it a TKO, they said Mazz asked to see the tape to confirm.
Yeah, forgot about Nevada’s changing the decision policy.
The fight was paused to deduct a point, it was stopped because Hamill said he couldn’t continue. He never said due to the illegal blow. When I can find a link to the official wording of the rule, I’ll show ya.
Welcome to the Machida Error.
by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 6, 2009 2:25 AM EST up reply actions
Even though the update at the top that I didn’t see from the damn commissioner supports your argument…shit. I’m still gonna find a link though, dammit.
Welcome to the Machida Error.
by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 6, 2009 2:39 AM EST up reply actions
fight was paused because of the elbow.
fight was stopped because hamill communicated that he could not continue. could not continue…. why couldnt he continue? because of his darn shoulder. im pretty sure matt is the only one who can answer that, and he did in the post fight interview
According to this thread on Sherdog, it is somewhat of a judgement call:
When a foul is charged, the referee in their discretion may deduct one or more points as a penalty. If a foul incapacitates a fighter, then the match may end in a disqualification if the foul was intentional, or a no contest if unintentional. If a foul causes a fighter to be unable to continue later in the bout, it ends with a technical decision win to the injured fighter if the injured fighter is ahead on points, otherwise it is a technical draw.
However the case can still be made that Jones threw the elbows intentionally, in which case he would, by rule, lose. Personally I think had he known the rule (the look on his face suggests he didn’t) he wouldn’t have thrown the strike, but then again ignorance of the law does not make you innocent. Oh well, it’s a learning lesson and nothing really changes except for his record.
He intentionally threw the elbows whether he knew about the rule or not. Personally I think he probably knew but that doesn’t really matter.
I have never thrown an elbow strike to a grounded opponent, but I assume most all elbow strikes are intentional seeing as how they are an unnatural movement. So yeah it was intentional in that sense. And like I said ignorance of the law doesn’t make you innocent. It’s just unfortunate that a prospect like Jones had to lose like that, I would hope they change the rules. If Hamill had been winning up to that point it would be one thing, but he we getting tooled.
simply put
those are the rules, and it’s a rule that has been around for something approaching 10 years. Silly or not, it’s there and as illegal as a kick to a downed opponent or a groin strike.
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Dec 5, 2009 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
regardless of the decision
everyone knows who won this fight and everyone knows that rule is bull to begin with. so personally i’m still pretty happy to be a jones fan tonight even with the ruling
it was an illegal blow
and not an obscure one. it’s widely known the 12-to-6 elbow is illegal. regardless of who was winning (it was jones, and definitively), i’m glad to see the rules enforced. hamill losing this fight due to the illegal blow would be just like anthony johnson losing due to the illegal eye poke that required surgery… it’s illegal, and you should NEVER lose due to an illegal blow.
and cole miller should have also won on TUF against joe lauzon due to an illegal blow.
i just find it a bit sad to think the only reason the decision went for hamill is because they already called a point against jones for the illegal blow, so it would have been hard to call it a NC or TKO for jones. too many fights get called in the opposite direction.
as for it being a “stupid rule”… well, it’s a rule, and it was clearly an illegal blow. i was a bit surprised the stomp to the body was legal. illegal blows are illegal, even if stupid.
by mma_critic on Dec 5, 2009 11:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
The stomp during the Schoonover fight? That was an axe kick (like GSP/Mayhem) & perfectly legal.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Dec 6, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
i’m still not clear on a legal stomp vs an obvious axe kick. but i think my general point is clear… fighters should NEVER win due to an illegal blow, and we’ve seen it happen way too often.
by mma_critic on Dec 6, 2009 12:36 AM EST up reply actions
Roughly, if you swing the leg around in an arc, it’s an axe kick. If you’re thrusting your heel into him linearly, that’s a stomp.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Dec 6, 2009 1:34 AM EST up reply actions
Funny thing is...
Mazzagatti was just on Inside MMA last night talking about replay in MMA.
Also, from Josh Gross:
Matt Hamill’s trainer Duff Holmes just told me the “Hammer” broke his left shoulder when Jones took him down.
This was my issue with the decision...
If he wasn’t able to continue due to the broken shoulder, how did the 12-6 elbow have anything to do with him to be unable to continue which would be the requirement to call for the DQ?
This will get reversed
to a NC. I’m pretty certain of that. The spirit of the rules like 12-6 elbows, blows to the back of the head, or attacks to the spinal column are meant to protect a fighter by way of preventing a fight from stoppage due to the illegal maneuver. If there is a blow to the back of the head that doesn’t cause fight-altering damage, it shouldn’t cause a DQ.
Jones has just about as strong of a case for a NC as I can remember. Doesn’t mean it’s automatic, but he should get this turned to a NC.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Dana White is going to explode.
