PDA

View Full Version : Ban the Power-Bomb


VCURamFan
07-29-2010, 09:26 PM
Article from MMAMemories.com. There are video HLs within the article that I can't post (YouTube blocked here at work), but here's the link for the article itself (vids are imbedded in the page):
http://www.mmamemories.com/2010/07/29/fighter-safety-should-the-powerbombpower-slams-be-banned-from-mma-rtffighter-safety-should-the-powerbombpower-slams-be-banned-from-mma.html


I was recently listening to the Pro MMA radio show (http://feeds.feedburner.com/ProMmaRadio) and there was a discussion between radio host Larry Pepe and MMAMania.com writer Jesse Holland over Sarah Kaufmanís powerbomb of Roxanne Modafferi at Strikeforceís Everett, Washington event last Friday night (that aired on Showtime). The match, which was for Strikeforceís 135-pound womenís title, saw Kaufman pick up Modafferi and knock her out with a slam to the canvas. The finish was so spectacular that it became a viral sensation on Youtube and ESPN even ran with it on one of their Top 10 highlight lists.

Weíve seen spectacular slams before in MMA. Think about Bob Sappís slam of Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira during their Dynamite!! fight in August of 2002 at Kokuritsu (National) Stadium in Tokyo.

Matt Hughes became famous in MMA for his slams of opponents, albeit he slammed opponents on their back. Recently, Gerald Harris slammed Dave Branch down so hard that he won his recent UFC fight by knockout and got a Knockout of the Night bonus for it.

Who could forget Kevin Randlemanís head spike slam on Fedor from several years ago in PRIDE? It was such a violent head slam that I will never forget Mauro Ranalloís play-by-play of that moment. When I saw the move happen, I along with everyone else watching thought that Randleman was going to beat Fedor. Fedor, somehow, miraculously recovered and managed to dispose of Kevin a couple of minutes later.

However, the granddaddy of all MMA slams came several years back in the PRIDE ring at Saitama Super Arena when Quinton ďRampageĒ Jackson picked up Ricardo Arona and powerbombed his way out of a submission attempt. He picked up Arona, literally did a powerbomb, slammed Arona down on the mat, and Aronaís head bounced back up and hit Rampage on the drive down. It was incredible. Of all the major slams in Mixed Martial Arts, Rampageís slam is considered The Gold Standard.

And now Sarah Kaufmanís slam is up near the same pedestal as Rampageís slam. This led to Larry Pepe asking the following question:

Should the slam be legal? Because on some level, youíre driving your opponentís head into the mat and itís not so dissimilar from an illegal drop on someoneís head. I mean, youíre talking about a very small margin of error. Is fighter safety a question with these slams?
MMAMania.comís (http://www.mmamania.com/) Jesse Holland responded in the affirmative.

Iíve never been a fan of the slam and youíre talking to a guy, look, Iím a PRIDE guy from way back, you know, and that was one of those things that bothered me. You can give me a soccer kick all day, but you bring a slam and you talk aboutÖ The slam between Kaufman and Modafferi is one thing, but when you got a guy like Quinton Jackson picking you up over his head and putting you onto the canvas or you have a guy, you know look what happened in the Patrick Cote/Alan Belcher. Thatís a slam that could have gone very, very wrong. And I think itís just the risk far outweighs the reward for a slam that you wouldnít hurt the promotion because we donít see them that frequently but they make nice highlight clips and they show up on the web sites. Well, thatís all fine and well, but I just feel like weíre playing with fire here with the slam. Itís a dangerous move and I donít think one that needs to be in Mixed Martial Arts.
Pepe concurred with Hollandís sentiments.
Yeah, Iím with you. I think the potential downside in fighter safety is when someone could get paralyzed or even worse with that type of move and, to your point, we donít see it that often. So what are we losing? I mean, thereís only a handful of them that really come to mind but it just seems like youíre really playing with fighter safety when fightersí heads are being slammed into a mat, even with the force of the opponentís body sometimes. The Rampage slam was the pick-up-over-the-head type. The Gerald Harris one, he literally followed him to the mat and kept his arms under his chin so that his head couldnít move. It just seems to me that to not be worth a highlight reel finish here or there, but weíll see what happens. It doesnít look like thereís any movement currently to get away from them but I think that there should be.
My response to these comments is the following: How do you ban the slam and not ban other moves related to head trauma in MMA?

Think about how the slam is often used in MMA. Someone catches their opponent in a submission or in a bad position. If you have the strength to power out of the position and slam your opponent, youíre trying to break up the submission attempt. If you knock your opponent out, thatís gravy as far as the fighter is concerned. MMA is a violent sport done by professional athletes. When you apply a submission hold on a fighter who has some power, you take the risk of getting slammed. The MMA canvas is not a pro-wrestling mat and a pro-wrestling mat is a hard enough surface to take bumps on. Is it a dangerous move? Absolutely. I donít dismiss the concerns about the safety of the move.

For a bonus on the side of those wanting to ban power slams in MMA, think about this ó you have a sport where performance-enhancing drug usage is relatively high. Urine tests are not catching the cheaters and as Iíve documented before, most athletic commissions are doing the bare minimum to catch the cheaters. In an environment where the sport is already dangerous enough as it is, now you add strength-building drugs into the equations and it makes the slams even more dangerous.

So, if you want to argue that slams that involve head trauma should be eliminated from MMA, Iím willing to listen to you. However, in return I would ask you the following: Are you willing to ban other moves that we currently see in MMA, such as hammer fists on an opponentís skull while they are down on the canvas? If blunt force trauma to the head is the ultimate issue here that we are dealing with, then you canít just ban the slams. You have to be willing to address the issue on a greater scale. Iím more than willing to listen to proponents make their cases, but understand that it may not be a very popular case to make with the masses that watch MMA fights.


Y'all got any comment?

