‘Wonderboy’ wants to ban side kicks to the knee after tearing MCL

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Jesus X

4 drink minimum.
Sep 7, 2015
28,766
31,291
Most of the techniques banned for being "dirty" are also ineffective in an actual fight. Groin strikes and small joint manipulations are good examples of this.
you can win a fight if you strike the groin hard enough. Robert hill was undefeated he only lost to Kahn "Connie" Souphanousinphone, Jr.




 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
Sure, stop kicks 'immobilize a body part to prevent it from being weaponized', and a groin shot can immoblize someone's entire body and stop it from being weaponized. When you punch someone in the chin, you aren't aiming to prevent their chin from being 'weaponized'. So I can immediately dismiss your argument the same way others have tried to dismiss mine - why not ban strikes to the chin if the only rule is that you can target 'weapons'? Why are small joint manipulation subs illegal? A broken finger or toe is a hell of a lot less severe than a torn ACL and that targets a 'weapon'?

The reason, is that there are no clear demarcations here - you can't find an objective reason for why oblique kicks shouldn't be banned any more than one exists for why rabbit punches should be banned. What you can do, however, is make a reasoned case that just like rabbit punches, the risk of serious injury oblique kicks entails far outweighs what they add to the sport.

Of course groin strikes should be illegal. As should rabbit punches. As should deliberate strikes to the spine. As should small joint manipulation What you, and others in this thread, have failed to do is provide any logical argument for why oblique kicks can't be policed the same way. It doesn't make you wrong either - but what it means is that we are always making a judgement call on where we draw the line and many are acting as if I and others who are using sound arguments for why they cross that line are being ridiculous. I would bet my life savings ($4.80) that if oblique kicks were already illegal, and I made a thread asking for them to be made legal, a large number of the people vociferously defending them would be arguing the other way.
The fact that we're making a judgment call is so obvious that it barely needs to be stated, but WE are not making that judgment. It's been made by athletic commissions based on their own arbitrary decision making. When we or a fighter proposes a modification to those rules, there's a burden to demonstrate that it would improve the sport in some way, either for safety or entertainment value. My contention is that using a kick to stop a fighter from advancing is pretty much an organic form of combat in the context of the given ruleset. If we nix it on the basis that it's too dangerous or increases the probability of long term injury because a limb can be maimed, how do we differentiate it from an armbar or a heelhook or any other fight ending action intended to attack a joint? Groin strikes, conversely, have no analogues in the rest of MMA under the ruleset except maybe if you want to count a banana split submission. The reason is because there's no circumstance where the reproductive organs are involved in an attack and counter scenario. The logic here is both fight logic and the historical policy precedent. When we say it's too dangerous, while there are plenty of other attacks that target the same target, we're in essence saying any lower body attacks are too dangerous so let's excise them from being permissible in the ruleset.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,237
The fact that we're making a judgment call is so obvious that it barely needs to be stated, but WE are not making that judgment. It's been made by athletic commissions based on their own arbitrary decision making. When we or a fighter proposes a modification to those rules, there's a burden to demonstrate that it would improve the sport in some way, either for safety or entertainment value. My contention is that using a kick to stop a fighter from advancing is pretty much an organic form of combat in the context of the given ruleset. If we nix it on the basis that it's too dangerous or increases the probability of long term injury because a limb can be maimed, how do we differentiate it from an armbar or a heelhook or any other fight ending action intended to attack a joint? Groin strikes, conversely, have no analogues in the rest of MMA under the ruleset except maybe if you want to count a banana split submission. The reason is because there's no circumstance where the reproductive organs are involved in an attack and counter scenario. The logic here is both fight logic and the historical policy precedent. When we say it's too dangerous, while there are plenty of other attacks that target the same target, we're in essence saying any lower body attacks are too dangerous so let's excise them from being permissible in the ruleset.
I know you know that we are making a judgement based on our opinions, my point was that there is no way to find a hard and fast rule as to why one technique should be banned and another not, which you were attempting with your 'targeting a weapon' argument, with respect.

You are right that rules are arbitrary, but that's what is so comical about some of the responses to me (not yours). We already live in a world of banned 12-6 elbows and yet people think it's somehow ridiculous to add a rule like this (I don't agree with 12-6 elbow rule by the way).