Bolts from the Blue // "I have got to be the most boring GM in the league." - A.J. Smith
Bloody Elbow // "I win again. Engrish is my bitch." - Steven Zucconi
Pay the piper...
Jones was a clear favorite to win this fight…a lot of people made money tonight..decision could have gone either way…..
People can bitch and moan all they want but it was the right call. Both fighters will be back. Bones proved hes going to be at the top of the 205 heap in a very short time. Seems like that would be a rule fighters are very aware of. i did not know about it myself though and thought Steve was stopping the fight because of tko.
by mmatokyo on Dec 6, 2009 12:11 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
It looked like the DQ was the right call to me.
But in the end, it’s not a big deal for Jones. He lost by DQ and unquestionably advanced his career.
I think we can agree that the decision Is correct, the rule sucks balls, and regardless of the decision, jones was a wrecking ball.
The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering BROCKLESNAR; to the last I grapple with thee.
by judonerd on Dec 6, 2009 12:16 AM EST via mobile reply actions 14 recs
The area of contention should be
whether the fight should have been stopped prior to those strikes. I think it should, others think it shouldn’t. There’s a reasonable argument to be had for both sides.
But once Jon threw that 12-to-6 elbow and Hot Tub stopped the fight to assess the penalty and Hammill signaled he couldn’t continue, it had to be a DQ. I think we can all agree on that.
And Jon Jones ruled tonight. That, too.
"(Brock Lesnar) is never in good spirits and he's not in good spirits now." - Dana White
The thing about this I don’t get is that the illegal elbows had absolutely nothing to do with why Hamill couldn’t continue, so why was it a DQ?
so if someone gets kicked in the groin, they stop the fight, then he can’t continue because of a shoulder injury would it be a DQ?
I completely agree a u niles. I could understand if maz stopped the fight cuz of the elbows but he didn’t he stopped it to take a point away then Hamill was the one who stopped it by saying he couldn’t fight and the reason was his shoulder which had nothing to do w the illegal elbow
by xbuckeyex05 on Dec 6, 2009 12:41 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
blood in the eyes
were going to stop this, regardless of the elbow.
seriously, shoulder or not, the illegal blow(s) was a major factor in the stoppage, and that justifies at least an NC, but more realistically a DQ.
good stoppage, and finally a good determination of what caused the stoppage.
by mma_critic on Dec 6, 2009 12:39 AM EST up reply actions
the cut was on the bridge of the nose it wasn’t coming from above his eyes
by xbuckeyex05 on Dec 6, 2009 12:43 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
did you not see the blood in both eyes when hamill was down before the stoppage?
by mma_critic on Dec 6, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
here’s the question… did it get stopped because of the 99% before the illegal blow or the 1% from the illegal blow. if the former, then jones should have won, or at least a NC. if the latter, it should be at least a NC and most likely a DQ for jones.
nothing before the illegal blows made me think this should be stopped, since hamill was defending himself, with or without a shoulder injury. only the illegal blows and resulting blood in the eyes (due to cut from illegal blows) seemed to cause the stoppage.
by mma_critic on Dec 6, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions
ya I get that but that was bcuz he was on his back, once they wiped it he was fine
by xbuckeyex05 on Dec 6, 2009 12:54 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Random thought on the 12 to 6 elbows, what were Diego’s elbows from the bottom toward Guida considered? Does the fighter have to be on top and the elbow actually coming from the celing downwards?
is the 12-to-6 elbow stupid...
if the fighter is defending and is in no danger of being finished but is bleeding into the eye?
i have a feeling many people would call a BS stoppage due to a “minor” nose cut that bleeds into the eye, or similar shit that gets called to stop a fight due to an illegal cut (eg. fedor’s lone loss).
seriously, i’m only happy a fighter finally won after falling victim to an illegal blow, and i want to see it happen more often. too many fighters feel that they need to keep fighting to be “exciting” for the fans… and they lose. they should take a win or a NC and not risk getting cut by the UFC. too many fighters risk a loss to entertain fans while risking more serious injury, and that more serious injury happens more often than not.
nobody should win – directly or indirectly – from an illegal blow.
by mma_critic on Dec 6, 2009 12:45 AM EST reply actions
it would be different if hamill saidbhe couldn’t continue cuz of the cut but he didn’t he said he couldn’t go cuz of his shoulder. This would be like when Kongo kicked cc in the balls and the ref stopped it to take a point from kongo but cc says he can’t continue cuz he hurt his shoulder (not cuz of the low blow) there’s no way that’s a win for Kongo
by xbuckeyex05 on Dec 6, 2009 12:50 AM EST via mobile reply actions
except...
the equivalent scenario is a ref stopping to deduct a point for the low blow, cro cop not being able to continue, and then cro cop mentioning the shoulder after the stoppage. from a ref standpoint, it’s most likely due to the illegal strike.
however, i still suspect the blood in the eyes would stop this fight, since the next obvious question from a doc was, “can you see?” while the answer was no. as before, the stoppage is due – directly or indirectly – from the illegal blow… at least in most judging scenarios.
by mma_critic on Dec 6, 2009 12:55 AM EST reply actions
yea ur right. I guess the only question that could answer would be tovask hamill did uvsay u couldn’t continue cuz of the blood or the shoulder, I guess it is sensible that max automatically assumed it was bcuz of the bow
by xbuckeyex05 on Dec 6, 2009 1:07 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
hypothetically
If Tuchscherer hadn’t been able to continue, should the Gonzaga have taken the loss?