TexasRN
07-29-2010, 11:48 PM
I like slams and want to see more of them. :w00t:


~Amy

J.B.
07-30-2010, 12:32 AM
Slams are exciting, but the risk definitely outweighs the reward. People probably won't get it until somebody gets kill... oh wait...that already happened, but it wasn't the UFC so nobody cared. :unsure:

Sherdog had an article on the same topic and the guy who wrote it is a sports physician. Basically, his take is that because a fighter could just let go of the submission, it constitutes an attack that can be reasonably defended.

adamt
07-30-2010, 04:17 AM
yeah, we should also ban kicks to the head and kicks to the ribs cause those could be pretty bad

and punches to the jaw or temple area are too risky

and no more kicking below the belt either cause look what happened with tusherer or whatever his name is

and no more elbows cause they make big ugly cuts and no more punching around the eyes cause of the risk of blindness

and they should wear heavier gloves too and headgear. after all we're just wanting to see who has the better skills and who will outpoint the other guy

and no more LnP cause thats boring










add that up and you got boxing, if i want to watch boxing i will watch boxing

quit trying to turn mma into boxing

i want less rules

football is rougher than mma

J.B.
07-30-2010, 06:07 AM
yeah, we should also ban kicks to the head and kicks to the ribs cause those could be pretty bad

and punches to the jaw or temple area are too risky

and no more kicking below the belt either cause look what happened with tusherer or whatever his name is

and no more elbows cause they make big ugly cuts and no more punching around the eyes cause of the risk of blindness

and they should wear heavier gloves too and headgear. after all we're just wanting to see who has the better skills and who will outpoint the other guy

and no more LnP cause thats boring





add that up and you got boxing, if i want to watch boxing i will watch boxing

quit trying to turn mma into boxing

i want less rules

football is rougher than mma

Nobody is trying to turn MMA into Boxing. :laugh:

For the record, Boxers take a LOT more punishment than MMA fighters do if you really break it down. Those gloves are designed to protect a fighter's hands, not the other fighter's head. Also, headgear is part of on an ongoing debate and many people actually consider headgear to be LESS safe.

I realize that people want less rules to make it more "exciting" or more "real" but we need to be realistic. This is "sanctioned assault" and it needs to be overseen by governing bodies that are looking out for the safety of the competitors not only because it's the RIGHT thing to do, but because of the numerous potential legal ramifications.

Everybody knows and accepts that this is a dangerous sport, and yes there is potential for any strike to cause serious damage or even be fatal. However, slams walk on a VERY fine line sometimes and it's very easy for a slam to turn into a "spike", and in both cases I personally feel the risk for breaking somebody's neck are just too dangerous. There is a reason that they can do that stuff in the WWE, and it's because they choreograph it very well and practice it millions of times beforehand. So, in my personal opinion, I can do without slams, but I will absolutely admit that they are exciting and I cheered like crazy when Matt slammed people, I'm just not a fan of it in the bigger picture.

adamt
07-30-2010, 01:40 PM
Nobody is trying to turn MMA into Boxing. :laugh:

For the record, Boxers take a LOT more punishment than MMA fighters do if you really break it down. Those gloves are designed to protect a fighter's hands, not the other fighter's head. Also, headgear is part of on an ongoing debate and many people actually consider headgear to be LESS safe.

I realize that people want less rules to make it more "exciting" or more "real" but we need to be realistic. This is "sanctioned assault" and it needs to be overseen by governing bodies that are looking out for the safety of the competitors not only because it's the RIGHT thing to do, but because of the numerous potential legal ramifications.

Everybody knows and accepts that this is a dangerous sport, and yes there is potential for any strike to cause serious damage or even be fatal. However, slams walk on a VERY fine line sometimes and it's very easy for a slam to turn into a "spike", and in both cases I personally feel the risk for breaking somebody's neck are just too dangerous. There is a reason that they can do that stuff in the WWE, and it's because they choreograph it very well and practice it millions of times beforehand. So, in my personal opinion, I can do without slams, but I will absolutely admit that they are exciting and I cheered like crazy when Matt slammed people, I'm just not a fan of it in the bigger picture.

i can respect that

rearnakedchoke
07-30-2010, 06:32 PM
i'd rather see them ban foot stomps than ban pbombs ...

Jason 16
07-30-2010, 07:27 PM
in pa it is banned for am

Tyburn
08-01-2010, 05:50 PM
Sorry...but until they deduct points for low blows, or eye gouges, and the likes...they cant really ban moves for fighter safety.

They really oughta start promoting it in the ring before they do anything else. I dont want to hear fighter safety, I want to see it, and I want to see all Refs actually penalize those fighters who do illegal moves or low blows. I want them to be harsh but fair, and apply it from the rookie debutees, right up to the Reignin elite. Until then...its nothing but words...and when, one day someone actully ends up permanently blinded by a thumb, or infertile due to a kick in the knackers...it will be too late to harp on about it then.

Thats my opinion. :wink:

suntereo
08-02-2010, 06:23 AM
spiking rules protect the person being slammed when he is not in control of the "flight path".

"power bombs" are almost always the result of the decision of the one being slammed to not release their hold. ie newton and aronas triangle's at the hands of hughes and jackson. the most recent one in the female fight was due to the reluctance to release gaurd? I just watched a gracie clip explaining the werdum win over fedor in which they explained that it is stupid to keep the holds once lifted off the matt.

my point is dont ban a counter to common moves when the person being slammed has the ability to chose to avoid being slammed. Or just stop the fight as soon as a triangle is applied?... read in sarcasm please

J.B.
08-02-2010, 06:53 AM
The point is that the rules are in place to protect the safety of the fighters, even when they chose not to protect themselves.

If we left it solely up to the fighters, they would fight till they were dead.

The undeniable truth is that slams/spikes can easily kill a person in the blink of an eye. It's a dangerous sport, and lots of things can happen, but we KNOW how dangerous slams are, and they are NOT always the best way to defend a submission. If they were taken out, most fans would barely notice and it wouldn't drastically change the sport.

