Elbows to a downed opponent's head, statistics

[1stMMA]

The UFC rules in place work for me. I never did like the idea of kicking or stomping a downed opponent it dosen't seem sporting to do so. However I do miss the days of the headbutt from the mounted position.

[DearyLeary]

Originally Posted by GrazZ

knees yes, kicks and stomps are just pointless imo

i wanna see what Shogun does without them heh

Same thing he did to Overeem in 33?

Anyway. Does anyone have the finish vs. decision numbers for the UFC? I've compiled some info for Pride and I don't feel like doing the work on the UFC's numbers.

My hypothesis is that being forced to improve position also improves the ability to finish a fight, for both fighters. It's been my sticking point that sitting in the guard isn't an entertaining fight, I've never used cuts as an excuse. So I'm curious as to what the percentage is that it goes to the score cards.

I went from '97 until present, discounting the tournaments so that fighter fatigue and injuries didn't enter into the equation. If the talent pool is regarded as equal (as I believe it was, and is), the finish rates should be approximately the same. The only differences should be the rules and ring vs. cage.

[eworden78]

galathrax

The reason you're wrong about the thread starters premise is this:
Premature endings are bad, whether the are caused by elbows or not.

If
total premature stoppages = 4%
4% < significant
total premature stoppages >= premature stoppages caused by elbows
Then
premature stoppages caused by elbows < significant

The only part you can argue is whether or not 4% is a significant percentage of total of fights.

[davidf]

Originally Posted by eworden78

galathrax

The reason you're wrong about the thread starters premise is this:
Premature endings are bad, whether the are caused by elbows or not.

If
total premature stoppages = 4%
4% < significant
total premature stoppages >= premature stoppages caused by elbows
Then
premature stoppages caused by elbows < significant

The only part you can argue is whether or not 4% is a significant percentage of total of fights.

Good sound logical perspective but not really a good debate point. Where do you draw the line on legal techniques? And why there? Don't turn it back on me....I already said that I do not know.

[psychotic]

I think a lot say elbows cause a lot of cuts, which they do. Most do not end a fight, perhaps by stoppage, but one can't argue that the tons of blood often pouring out on them effects either the cutter or the cutee in ways that can lead to an outcome that might not of happened if they did not get cut.

I don't like cuts being a loss, but I have no beef with elbows. I don't care for them so much as knees but anything to keep people from laying still is fine by me.

[southjerzshore]

Originally Posted by brocktoon

If you get a cut its your own fault for having pussy skin.

well said, sir. gotta have thick skin in mma. literally.

[cavman]

Originally Posted by ckm

oh, and knees should be allowed too. I am up in the air about soccer kicks and stomps, just because i think some serious brain damage could result from it, and id like to see MMA stay death-free. Knees really need to be allowed though... a knee on the ground is probably less damaging than a knee from standing.

Knees are probably more damaging than the others, as kneeing a downed opponent is usually on the top of the head.

[Lord Grey]

Originally Posted by Zeke's Chaingun

It's amusing that nearly ALL of the arguments against elbows was disputed in this thread, and now suddenly the argument against elbows almost unanimously changing into something else. Just admit it people, you just want to hate on the UFC rules.

I agree that this is often the case when a poster hates either elbows or stomps/soccer kicks; i.e. they're just towing the party line be it anti-UFC or anti-Pride. On the other hand, I think there is some objective analysis of the different rules going on as well. Unfortunately, you have to dig through the trollers to get to the good stuff, but that's life on Sherdog.

IMO, low-risk slicing elbow strikes from the top position do not make for compelling prize fights, whether they lead to stoppages or not. Similarly, while I find stomps and soccer kicks to be more compelling forms of striking, I also agree they should not be allowed (especially stomps) because of the potential danger (though nobody has yet been seriously injured from them) and the negative image they bring to MMA.

[cavman]

Originally Posted by theglendon

The argument about encouraging people not to pass guard I feel also lacks merit. I think that the lack of knees on the ground is a much bigger factor than allowing elbows, since knees provide a real incentive to move to side control. How often do you see someone move to side control to ground and pound in the IFL?

I agree it lacks merit as passing guard to side control makes elbows easier, but the IFL doesn't allow elbows to the head http://www.ifl.tv/About-Us.html so your argument about IFL fighters not going for side control lacks substance.

[eworden78]

Originally Posted by davidf

Good sound logical perspective but not really a good debate point. Where do you draw the line on legal techniques? And why there? Don't turn it back on me....I already said that I do not know.

Yeah I don't have answer for that.

It's really hard to draw a line on legal techniques.
A fight should:

Provide entertainment to fans
Showcase athleticism and technique
Allow creativity in their technique
Provide a safe venue for athletes to compete

Randomness is a necessary components of sports, the more random the action the more repetitions needed to determine consistency.

For instance a marathon has a low degree of randomness a certain runners times will usually be within a close percentage. So you only need a few events to determine who the most skilled runner is.

Hitting a baseball has a high degree of randomness so you need to have multiple attempts to determine who the best hitter is. For instance if Barry Bonds strikes out ten times in a row he'll still be considered a great hitter because of his overall outcome.

So if a strike has a high degree of randomness, and a high instance of ending fights it detracts from the ability to showcase athleticism. For instance there are a very low percentage of punches that end up ending the fight, most punches either miss or are blocked. So punches have a high degree of randomness but a low percentage of ending fights. If every fight went like Chuck Rampage we'd probably need to change the rules on punches. But most fights don't go that way.