I also find it odd that people focus on the groin strike argument rather than address the fact that I've stated these kicks are more analogous to rabbit punches. But I've answered the groin strike question ad nauseum already anyway. We should ban groin strikes for the reasons you mention, and in my opinion we should also ban these strikes for the reasons I mention.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,834
I know you know that we are making a judgement based on our opinions, my point was that there is no way to find a hard and fast rule as to why one technique should be banned and another not, which you were attempting with your 'targeting a weapon' argument, with respect.

You are right that rules are arbitrary, but that's what is so comical about some of the responses to me (not yours). We already live in a world of banned 12-6 elbows and yet people think it's somehow ridiculous to add a rule like this (I don't agree with 12-6 elbow rule by the way).

I also find it odd that people focus on the groin strike argument rather than address the fact that I've stated these kicks are more analogous to rabbit punches. But I've answered the groin strike question ad nauseum already anyway. We should ban groin strikes for the reasons you mention, and in my opinion we should also ban these strikes for the reasons I mention.
rabbit punches to the back of the head can kill someone, so I fail to see the analogy.
 

SensoriaUtopia

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,353
2,652
How is banning kicks to the balls any different - because it's 'dirty'? Kicking someone in the balls is effective and a legit technique. Why not go back to the Keith Hackney days and make it incumbent on the other guy to defend? All you're doing is admitting even you have an arbitray line of what should be accepted but thinking it's ridiculous other people move the line a little.

I'm generally a fan of less rules (I want knees on the ground, soccer kicks etc.) but even I've come to the opinion they should be banned. Why?

Because, as is exactly the case with Wonderboy, they are likely to cause a serious injury that DOESN'T create a finish in the fight itself, which is the complete inverse of what we want - finishes with fighters being Ok after the fight. And if they do cause a finish it is most likely because they have caused a serious, potentially career-altering injury. This is simply not a dynamic that exists with any other legal technique in the sport.

And unlike some culturally-defined 'dirty' moves like soccer kicks, removing them changes very little from the sport.

They are the rabbit punches of the legs and should be made illegal.


Far and away the best, smartest, more accurate, and in tune post on this thread.

This is what the people who don't agree need to focus on
 

tang

top korean roofer
Oct 21, 2015
9,398
12,402
I like side kicks to the knee
Do you have time to tap to a blistering wheel kick from barboza? Or a knee that cracks your skull ?
you can block a wheel kick or a knee to the head, or easier to get out of the way, and what's the percentage of Barboza landing one of those flush?
It's also greater risk and uses more energy when throwing wheel kicks or flying knee, not an easy technique and if you miss, the opponent can close in and do shit to you, which will prevent them from throwing in volume. and if they do land, usually a finishing blow so taking the risk is worth it

whereas sidekick to the knee is opposite of all of that. easy to throw and easy to land, not much technique or energy required, hard to defend, and other than giving permanent knee problems what do you get? not much, just keep the opponent away from you, also the percentage of those side knee kicks landing must be around 90%, I can't really think of anyone throwing that and missing the knee, have you?
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
I know you know that we are making a judgement based on our opinions, my point was that there is no way to find a hard and fast rule as to why one technique should be banned and another not, which you were attempting with your 'targeting a weapon' argument, with respect.

You are right that rules are arbitrary, but that's what is so comical about some of the responses to me (not yours). We already live in a world of banned 12-6 elbows and yet people think it's somehow ridiculous to add a rule like this (I don't agree with 12-6 elbow rule by the way).

I also find it odd that people focus on the groin strike argument rather than address the fact that I've stated these kicks are more analogous to rabbit punches. But I've answered the groin strike question ad nauseum already anyway. We should ban groin strikes for the reasons you mention, and in my opinion we should also ban these strikes for the reasons I mention.
Good points. The rabbit punches comes from the actual death of Doug Dedge who supposedly suffered strikes to the back of his head that exacerbated whatever pre-existing condition he had, so it's just something tied up in the sport's history. I think if we had a decent enough sample size of fighters whose ligaments were injured via leg kicks, we could say this was a problem, but as it stands, how much of an issue this is is based on the complaints of one fighter who just lost a razor thin decision. Regulatory change should have more evidence as its basis.
 

megatherium

el rey del mambo
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
8,798
11,164
Trying to purposely take someone's ACL out. I just don't like it bu understand other people may not have the same opinion.
I think Jones picked it up watching Ando. He was doing it first in UFC if I recall. But yes, dirty tactic.
 
