Elbows to a downed opponent's head, statistics

[eastcoastMMAfan]

Originally Posted by groo

I think the argument was not only the cut stoppages, but also that elbows DON'T finish fights but fuck up fighters faces with scar tissue and all........

This is the first time I have seen anyone say that a reason to ban elbows was because of messing up someone's face with scar tissue. Of course if you hate the UFC you can invent any reason that their rules are bad.

[ccollins55]

Originally Posted by kaipo13

Elbows should be kept in, but knees, soccer kicks and foot stomps to a downed opponent should also be allowed IMO.

I agree 100% with this. You can sprawl on a guy, throw some solid knees to the head, and finish the fight. There's no evidence that this is any more dangerous than any other strikes that are allowed in the rules. Soccer kicks, foot stomps - hey, if the downed guy can upkick, you should be allowed to kick him as well, and not just to the body.

[eastcoastMMAfan]

Originally Posted by turbozed

Ever heard of the logical fallacy called circular reasoning or begging the question? Probably not.

Elbows do have a part in MMA because they are a part of different Martial Arts and they are not so dangerous that they can cause more permanent injuries than other allowed techniques. They are also not considered unsporting like things such as hair pulling.

[eastcoastMMAfan]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

It would be interesting if someone conducted a poll with fighters opinions on the subject.

So far, i haven't heard a single fighter support the use of elbows, there may be fighters who can utilize them better than others. Those fighters also realise that they can be the recipient of elbows..

You mentioned three fighters that you say have have told you their opinion. Now you say that you haven't heard a single fighter support the use of elbows. The number of people that you have know their opinion is so small that it is worthless as a way to guess what the majority or even a significant minority think.

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

I'm not sure about the medicial statistics regarding elbows, but it would seem to me that if a fighter is repeatedly elbowed, he will become more susceptible to cuts. This could dramatically reduce the fighters earning potential, as he may have to fight significantly less fights, waiting on cuts to be treated/heal. This could also have an effect on the fighters personal life.

A fighters safety should always be paramount, but if the rules are watered down too much, fans will be turned off, and this will effectively impact the fighters by getting less money. A balance has to be struck were a fighters safety is what is most important. That is why i believe Pride's rules would be a good starting point, for looking at universal rules in mma.

I believe that being KO'd will keep a fighter out longer than a cut. Same with any broken bones or ligament damage. So why focus on cuts from an elbow. Maybe instead you should ban any striking or submissions that can cause broken bones or ligament damage.

[CrstlSnail]

It's been discussed many times before. I'll always agree that less limitations is better for my own watching experience. I like the elbows to the head, and I also like knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent. Stomps are okay, but then again, I also wouldn't mind seeing headbutts and perhaps even downward elbow strikes reinstated. I don't mind watching an ugly fight. "Full contact fighting" is exactly what the name describes. I think it's fine to outlaw certain places on the body for fighters to target (groin, neck, back of the head, spine), but I don't like for them to outlaw the tools that fighters use to compete. Everyone has the same tools, and nothing makes these tools inherently dangerous. Strikes to certain areas on the body are dangerous, yes, but what makes (for instance) a headbutt any less acceptable than a head stomp or a flying knee is beyond me. I think the more tools a fighter is allowed to use, the better.

As for cuts, I think they shouldn't be considered grounds for stopping the fight when the blood loss or placement of the cut (as with Couture when he fought Belfort) is an issue. Otherwise, the fighter should be given the same chance to defend himself as he would if there was no cut in the first place. If only more referees felt this way.

[eastcoastMMAfan]

Originally Posted by MMAFanatic88

Elbows are just dangerous in general, doesnt matter how often they stop the fight, a hard elbow landing square can really hurt someone, serious head injuries can occur with elbows. A fist wont strike as hard as an elbow.

That is just ridiculous. Sitting in the guard of someone like the majority of the times that an elbow is thrown prevents you from hitting that hard. A punch can strike much harder than an elbow since you have more movement that allows you to build up speed and you can put your whole body behind it. Same with a high kick. Should we ban both of those. I mean you do see far more people get KO'd from punches and kicks than from an elbow. If the strike doesn't cause a KO I think it would be less likely to cause a serious head injury than one that does cause a KO.

[Borellus13]

first off this is probably the best post ive ever read on this site, so good that it promted me to become a member just so i could respond.Great research...anyways...


I think elbows to the head are necessary and should be legal. Along with headstomps, knees and soccer kicks. I have two reasons for this. One being the fact that I am a testosterone fuled 22 year old male, and I can get into that shit because it gives it that extra edge, that feeling that this is a street fight where anything goes, and you gotta love that kind of excitment and brutality. The latter, more professional reason is that if you can kick me in the face while you're on you back, you can sure as shit belive that i should be able to stomp your fucking brains in. Also, if MMA is supposed to be the purest form of handto hand combat, you should be ready for, and be able to defend against anything, all different kinds of strikes coming from all different directions and extremities. Someone earlier said that you can get scarred badly from a nastyelbow(ala Karo Parysians face), and while that sucks, it goes back to my original statement that you need to be ready for anything and you need to defend all aspects of the game, saying no to elbows and such to a striker, is like telling a BJJ blackbelt he can't put someone in an armbar because it could break his opponent's arm, and it could heal incorrectly, damaging his carrer, and leaving him with an ugly arm. Sorry, shit happens, so the next time you fight, be prepaired for anything, especially elbows on the ground!

[eastcoastMMAfan]

Originally Posted by machadojj

I hardly think the data regarding the percentage of fights stopped by elbows is relevant. Rather, the percentage of fights stopped that were stopped by elbows. Then we would be getting any valid conclusions. By the way, I consider 4% a pretty significant percentage. I wouldn't want to see a dumb stoppage to cut in 1 of every 20 fights. That would be one guaranteed disappointment every 2/3 events.

I do consider the percentage of fights stopped relevant to the discussion of should elbows be allowed. The percentage of elbow based cuts out of all stoppages is also relevant but not as important IMO.

Also you are forgetting that the actual number of stoppages due to cuts is lower than 4%. When you look at only the stoppages from cuts due to elbows it is well under 3%. So you would be looking at less than one fight in 33 being stopped to due to an elbow cut. I can live with a technique that will helps a fighter and only is likely to cause one stoppage every 4 or so events.

[eastcoastMMAfan]

Originally Posted by SpankyTJ

i think most of us agree that elbows are ok and that we also want knees and soccer kicks to downed oponents

I think you are assuming too much. There are many of us that don't want soccer kicks or stomps to a downed point. Outside of the PRIDE fans, I think that the majority do not want to see soccer kicks or stomps. Since the majority of MMA fans are not really PRIDE fans, I think that the majority does not want to see those two things.

[eastcoastMMAfan]

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 think that there is a very large percentage of fights that do have elbows used. I would go so far as to say I think a majority of fights in the UFC have elbows used at least once.