Every time subjects like this come up, people sarcastically say "oh, lets just ban everything" or "this is a tough sport just deal with it". To some degree, those people can be right when we are talking about trivial things or making huge changes to a sport, but minor adjustments like this one sometimes have significant merit and deserve to be looked at thoroughly.

The saddest part is most people don't even know about the fighter who recently got killed after being slammed but if somebody gets killed in the UFC you can guarantee that slams will be banned the next day.

suntereo
08-02-2010, 05:17 PM
"The point is that the rules are in place to protect the safety of the fighters, even when they chose not to protect themselves." -
I disagree, fighters are instructed to protect themselves at all times. Allowing yourself to be slammed is the same as not defending a strike. Spiking rules are in place to minimize damage from takedowns / throws. Grappplers know how to prevent the top guy from picking them up, if they fail to do so then they should bail out to "protect themselves".

"If we left it solely up to the fighters, they would fight till they were dead." -
you seem to view fighters as base animals, in my experience they are intellegent athletes.

J.B.
08-02-2010, 09:19 PM
"The point is that the rules are in place to protect the safety of the fighters, even when they chose not to protect themselves." -
I disagree, fighters are instructed to protect themselves at all times. Allowing yourself to be slammed is the same as not defending a strike. Spiking rules are in place to minimize damage from takedowns / throws. Grappplers know how to prevent the top guy from picking them up, if they fail to do so then they should bail out to "protect themselves".

"If we left it solely up to the fighters, they would fight till they were dead." -
you seem to view fighters as base animals, in my experience they are intellegent athletes.

If fighters are instructed to protect themselves at all times and that's all it takes then why do we even need a referee? :laugh:

You can say that spiking rules are in place to "minimize damage", but you (and many others) just seem to want to ignore the fact that dropping a person on their head poses great potential for breaking their neck and/or killing them. Nobody cares today, and people who argue this typically think I'm wrong and that changing the rules would "pussify" the sport, but if somebody got killed in a UFC fight, you can kiss slams goodbye. I am fully aware that a fighter can let go of a submission and "bail-out", and I stated that, but it doesn't change what I feel is the high risk/low reward of slams.

Fighters fight to win, no matter what kind of scores they get on their IQ test. When Frank Mir broke Tim Sylvia's arm, Tim would have kept going had a REF not stopped the fight. When fighters get bad cuts, we have refs AND doctors examine the cut and THEY decide if the fighters get to continue because we know the fighters will keep fighting so they can get that win and that extra money. We are talking about people's lively-hood, it has NOTHING to do with thinking fighters are "base animals". They are FIGHTERS, not rocket scientists. They can't call in sick and come back to work the very next day and get a paycheck. When it's fight night, these guys are ready to go and ready to WIN, typically at all costs. So, rather than take my statement about "fighting until they are dead" literally, perhaps the context will give you a better understanding of what that really means.

J.B.
08-02-2010, 11:03 PM
Sorry...but until they deduct points for low blows, or eye gouges, and the likes...they cant really ban moves for fighter safety.

They really oughta start promoting it in the ring before they do anything else. I dont want to hear fighter safety, I want to see it, and I want to see all Refs actually penalize those fighters who do illegal moves or low blows. I want them to be harsh but fair, and apply it from the rookie debutees, right up to the Reignin elite. Until then...its nothing but words...and when, one day someone actully ends up permanently blinded by a thumb, or infertile due to a kick in the knackers...it will be too late to harp on about it then.

Thats my opinion. :wink:

So what your saying is that because some refs give warnings for other illegal blows we can't ban a blow that can easily be fatal?

Because I would much rather be blind from a thumb or infertile from getting kicked in the balls than DEAD from being dropped on my head. :laugh:

Thumbs to the eye, and kicks to the balls can happen on accident. It's no accident when one fighter slams another. :)

Tyburn
08-03-2010, 12:47 AM
So what your saying is that because some refs give warnings for other illegal blows we can't ban a blow that can easily be fatal?

Because I would much rather be blind from a thumb or infertile from getting kicked in the balls than DEAD from being dropped on my head. :laugh:

Thumbs to the eye, and kicks to the balls can happen on accident. It's no accident when one fighter slams another. :)

What I'm saying is they have to be unilateral across the board before they ban any type of move if thats on fighter safety grounds. They havent got a proper procedure as it is...what do you want J.B...some Refs to disqaulify a guy for using a slam...and another ref to allow the same manouvre?? because thats EXACTLY whats going on with the rules they have already.

Accidents? You know, when a fighter, accidently gets caught off guard, or accidently get caught in a submission...it has consequences, he probably loses the match or round. I dont understand when he does an illegal blow which firstly can do damage, and secondly can give him an advantage, why, regardless, he also suffers the consequences

Once the UFC have made their mind up on the above, which is the very basic. THEN you can start to enforce rules on top of that where you say other moves are not allowed strictly because of fighter safety.

suntereo
08-03-2010, 01:48 AM
If fighters are instructed to protect themselves at all times and that's all it takes then why do we even need a referee? :laugh:

You can say that spiking rules are in place to "minimize damage", but you (and many others) just seem to want to ignore the fact that dropping a person on their head poses great potential for breaking their neck and/or killing them. Nobody cares today, and people who argue this typically think I'm wrong and that changing the rules would "pussify" the sport, but if somebody got killed in a UFC fight, you can kiss slams goodbye. I am fully aware that a fighter can let go of a submission and "bail-out", and I stated that, but it doesn't change what I feel is the high risk/low reward of slams.

