Elbows to a downed opponent's head, statistics

[Zeke's Chaingun]

People, just admit it, you want to hate on elbows because it gives you an avenue to extend this Pride>UFC bullshit. I know that for nearly all of you this is the reason. Why? Because I almost NEVER heard people bring up the "elbows are boring" excuse until after your "elbows cause too many cut stoppage" complaint was exposed as bogus. When you create a whole other complaint to attack something after your original complaint was gunned down, then you're just being a bitch.

[Bas Arlovski]

Knees, Soccer Kicks, Stomps, And Atomic Butt Drops Should Be Mandatory

[Jack10Suited]

Originally Posted by galathrax

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

These statistics are WRONG. This is a stupid analysis, no offense to OP. It sounds legit, but if you actually think about it for a minute...

The ONLY way elbows ending a fight is relevant (or even possible) is if elbows are in fact utilized in the fight. Quoting this massive # of fights, and then some tiny little percentage is misleading as hell. ONLY FIGHTS WHERE FIGHTERS ACTUALLY USE ELBOWS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

That being said, I still think the % is low enough that it's almost irrelevant. But you should at least be honest about it.

The flipside of this argument is with stomps/soccer kicks... you'll find the same exact thing, where fighters actually utilize these moves, the % of fights actually stopped from them is rather low (but omg, they look so brutal!!! wah wah, go watch figure skating then).

And the difference between stomps/soccer kicks and groin shots, eye gouging, and headbutts is that those moves injure fighters virtually every time they're used, and don't require ANY skill. Everybody complaining that stomps/soccer kicks turn it into a street fight have obviously never actually used stomps/soccer kicks on a live, resisting, TRAINED opponent.

I thought his stats were just from UFC matches? In that case, just because fighters don't choose to use elbows doesn't mean their fight is not a part of the statistics. If the elbow was an available weapon, then the match counts. Just because the elbow was not used in that particular match doesn't mean it couldn't have been used, leading to a doctor stoppage if a bad cut happens. Your scenario unfairly weights the stoppage side of the argument because it discounts every match where elbows were not thrown, even though they were legal and could have been.

And yea, go watch figure skating if you don't like brutality, blah blah. No offense, but it's more than fans like us watching these fights. If mma is able to gain mainstream acceptance, it going to be better for everyone involved. The fighters will be better cared for, the fans would get a better product... everyone wins. The UFC product is the closest mma has ever been to complete mainstream acceptance. It is finally being covered by ESPN and NBC sports and things like that. They could no longer ignore the amount of fans mma has, especially when compared to other combat sports. Still, we are hearing the claims of "human cockfighting" and "too brutal to be entertaining" everyday from many of the writers. Like it or not, but stomps and soccer kicks LOOK extremely brutal. That is going to turn off many of the casual viewers as well as make it harder for mainstream sports outlets to cover the events. It took years to buck the image that the original UFC's laid into the minds of people. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that at this point.

[EzFlyer]

Originally Posted by Vox

Ok, let's see if I can save myself from the white-belt's-first-post stigma with this post.

A few days ago, in a blog out there, somebody clamored, as often happens, for elbows to the head of a downed opponent to be thrown out of the rulebook, because they stop too many fights due to cuts.

A couple of weeks ago, in one of sherdog's radio shows (can't remember which one), one of the hosts also mentioned this belief, and then said that he and his co-host didn't have any data to support or deny this belief.

So...finally tired of hearing arguments based on "I think" and "I believe" I decided to go look for the data.

I went through the results in the fightfinder from UFC 30 to UFC72, with all UFN and TUF finales included, and got the following numbers:

Events: 58
Fights: 457
Stoppages marked as "doctor stoppage" or "cuts": 19

So...4.15% of the fights between UFC30 and UFC72 have been stopped by a doctor or by cuts. Out of these 19, one for sure was a leg injury (Irvin's busted knee), one was an arm injury (Tim Silvia v. Mir) and I'm sure there are other non-elbow-hit related injuries that I just don't remember and didn't have the video to check out.

So...let's concede that there's 17 fights stopped from cuts resulting from elbows to the head of a downed opponent. only 3.71% of fights in the last 58 UFC events have been stopped because of cuts done with elbows (remember, this is a supposition, because there's plenty of "doctor stoppage" without a reason in the fightfinder).

In case anybody is curious, I also pulled out other data for the last 15 UFC PPVs, like knockouts and submissions and so on...you can follow the thread <a href="http://ufcmania.com/2007/06/16/ufc-72-recap-franklin-griffin-earn-decisions/">here</a> My posts are under the same nick as here, Vox.

So...3.71% of fights being stopped this way is enough reason for elbows to be outlawed in MMA? Not in my opinion...what about in yours?

i think the fact that they DO stop any fights, 3.71 % even, that's too many. an illegitamate way to end a fight is illegitimate whether it happens to one guy or 17 or 170. it shouldn't be allowed. pride's fighting system was entirely better. no one had any serious injuries of note from the soccer kicks/stomps, and it's easier for the refs and easier to judge in itself. no "oh, he's on one knee, you can't knee him..." bullcrap. you just can't elbow to the head, period.

it also encourages more guard passing and submission game. guys in the UFC just chill in his opponent's guard cause he can still damage with elbows. there's so little guard passing in the ufc it's disgusting. elbows is a huge reason.

[warriornation]

Elbows are an important part of the sport and I think they should continue. ALso, people like muay thai kickboxers know how to defend elbows. So elbows can be defended. I do, however, think that soccer should be illegal because I think it doesn't really prove who is the better fighter and it looks hella painful.

[TheSpeciman]

Good post. I like the stats. I say let the elbows stay. If they're taken away, then it favors bjj/submission guys over wrestler/gnp guys. By having to punch from on top, you're opening yourself up for more armbar possibilities, and limiting the amount of strikes that the bottom guy has to defend.