1

1031

Guest
Nobody wants to ban kicks and punches, whores.
It is a specific kick to the knee that some people are complaining about.
The point of this sport is to find out who the better fighter is in a given match. Now you people want to limit strikes to the knees because it offends your sensibilities of what it takes to be the better fighter? It doesn't take enough skill? Who the heck are you people to determine that?
Was Wonderboy campaigning to have this strike banned before all this?

There's just little logical consistency in the argument to impose more rules, not to mention the very real problems that would ensue from trying to enforce it. As Rambo John J @Rambo John J mentioned, plenty of illegal strikes already garner nothing more than a warning. It's the fighters' job to figure out how to win the contest.
 

Haulport

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
3,062
4,165
you can block a wheel kick or a knee to the head, or easier to get out of the way, and what's the percentage of Barboza landing one of those flush?
It's also greater risk and uses more energy when throwing wheel kicks or flying knee, not an easy technique and if you miss, the opponent can close in and do shit to you, which will prevent them from throwing in volume. and if they do land, usually a finishing blow so taking the risk is worth it

whereas sidekick to the knee is opposite of all of that. easy to throw and easy to land, not much technique or energy required, hard to defend, and other than giving permanent knee problems what do you get? not much, just keep the opponent away from you, also the percentage of those side knee kicks landing must be around 90%, I can't really think of anyone throwing that and missing the knee, have you?
To answer your "what do you get" question: you control the distance and decide when it contracts and when it expands. Being able to control the distance and close distance on your terms might be one of, if not THE most important aspect of MMA. It is completely overlooked by amatuers and uninformed analysts because you usually don't see it happening:
  • Much of Conor McGregor's takedown D is him using a hand to place on his opponent's shoulder during exchanges.
  • Guys like Dos Santos, Wonderboy and Machida use footwork.
  • GSP used his jab.
  • Jones uses his side kick.
Many fans are left wondering and posting about why so-and-so didn't attempt more takedowns. It's because they COULDN'T thanks to great technique that allowed their opponent to control the distance in a fight.

Check out George Foreman vs. Frazier I to see how George prevented Joe from getting inside and whooped his ass to deliver one of the biggests upsets in boxing history if u want a great example of controling the distance just by pushing ur opponent away (something George did throughout the 1st part of his career).
 

megatherium

el rey del mambo
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
8,798
11,164
Good points. The rabbit punches comes from the actual death of Doug Dedge who supposedly suffered strikes to the back of his head that exacerbated whatever pre-existing condition he had, so it's just something tied up in the sport's history. I think if we had a decent enough sample size of fighters whose ligaments were injured via leg kicks, we could say this was a problem, but as it stands, how much of an issue this is is based on the complaints of one fighter who just lost a razor thin decision. Regulatory change should have more evidence as its basis.
I finally saw this fight when Pro Ice posted the International Super Challenge event from Kiev on the UG about five or six years back. I don't know if you ever saw the fight but honestly the punches didn't seem especially damaging and most seemed to hit the 'legal' area. By the way, if you haven't seen it that was one creepy event. Weird satanic themed costumed dance between fight presentation mixed with eerie bloody wolf hunt video footage.
 

kneeblock

Drapetomaniac
Apr 18, 2015
12,435
23,026
I finally saw this fight when Pro Ice posted the International Super Challenge event from Kiev on the UG about five or six years back. I don't know if you ever saw the fight but honestly the punches didn't seem especially damaging and most seemed to hit the 'legal' area. By the way, if you haven't seen it that was one creepy event. Weird satanic themed costumed dance between fight presentation mixed with eerie bloody wolf hunt video footage.
Yeah I watched it a few years ago. I agree Dedge didn't take many shots to the back of his head and it was mostly a preexisting condition, but for years that was the official story which helped create the rule. It's like they said in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend!"
 
1

1031

Guest
Yeah I watched it a few years ago. I agree Dedge didn't take many shots to the back of his head and it was mostly a preexisting condition, but for years that was the official story which helped create the rule. It's like they said in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend!"
I only ever knew that name as a Gene Pitney song.