Fighters fight to win, no matter what kind of scores they get on their IQ test. When Frank Mir broke Tim Sylvia's arm, Tim would have kept going had a REF not stopped the fight. When fighters get bad cuts, we have refs AND doctors examine the cut and THEY decide if the fighters get to continue because we know the fighters will keep fighting so they can get that win and that extra money. We are talking about people's lively-hood, it has NOTHING to do with thinking fighters are "base animals". They are FIGHTERS, not rocket scientists. They can't call in sick and come back to work the very next day and get a paycheck. When it's fight night, these guys are ready to go and ready to WIN, typically at all costs. So, rather than take my statement about "fighting until they are dead" literally, perhaps the context will give you a better understanding of what that really means.

my background is greco, I still compete and coach and 36 years old. You are campaigning to have the aspect of mma that interests me the most removed or at least greatly handicapped. Would Matt Hughes have had the same success without being able to utilize slams? (I prefer high amplitude throws) - which are rewarded extra points in wrestling btw.:wink:

J.B.
08-03-2010, 02:06 AM
What I'm saying is they have to be unilateral across the board before they ban any type of move if thats on fighter safety grounds. They havent got a proper procedure as it is...what do you want J.B...some Refs to disqaulify a guy for using a slam...and another ref to allow the same manouvre?? because thats EXACTLY whats going on with the rules they have already.

Accidents? You know, when a fighter, accidently gets caught off guard, or accidently get caught in a submission...it has consequences, he probably loses the match or round. I dont understand when he does an illegal blow which firstly can do damage, and secondly can give him an advantage, why, regardless, he also suffers the consequences

Once the UFC have made their mind up on the above, which is the very basic. THEN you can start to enforce rules on top of that where you say other moves are not allowed strictly because of fighter safety.

Eye gouges, kicks to the balls, and CERTAIN other illegal strikes can happen by accident during the course of a match. Of course the blows are still illegal, but we allow refs a certain level of discretion when deducting points for that very reason. Also, you do realize that JUDGES can still deduct points from a fighter even if the ref doesn't, right?

When it comes to slams, it wouldn't have to be something where one ref lets it happen and another doesn't. If a guy comes into the UFC and tries to use soccer kicks they are gonna be DQ'd because there is no scenario where that would be an "accident" (unless they really don't know the rules, which does happen in smaller orgs quite frequently)

J.B.
08-03-2010, 02:24 AM
my background is greco, I still compete and coach and 36 years old. You are campaigning to have the aspect of mma that interests me the most removed or at least greatly handicapped. Would Matt Hughes have had the same success without being able to utilize slams? (I prefer high amplitude throws) - which are rewarded extra points in wrestling btw.:wink:

I am not "campaigning" for anything. I didn't even start this thread.

I also commented on Matt slamming people earlier in the thread.

I am simply sharing my opinions on the sport. However it seems lately that more and more people want to cite their experience as a means of trying to discredit my points rather than having a discussion. My background is boxing, and the standup is my favorite part of the sport, but I don't expect MMA to mimic boxing in every way. I am not a pro or an amateur and I don't coach, and I'm not gonna pretend that I do, but that doesn't mean I have never competed or don't understand the ins-and-outs of the sport. I also never said that you or anybody else who disagrees with me doesn't understand the sport. It's a matter of opinion. :)

suntereo
08-03-2010, 04:11 AM
I am not "campaigning" for anything. I didn't even start this thread.

I also commented on Matt slamming people earlier in the thread.

I am simply sharing my opinions on the sport. However it seems lately that more and more people want to cite their experience as a means of trying to discredit my points rather than having a discussion. My background is boxing, and the standup is my favorite part of the sport, but I don't expect MMA to mimic boxing in every way. I am not a pro or an amateur and I don't coach, and I'm not gonna pretend that I do, but that doesn't mean I have never competed or don't understand the ins-and-outs of the sport. I also never said that you or anybody else who disagrees with me doesn't understand the sport. It's a matter of opinion. :)

this makes sense to me - when i see boxers, i see brain dead mushrooms from continued beatings and countless stories of deaths in the ring, which is either inaccurate or exhaturated= I am very sensitive to the striking because of my unfamiliarity to it. Crocop highlights make me cringe. I view striking in mma as an obstacle to overcome - hopefully with wrestling.

Getting thrown on the other hand is daily hat for me. Remember Randlemans throw of Fedor back in Pride? I was watching that with a buddy that was not familiar with wrestling and he was sure fedor was a dead man. Fedors response - that happens all the time in sambo, no big deal. That's the sport throwin and gettin thrown, but I will concede that in wrestling throws are not normally done with "bad intentions"

Do you know what the percentage of head or neck trauma is in boxing vs. wrestling? that would be an interesting fact to consider in this debate.

I was not attacking you but simply fiercely defending the wrestling aspect of mma.

J.B.
08-03-2010, 04:58 AM
this makes sense to me - when i see boxers, i see brain dead mushrooms from continued beatings and countless stories of deaths in the ring, which is either inaccurate or exhaturated= I am very sensitive to the striking because of my unfamiliarity to it. Crocop highlights make me cringe. I view striking in mma as an obstacle to overcome - hopefully with wrestling.

Getting thrown on the other hand is daily hat for me. Remember Randlemans throw of Fedor back in Pride? I was watching that with a buddy that was not familiar with wrestling and he was sure fedor was a dead man. Fedors response - that happens all the time in sambo, no big deal. That's the sport throwin and gettin thrown, but I will concede that in wrestling throws are not normally done with "bad intentions"

Do you know what the percentage of head or neck trauma is in boxing vs. wrestling? that would be an interesting fact to consider in this debate.

I was not attacking you but simply fiercely defending the wrestling aspect of mma.

It's all good, I know where you are coming from. :)

I grew up around wrestling too. I had always played football, but my older brother was a really good wrestler and actually competed in high school in IL around the same years Matt did. He always had me wrestling with him and his friends, and I even went to a couple small camps during summer time. So I am familiar with the environment although it's not my first love or what I have ever put my primary focus on when it comes to training. When I was in high-school MMA was really in it's infancy and I identified more with Boxing as the "fight sport" I grew up watching and loving. I got into training in boxing around then because I was getting into fights and it was also a great way to workout and let off some steam.