I think so.
Sucks to be Jones here, but I think this is the right result, and if this kind of ruling becomes the norm and not the exception, MMA will be a better, cleaner sport.
by some schmuck in texas on Dec 6, 2009 1:12 AM EST reply actions
Anyway
regardless of the historical reason for the 12-6 elbow rule, I think consistency demands it – if you can’t stomp a downed opponent, you shouldn’t be able to make a vertical elbow attack either. The issue, as mentioned upthread, is being able to put all your dropping weight into a blow against a guy with his head on the floor.
by some schmuck in texas on Dec 6, 2009 1:18 AM EST reply actions
People are forgetting that a deaf guy had blood in his eyes.
Dude had now way of knowing what the hell was going on.
How is that Kimbos fault?
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
?
is that sort of like the LESNAR come back? just wondering, because it makes little sense in this particular thread.
Just havin' fun
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Does it actually matter that Jones lost the fight? This isn’t game 7 of the ALCS, or even a NCAA basketball tournament game — something that unconditionally eliminates or advances you to the next round.
This is the fight industry, it’s the UFC, where it’s up to a judgment call from Joe Silva, Dana and the Fertitas as to whether or not Jones gets a title shot tomorrow or 2 years from now. Having this as an L on his resume, does not really matter. His performance is what is relevant to their decision making progress.
I still consider this a winning night in the career of Jon Jones.
So do Joe Silva and Dana White.
The only thing Jon Jones does better than Matt Hamill is hear.
(And smash faces)
If anyone thinks this is a career setback for Jones, they’re wrong. If anything, it’ll take the pressure of being undefeated off.
Hamill will probably be given an easy fight next to help his rep, something to give him another highlight KO.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Dec 6, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
I guess im in the camp which feel that elbows should be banned. they just seem too brutal for mainstream and cause waaay too many facial lacerations and nose breakages. Not to mention that short elbows really nullfies ground game transitions that make the ground so interesting like in pride and strikeforce.
While you’re at it:
- ban knees to the head
- ban takedowns because someone could land on an arm wrong and break it severely
- ban leg kicks because of what happened to Corey Hill
- ban all submissions except chokes because someone might get a broken bone or messed up joint
Hell we’re only a few steps away from kick boxing
by soadtrails on Dec 6, 2009 9:04 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thats true
why not ban jabs, they are by far a bigger cause of cuts then elbows. How about the over hand right, it causes unconsciousness. BTW if you don’t find the ground game in the UFC even with the elbows, then I’m not too sure what you’re watching. There are plenty of times that even with short elbows, the ground game has been interesting and exciting to watch. While we’re on the topic how do elbows differ from from power shots, the guy on the ground has his head flat against the mat, and a power shot is just as damaging as any elbow could be, quite possibly it could be argued that they have more damage simply because of the force and distance traveled by the blow.
I can point to like waaaay more situations where huge gaping cuts have ended the fight due to elbows than those freak show injuries of leg kicks and arm breaks from takedowns.
while
it’s true more fights have been stopped to to cuts from elbows over broken limbs, it still doesn’t justify taking them out of the game entirely. Besides, how many fighters do you know that are dumb enough not to tap when in an arm bar? Timmah is the only one I can think of at the moment, some chokes on the other hand happen so fast that a person conceivably doesn’t have the time to tap.
Well i didnt mean take out elbows entirely.. just on the ground cuz thats where most of the cut damage takes place.
You realize that “most of the cut damage” is less than 1% of fights, right? When was the last time a fight in the UFC was stopped due to cut before this one?
by Phildo on Dec 6, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And through my very rudimentary wikipedia research. There have been 3 cut stoppages in the UFC this year, and 3 in Dream.
I don’t know how many of the one’s in the UFC were caused by elbows, but the UFC has put on way more fights, so it’s a lower percentage in the UFC.
“elbows are evil because they cause cuts” is a myth.
this isn’t a BJJ competition. It isn’t about passing guard, it’s about winning the fight.
They nullify ground transitions, but taking them out nullifies striking on the ground.