[juggern8]

Originally Posted by galathrax

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous.

These statistics are WRONG. This is a stupid analysis, no offense to OP. It sounds legit, but if you actually think about it for a minute...

The ONLY way elbows ending a fight is relevant (or even possible) is if elbows are in fact utilized in the fight. Quoting this massive # of fights, and then some tiny little percentage is misleading as hell. ONLY FIGHTS WHERE FIGHTERS ACTUALLY USE ELBOWS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

That being said, I still think the % is low enough that it's almost irrelevant. But you should at least be honest about it.

The flipside of this argument is with stomps/soccer kicks... you'll find the same exact thing: where fighters actually utilize these moves, the % of fights actually stopped from them is rather low (but omg, they look so brutal!!! wah wah, go watch figure skating then).

And the difference between stomps/soccer kicks and groin shots, eye gouging, and headbutts is that those moves injure fighters virtually every time they're used, and don't require ANY skill. Everybody complaining that stomps/soccer kicks turn it into a street fight have obviously never actually used stomps/soccer kicks on a live, resisting, TRAINED opponent.

This is a pretty though provoking rebuttal. I also know that there are fighters who intentionally throw elbows to get a cut stoppage. They say, "I'm going to throw some 'bows and try to bust him wide open." Fighters are throwing elbows with the intention of causing lacerations. Now, I believe that this is more/better proof that elbows cause cuts.

That said, I'm not really against elbows. If they are allowed, I expect fighters to use them. I do get disappointed when I see fights like Yves vs. Stevenson, but hey... ... it's the fight game.

[eworden78]

I would estimate at least 50% of those stoppages where a result of GNP.

Sure there is always the "lucky" elbow or the stray elbow from the bottom, but my guess would be that a good percentage of these stoppages are the result of a dominating GNP where the fighter who got cut was losing.

This is just a guess.

[galathrax]

Originally Posted by Jack10Suited

I thought his stats were just from UFC matches? In that case, just because fighters don't choose to use elbows doesn't mean their fight is not a part of the statistics. If the elbow was an available weapon, then the match counts. Just because the elbow was not used in that particular match doesn't mean it couldn't have been used, leading to a doctor stoppage if a bad cut happens. Your scenario unfairly weights the stoppage side of the argument because it discounts every match where elbows were not thrown, even though they were legal and could have been.

I have to disagree with this first point. Even if elbows are available, if they aren't used they aren't relevant to whether or not elbows prematurely end fights.

Your analogy is like the following: smoking only kills 4% of the adult population prematurely. Therefore, smoking kills 1/25 times. This is NOT correct. The actual statistic requires you to look at the percentage of SMOKERS who die prematurely. That statistic is higher than 4%. Just because most of the adult population chooses not to smoke, doesn't make cigarette smoking any safer.**

Like I said, I don't think the number is all that higher even when you only count fights that have elbows. Hell, given that half of those fights making up the 4% he reported were stopped for another reason (cuts from punching, knees, broken jaw, etc), the actual number is still less than 10% I'm sure. However, I was simply pointing out the problems with the methodology.

Originally Posted by Jack10Suited

And yea, go watch figure skating if you don't like brutality, blah blah. No offense, but it's more than fans like us watching these fights. If mma is able to gain mainstream acceptance, it going to be better for everyone involved. The fighters will be better cared for, the fans would get a better product... everyone wins. The UFC product is the closest mma has ever been to complete mainstream acceptance. It is finally being covered by ESPN and NBC sports and things like that. They could no longer ignore the amount of fans mma has, especially when compared to other combat sports. Still, we are hearing the claims of "human cockfighting" and "too brutal to be entertaining" everyday from many of the writers. Like it or not, but stomps and soccer kicks LOOK extremely brutal. That is going to turn off many of the casual viewers as well as make it harder for mainstream sports outlets to cover the events. It took years to buck the image that the original UFC's laid into the minds of people. I wouldn't want to sacrifice that at this point.

This is more valid criticism. I guess it's hard for me to view soccer kicks as all that brutal... I mean, I knee to the face at full power that breaks a man's nose is pretty f*cking brutal, but most of us don't blink an eye.

I guess it depends of if you think mainstream acceptance is an important consideration that should be made. Personally, I don't think the UFC fan-base will be all that turned off by stomps/soccer kicks/knees to the head of a downed opponent, because they're already in it for the violence factor. It would affect future sanctioning, though.

Also, you tell me what looks more brutal... Shogun jumping into Arona's guard with a flying stomp, or 2 quarts of blood spilling out of Yves Edward's head all over the floor, his opponent, maybe the ref...

**before some troll gets a raging erection asking for a source, this % is made up... it's for illustrative purposes only. Down boy.

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Originally Posted by EzFlyer

i think the fact that they DO stop any fights, 3.71 % even, that's too many. an illegitamate way to end a fight is illegitimate whether it happens to one guy or 17 or 170. it shouldn't be allowed. pride's fighting system was entirely better. no one had any serious injuries of note from the soccer kicks/stomps, and it's easier for the refs and easier to judge in itself. no "oh, he's on one knee, you can't knee him..." bullcrap. you just can't elbow to the head, period.

it also encourages more guard passing and submission game. guys in the UFC just chill in his opponent's guard cause he can still damage with elbows. there's so little guard passing in the ufc it's disgusting. elbows is a huge reason.

Here is another example. First it was "Way too many fights are stopped with elbow cuts" and when that was disproven now the arugment is, "One is too many!" Well, sometimes takedowns cause freak injuries, see Shogun and see Irvin. Perhaps we should ban takedowns because one freak injury is too many? Get real peeps. Elbows are fine.