As for numbers about head or neck trauma in both sports, I don't know them off the top of my head, but there have been some very in depth studies about boxing that I have read over the years. I am a huge boxing fan, but I don't sugar coat it either. It's a dangerous sport and it's endured generations of history to get to where it is today. There have been amateur boxers who have died from one punch while wearing headgear and with no sign of a previous condition.

MMA is no different, it's never going to be 100% safe, but some things clearly walk the line, and slams are definitely in that category. Like I said, it's just my opinion, because clearly anybody could argue that the entire sport is dangerous, but we know that there is a significant danger for breaking somebody's neck when slamming them to the mat. I don't think it's going to change, and I am not on a crusade to see it changed because it's ultimately a losing battle when it comes to talking about it. However, as I said earlier, I feel that it is sad because I do believe that it would ultimately take somebody to get seriously hurt or killed on a UFC card to change a lot of people's opinions, and likely the rules too. :unsure:

Tyburn
08-03-2010, 12:34 PM
Eye gouges, kicks to the balls, and CERTAIN other illegal strikes can happen by accident during the course of a match. Of course the blows are still illegal, but we allow refs a certain level of discretion when deducting points for that very reason. Also, you do realize that JUDGES can still deduct points from a fighter even if the ref doesn't, right?
[/SIZE]

its unfair to do that :sad:

No...I didnt realize Judges could deduct points. :ninja:

J.B.
08-03-2010, 02:50 PM
its unfair to do that :sad:

No...I didnt realize Judges could deduct points. :ninja:

How is it unfair? :huh:

Points are a very valuable thing, especially when there is only 3 or 5 rounds. Thats why ref's have to use discretion when deciding to deduct a point. If a guy turtles up and turns his head away from his opponent to avoid being hit while a combo of punches is coming at him, why should the fighter throwing strikes be penalized a point and lose the round just because he hit the other guy in the back of the head with one shot? Same goes for inside leg kicks that catch a guy in the balls. The first time, you give them a warning, if it keeps happening or it seems intentional, then you penalize the fighter. There absolutely needs to be that "human element" of making the call involved in the fights. It is involved in all professional sports, and it's NEVER perfect. :laugh:

What I think surprises me the most is that you would say the sport can't move forward with any further regulation in fighter safety until the enforcement of the smaller polices essentially becomes "black and white".

Tyburn
08-03-2010, 05:41 PM
How is it unfair? :huh:

Points are a very valuable thing, especially when there is only 3 or 5 rounds. Thats why ref's have to use discretion when deciding to deduct a point. If a guy turtles up and turns his head away from his opponent to avoid being hit while a combo of punches is coming at him, why should the fighter throwing strikes be penalized a point and lose the round just because he hit the other guy in the back of the head with one shot? Same goes for inside leg kicks that catch a guy in the balls. The first time, you give them a warning, if it keeps happening or it seems intentional, then you penalize the fighter. There absolutely needs to be that "human element" of making the call involved in the fights. It is involved in all professional sports, and it's NEVER perfect. :laugh:

What I think surprises me the most is that you would say the sport can't move forward with any further regulation in fighter safety until the enforcement of the smaller polices essentially becomes "black and white".

Points are valuable...and so is a fighters Career. Thats why user descretion is unfair. I explain this in one of my recap videos, but the point is...you had one card, four fighters, two refs...two fighters fouled, one ref deducted points, one did not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqQI2SdkqBs

Now this matters if you are the fighter who has fought fantastically, and you loose because the person who fouled you wasnt docked a point...particularly, when the fight before, the guy who was fouled probably won because a point was deducted.

You can have it one way, or the other...but not both, that is unfair. IF a Fighter makes a mistake, a Fighter should pay for it. This has been something ive watched since the Henderson/Franklin match. Its been on the increase...but this month has been a lot better.

J.B.
08-03-2010, 06:11 PM
Points are valuable...and so is a fighters Career. Thats why user descretion is unfair. I explain this in one of my recap videos, but the point is...you had one card, four fighters, two refs...two fighters fouled, one ref deducted points, one did not.

Yes, a fighters life, and career is valuable. Isn't that one of the very points I have been stressing when talking about slams?

Discretion is not "unfair", it's a part of the system. You, along with every other fan, just don't like it when the person making the call doesn't have the same discretion as YOU would. :laugh:

It's no different from umpires or referees in any other sport.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqQI2SdkqBs

Now this matters if you are the fighter who has fought fantastically, and you loose because the person who fouled you wasnt docked a point...particularly, when the fight before, the guy who was fouled probably won because a point was deducted.


Yeah, in the scenario you paint it sucks for the guy who loses, but you also take it to the extreme and say that Shalorus needed to be deducted 3 points.

What about the scenario where guys get points deducted because a guy is acting to fake how bad a foul really was? Or the same guys who lose because of a bogus point deduction?

Certain calls are plain as day, and people still get them wrong. That's NEVER gonna change, but you can't take things to total extreme and say that it's "all or nothing" or that the sport can't make advancements in fighter safety because discretion exists amongst most of the calls.


You can have it one way, or the other...but not both, that is unfair. IF a Fighter makes a mistake, a Fighter should pay for it. This has been something ive watched since the Henderson/Franklin match. Its been on the increase...but this month has been a lot better.

You are making it black and white, but there are a lot of shades of gray when it comes to proper officiating. You can't expect perfection every time, but the refs and judges get it right a LOT more than they get it wrong.

Tyburn
08-03-2010, 09:18 PM
Yes, a fighters life, and career is valuable. Isn't that one of the very points I have been stressing when talking about slams?

Discretion is not "unfair", it's a part of the system. You, along with every other fan, just don't like it when the person making the call doesn't have the same discretion as YOU would. :laugh:

It's no different from umpires or referees in any other sport.



Yeah, in the scenario you paint it sucks for the guy who loses, but you also take it to the extreme and say that Shalorus needed to be deducted 3 points.

What about the scenario where guys get points deducted because a guy is acting to fake how bad a foul really was? Or the same guys who lose because of a bogus point deduction?