But both fighters came out without crazy ass cuts, that will sideline them for months. And that fight was an example of great ground defense with weak ground and pound.
it's very
infrequent that a fighter fights a month r two after a fight anyway, and most of the time the Commission of that state usually imposes a ban on that fighter after the fact anyway.
I don't get
strikeforce way up here, I don’t want to pay for the additional programing either, so I can’t comment on that particular side of the argument.
6 of one
half dozen sort of thing then, I didn’t really get into Pride all that much, I’m what most would refer to as one of those new fans, I got into MMA about a year before the first TUF, so I didn’t get much exposure to the whole gambit of MMA, I try to catch some of the other stuff if it comes on t.v. but I can’t really find anything at the video store other then UFC events. my area sucks for this sort of thing.
I wish Strikeforce had elbows
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Well it should be about passing guard and actively transitioning. Sometimes rules are put into place to make things happen and i believe no elbows as a general rule allow for a more active guard, i dont know if you agree with that or not. But i put for example how the NBA has the nba 3 second violation, so people wont crowd the lane, i know its a different sport im just trying to illustrate my point.
It should not be about passing guard.
This is not a BJJ contest. If you can’t stop me from hurting you in your guard, why should I give you an opportunity to scramble by attempting to improve position.
Then thats where our differences lie. As interesting as elbows are on the ground, i find the dynamic transitions and passing the one of the reasons i watch mma, and elbows on the ground only seem to inhibit but more importantly they cause way more cut damage than any other strike
Maybe you shouldn’t be watching MMA, pandaboy99.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
I watch strikeforce which has no elbows and i dont see how anyone complaining how its waterdowned and not mma anymore
Than you’ve been watching and not reading. People are pretty unhappy about Strikeforces elbow rule.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Yes. Ground and pound is part of MMA. Elbows are part of ground and pound. I wish Strikeforce allowed elbows on the ground.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
they have nothing to do with elbows.
I don’t know why people keep thinking they have to go together or they have to be separated.
Oy...
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
what makes a soccer kick to the head any less violent or dangerous than a downward strike with an elbow straight into your face.
what makes a punch to the face any less violent or dangerous than an elbow?
We can play this game all day.
They drew the line where they did. There must be something wrong with soccer kicks since they’re almost universally banned now
I argue that the line can be redrawn due to the relative youth of MMA and for the betterment of the sport. Look at those gifs of jones elbowing hamil in the face, doesnt that make you at least want you to openly discuss what the affect of elbows on the ground means to mma?
Why should illegal elbows cause us to make all elbows illegal?
Maybe these elbows can cause people to rethink their stance on the 12-6 elbow rule, but these elbows are illegal.
Using this to argue against all elbows would be like using a kick to the groin to ban all kicks.
what your view on soccer kicks and knees to a downed opponent?
Whats your view on brass knuckles in a fight?
Look, you can try to skirt the issue all you want – ground and pound is part of MMA. If you don’t like it, watch something else.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
MMA is a great sport and ground and pound IS part of MMA. but elbows on the ground to me dont contribute to positively to the sport of MMA. The sport of MMA is young, like basketball in the 1950s young and discussion of rules and regulations and how they affect mma is something a forum was made for. Watching something else would be avoiding the discussion altogether
im sorry but the force from a standing soccer kick to the head out weighs any elbow thrown while two people are on the ground. A soccer kick can take someones head off and if the persons head is against the cage it will not be pretty. An elbow jams a person against the ground i know but the force is not even close to the same.
My only response to that comment is
ick.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Dec 6, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
I think elbows should be legal for all those same reasons...
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Dec 6, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
12-to-6 elbows are illegal – how come nobody’s bitching about 12-to-6 hammerfists?
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Dec 6, 2009 5:10 AM EST reply actions
Because nobody breaks giant chunks of ice or stacks of bricks with 12-6 hammerfists.
by Steve4192 on Dec 6, 2009 7:22 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I'm sure it's happened
the NSAC is just not doing it’s job by researching the matter.
“Pix or it didn’t happen”- Keith Kizer
by dancingChicken on Dec 6, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions
That said, they should also ban kicks and punches too, since people break boards with them.
"Why am I here? Why does my mind have wings? Why do blue midgets hit me with fish?!" - The Tick
Joe Rogan is full of shit……
The reason the 12-6 rule was brought in was because during take down attempts, defending fighters were bringing elbows down 12-6 onto their opponents spine and neck.
Sorry I don’t have a source. Neither does Rogan.
Rogan is correct.
Strikes to spine & neck are already covered in the rules. No strikes OF ANY KIND are legal to that area.
The 12-6 rule was indeed put in place because a commission got squeamish after watching a breaking demonstration. Similar to how ground knees got banned when a single commissioner freaked out when Gan McGee, a world class fighter at the time, decimated some ham-and-egger with ground knees at IFC Battleground 2.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