Certain calls are plain as day, and people still get them wrong. That's NEVER gonna change, but you can't take things to total extreme and say that it's "all or nothing" or that the sport can't make advancements in fighter safety because discretion exists amongst most of the calls.



You are making it black and white, but there are a lot of shades of gray when it comes to proper officiating. You can't expect perfection every time, but the refs and judges get it right a LOT more than they get it wrong.

No, J.B, I actually like rules, and wouldnt mind if someone I liked got penalized for a mistake. There should be shades of gray on issues like this, it just needs the company to make a decision. The Descretion I suppose would be, do you deduct a point, or disqualify :laugh:

I'm not dissagreeing with you about slams, I dont really care, though I think this is MMA and you have to remember this is a consential fight...what are you going to outlaw next, punches, because they might cause heamorages and concussions??

Like I say...the issue I have is the reasoning behind this. For fighter safety? there is a lot more they should be tackling about that first, before going onto such and such moves...soon you will have just too long a list of donts for the fighters to remember :laugh:

Let them fight, but punish them for their mistakes, and always have the ref ready to stop the fight.

:laugh: you actually watched my video didnt you :ashamed:

J.B.
08-03-2010, 11:21 PM
...what are you going to outlaw next, punches, because they might cause heamorages and concussions??


See....

I already pointed this out earlier, but this is exactly what we should avoid when these topics come up. When people chose to take that road in the discussion, it makes it hard to ever discuss any legitimate changes to the sport, and weather we like it or not, MMA is a sport that will be refined over the coming years.

I know you are probably as sick of hearing it as I am of saying it, but MMA is ultimately not much different than any other major professional sport. :laugh:

Tyburn
08-03-2010, 11:42 PM
See....

I already pointed this out earlier, but this is exactly what we should avoid when these topics come up. When people chose to take that road in the discussion, it makes it hard to ever discuss any legitimate changes to the sport, and weather we like it or not, MMA is a sport that will be refined over the coming years.

I know you are probably as sick of hearing it as I am of saying it, but MMA is ultimately not much different than any other major professional sport. :laugh:

but that IS the logical follow on.

There is a fine line between fighter safety, and fighters not being able to fight if you go down the road of banning certain moves.

You start with banning punches to the back of the head, Soccer kicks to the face, and slams, you prevent concussions, brokens necks, broken backs, fractured skull.

Fair enough, Pride is Dead

But people still get hurt, so then you say perhaps you should ban certain types of chokes which could cause unconsciousness and bleeding or heamorages in the brain, or hypoksia, brain damage. out goes the Rear Naked, The Triangle, The Guillotine, the north-south...and all the rest

Fair Enough, Frank Trigg Retires permanently

But people still get hurt, so then you say..well perhaps you shouldnt allow punches to the head, and perhaps you should not allow kicks to the legs or arms...so only body punches and kicks should be allowed.

Fair enough, Crocop flies back to Croatia

but people still get hurt, so then you have to say, look if you put someone in an armbar or leg lock you can break knees and tendons, so no Submissions period. You also band Elbows and Ground and pound, they cause cuts, cuts cause blood loss, and stiches, and scar tissue, and deformities

Fair Enough, an end to cabbage ears in MMA

Then you note that takedowns are leathal, people fall funny all the times and cause themselves serious damage.

WTF are you left with? Well..you still have Refs descrition on deductions on points for low blows or disqualifications...and even with all those sanctions, Henderson could still manage to eye-poke and headbutt...and Josh Koscheck could still fake an injury.

Everyone is happy. :mellow:

:laugh:

did I over state and simplify my point too much :ashamed:

J.B.
08-04-2010, 12:15 AM
did I over state and simplify my point too much :ashamed:

Pretty much.

You just did what 9 out of 10 fans do when this topic comes up, and it's NOT the logical follow on. It's a hypothetical follow on.

Fans are all about, "what's in it for me?". The moment anybody brings up a topic that they feel would "take something away" from the sport, many fans act as if it's an attack on the sanctity of the sport or the general integrity in which it's overseen. It can make positive discussions or changes almost impossible to accomplish without one or several drastic events taking place that re-shape people's opinions over time.

So for instance in this case...rather than discussing the actuality of the pros and cons of big "power-bomb" like slams, we are stuck arguing in circles over issues that are already NON-ISSUES, such as eye-pokes and groin-shots. Or, we are stuck with people saying, "why not just ban everything?".

Rather than continue to go back and forth on the topics we have beaten to death but don't pertain to the ACTUAL topic at hand, I want to shift gears and ask you one more related question....

Would you agree that IF (and Lord knows I NEVER wanna see this happen) somebody were to be killed or seriously injured in a UFC competition from big slam that it would lead to new rules that ultimately remove or significantly alter the ways slams are allowed?

Tyburn
08-04-2010, 12:44 AM
Would you agree that IF (and Lord knows I NEVER wanna see this happen) somebody were to be killed or seriously injured in a UFC competition from big slam that it would lead to new rules that ultimately remove or significantly alter the ways slams are allowed?

Yes, just like the first time a fighter retires due to being blinded, they will make a rulling on eyepokes.

I know the question will be Why wait til it happens? but the truth is there are a lot of ways to die in that octagon and you cant ban them all, unless someone actually dies first.

J.B.
08-04-2010, 01:34 AM
Yes, just like the first time a fighter retires due to being blinded, they will make a rulling on eyepokes.

I know the question will be Why wait til it happens? but the truth is there are a lot of ways to die in that octagon and you cant ban them all, unless someone actually dies first.

You do realize however though, that eye-pokes and slams are on two different levels. One CAN happen on accident while the other cannot.

I honestly don't need to ask that last question, because, in so many words, I already answered it for myself earlier in this thread. :)


MMA is no different, it's never going to be 100% safe, but some things clearly walk the line, and slams are definitely in that category. Like I said, it's just my opinion, because clearly anybody could argue that the entire sport is dangerous, but we know that there is a significant danger for breaking somebody's neck when slamming them to the mat. I don't think it's going to change, and I am not on a crusade to see it changed because it's ultimately a losing battle when it comes to talking about it. However, as I said earlier, I feel that it is sad because I do believe that it would ultimately take somebody to get seriously hurt or killed on a UFC card to change a lot of people's opinions, and likely the rules too. :unsure:

EDIT: I wanted to add this before you responded, because I mistakenly left it out of this reply....

When you say; "just like the first time a fighter retires due to being blinded, they will make a rulling on eyepokes"... I feel it's important to stress that I said IN THE UFC. You could very well be right about the eye-pokes, however my bigger point was that it will take it happening on the biggest stage for people to actually take notice. Again, I am eluding to the fighter who was recently killed after being slammed in smaller org. Nobody really took much notice to that happening, but it's a part of this sport nonetheless. I'm not saying you didn't catch my point, but I wanted to point it out for you and anybody who may not have caught that.

Tyburn
08-04-2010, 12:39 PM
You do realize however though, that eye-pokes and slams are on two different levels. One CAN happen on accident while the other cannot.

I honestly don't need to ask that last question, because, in so many words, I already answered it for myself earlier in this thread. :)



EDIT: I wanted to add this before you responded, because I mistakenly left it out of this reply....

When you say; "just like the first time a fighter retires due to being blinded, they will make a rulling on eyepokes"... I feel it's important to stress that I said IN THE UFC. You could very well be right about the eye-pokes, however my bigger point was that it will take it happening on the biggest stage for people to actually take notice. Again, I am eluding to the fighter who was recently killed after being slammed in smaller org. Nobody really took much notice to that happening, but it's a part of this sport nonetheless. I'm not saying you didn't catch my point, but I wanted to point it out for you and anybody who may not have caught that.

Yes...it will take a death in the top promotion to change things. Its sad, but true.

I dont know how I feel about slams, I have seen two very different styles, the slams like Matt Hughes does, dont seem to land a person on their head...whereas I've seen some footage of pride, where the slam is utilized very differently, it looks more like a professional wrestling move, except obviously its insertion is unscripted....I've never seen that kind used in the UFC.

Neezar
08-04-2010, 06:05 PM
Originally Posted by JB
MMA is no different, it's never going to be 100% safe, but some things clearly walk the line, and slams are definitely in that category. Like I said, it's just my opinion, because clearly anybody could argue that the entire sport is dangerous, but we know that there is a significant danger for breaking somebody's neck when slamming them to the mat. I don't think it's going to change, and I am not on a crusade to see it changed because it's ultimately a losing battle when it comes to talking about it. However, as I said earlier, I feel that it is sad because I do believe that it would ultimately take somebody to get seriously hurt or killed on a UFC card to change a lot of people's opinions, and likely the rules too. :unsure:


But don't more people get seriously injured or die from blows to the head rather than slams? :unsure-1:

J.B.
08-04-2010, 07:58 PM
But don't more people get seriously injured or die from blows to the head rather than slams? :unsure-1:

In MMA? :huh:

A slam IS a blow to the head 9 times out of 10...so I'm not sure I follow, lol

Neezar
08-04-2010, 10:17 PM
In MMA? :huh:

A slam IS a blow to the head 9 times out of 10...so I'm not sure I follow, lol

Okay, I will clarify :rolleyes:

Don't more people die from punches to the head?

J.B.
08-05-2010, 09:18 AM
Okay, I will clarify :rolleyes:

Don't more people die from punches to the head?

Well, when it comes to MMA/Boxing technically yes (especially if you want to include Boxing), but it's a different ratio that I don't have an exact number to put on it. I think if you are gonna look at it like that it would be important to take pro-wrestling into account as well considering they utilize the same type of high impact slams on a daily basis and people are seriously injured all the time. Also, it's VERY rare that one single punch can deliver enough impact to cause serious debilitating damage or even come close to being fatal. Usually, the people who die from punches are exposed to high amount of blows that cause the brain to swell up and bleed, rendering them brain-dead and on life-support, and a lot of times they find that there was a pre-existing condition that put them at a higher risk. Although the reality is that it DOES happen where one good shot is all it takes, it's just extremely rare. MMA hasn't had this really happen on the higher levels yet, because the officiating typically prevents prolonged beatings to the head, unlike Boxing in which the rules and level of expectation are different.

We are talking a move that has a high risk of instantly breaking somebody's neck if the angle is just SLIGHTLY off. Also, punches to the back of the head are not allowed, but when you slam-KO somebody, it's the back of their head smacking the mat. Sure, lots of people have gotten slammed and been fine, but in my opinion it's one of those moves that the risk outweighs the reward. Others don't see it that way, and yes slams can be fun to see, but if it was my call personally, I would vote against it. That's just me. :)

Dethbob
08-05-2010, 04:00 PM
I think if you are gonna look at it like that it would be important to take pro-wrestling into account as well

I donít think itís ever important to take pro wrestling into account, but thatís just me! ;) Anyway, Simmons died from what looked like a run of the mill tap to the forehead, Randleman launched Fedor head first into the mat and he barely noticed, and Shamrock deleted Zinoviev with what amounted to and extra strength double leg. So if youíre going to draw a line, where are you going to draw it? If you start banning things based on the APPEARANCE of safety, youíre going to be throwing a lot of stuff out the window.

Neezar
08-05-2010, 04:26 PM
Well, when it comes to MMA/Boxing technically yes (especially if you want to include Boxing), but it's a different ratio that I don't have an exact number to put on it. I think if you are gonna look at it like that it would be important to take pro-wrestling into account as well considering they utilize the same type of high impact slams on a daily basis and people are seriously injured all the time. Also, it's VERY rare that one single punch can deliver enough impact to cause serious debilitating damage or even come close to being fatal. Usually, the people who die from punches are exposed to high amount of blows that cause the brain to swell up and bleed, rendering them brain-dead and on life-support, and a lot of times they find that there was a pre-existing condition that put them at a higher risk. Although the reality is that it DOES happen where one good shot is all it takes, it's just extremely rare. MMA hasn't had this really happen on the higher levels yet, because the officiating typically prevents prolonged beatings to the head, unlike Boxing in which the rules and level of expectation are different.

We are talking a move that has a high risk of instantly breaking somebody's neck if the angle is just SLIGHTLY off. Also, punches to the back of the head are not allowed, but when you slam-KO somebody, it's the back of their head smacking the mat. Sure, lots of people have gotten slammed and been fine, but in my opinion it's one of those moves that the risk outweighs the reward. Others don't see it that way, and yes slams can be fun to see, but if it was my call personally, I would vote against it. That's just me. :)

Even if you include wrestling I think more die from punches to the head. So if you are really worried about safety then I think they should start with the thing that causes the most damage. And if it is repeated punches then why not cut them off after, say 15? :mellow:

:laugh:

I hate to say it but I agree with Dave. Making stipulations based on the possibility of an injury can spin out of control. If you must spend time and effort on safety then start where the most injuries occur. And maybe that would be the slam, I don't know though. I thought it was punches to the head.

Kinda off topic but....

This kinda reminds me of a court debate we had here on seat belts in buses. We had a horrible bus crash and high profile court case against the state for seatbelts. They brought in a specialist who said that most kids who get killed going to school get killed getting on/off the buses OR riding with teen siblings. So if you took the amount of money that you would spend on seatbelts and spent it on more buses (more options so no kiddies riding with big bro/sis) and safer bus stops then you could potentially save 9 kid's lives instead of 1 with the seatbelts. Which one are you going to chose? 9 kids or 1 kid?

Same theory here. When changing rules or sanctions go with the one that costs the most lives/most injuries. :unsure-1:

J.B.
08-05-2010, 04:42 PM
Like I pointed out several times in this thread, this is all about opinion. What doesn't advance the conversation is beating the same drum over and over about where we are supposed to draw a hypothetical line. Weather you are for slams or not, we should be able to discuss making advances in the sport to help ensure fighter safety. Dave's idea that it all needs to be black and white when it comes to point deductions before we can take any further action is just silly.

This is no different than in ANY other sport. Rules and regulations are often refined, and there are always people who don't like it, or throw their hands up in the air and say "this is madness, where do we draw the line?".

Saying that more people die from punches is a misleading way of trying to counter the points I have outlined in my opinion on slams. The ratio of people who die or suffer serious life-long damage from ONE punch is going to be marginally less than those who are killed or injured from ONE slam. The only reason I said it would be fair to include pro-wrestling is because we are basically talking about a move they use daily. HOWEVER, in MMA these type of slams are MUCH more dangerous because they are NOT choreographed and are typically done with BAD intentions.

We have rules in place that already prevent "spiking" and striking the back of the head on an opponent. Power-Bomb like slams fall inside of a gray area that rides along both of those things, so to bring them into question is not some radical new idea about "PERCEIVED" safety. It's been a topic of discussion for a long time.

Dethbob
08-05-2010, 08:45 PM
I remember the downward elbow not being all that dangerous until it was banned, then guys started looking at the ref instead of protecting their faces and we started seeing broken eye sockets. Soccer kicks were banned, and now we have flurries of hammer fists instead. Safety is certainly a good thing, but sticking a Ďsafetyí sticker on something doesnít necessarily make it so. You are arguing in favor of a rule, what rule would you propose, and what other effects do you think your rule would have on the game?

J.B.
08-05-2010, 09:00 PM
I remember the downward elbow not being all that dangerous until it was banned, then guys started looking at the ref instead of protecting their faces and we started seeing broken eye sockets. Soccer kicks were banned, and now we have flurries of hammer fists instead. Safety is certainly a good thing, but sticking a ‘safety’ sticker on something doesn’t necessarily make it so. You are arguing in favor of a rule, what rule would you propose, and what other effects do you think your rule would have on the game?

Well, my opinion is that given the fact that spikes and strikes to the back of the head are already not permitted, and for good reason, we would simply extend the rule to include slams.

If it were a part of the sport that I personally felt was vital to the core of what MMA is about, I wouldn't advocate a change. I realize thats just my opinion, and there are still SOME fans who constantly complain about the lack of headstomps, soccer kicks, and knees to a downed opponent. All of those have their arguments for both sides. However, slams are not an essential method for escaping subs even though they can be quite effective. It would also likely force some wrestlers who primarily try to rely on their sheer strength to have to step up their jiu-jitsu games. Just like with downward elbows and soccer kicks and all that good stuff, I don't think the casual fans would be too outraged about it after like 6 months.

Dethbob
08-06-2010, 01:54 PM
Dude, your new avatar is freaking me out! Anyway, nudging the existing rules to cover the problem makes good sense, but I can’t help thinking that the better wrestlers will quickly figure out that if you are not allowed lift someone over your shoulders and slam the back of their head, you could just as easily suplex from that position and slam their face. It might be easier as in Greco-Roman or Judo to define what a legal throw is and exclude everything else. Also some Sambo competitions consider lifting an opponent above your waist an escape, which puts the impetus on the Jiu-jitsu guy to keep his own back on the mat instead of expecting the referee to fight for him. I think this would preserve the self defense relevance of the sport and protect the fighters without changing the game too much.

rockdawg21
08-06-2010, 04:38 PM
Hippies haven't any business telling the UFC or any other MMA organization how to operate.

Dethbob
08-06-2010, 06:12 PM
LOL wut?

rockdawg21
08-06-2010, 11:47 PM
LOL wut?
Only hippies would want to ban slams in MMA.

Dethbob
08-07-2010, 02:50 PM
Only hippies would want to ban slams in MMA.

Yeah, itís only ĎMMAí because of the hippies anyway. Vale Tudo and NHB are no more, and MMA is becoming more of a sport and less of a fight. A more interesting version of Boxing and a more marketable version of Wrestling (the real kind) were sorely needed, but that was not the original point.