Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > UFC

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-21-2009, 08:15 AM
chadro
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default strikes to the back of the head

Don't get me wrong, Rich lost the fight. I saw the left hook to the chin that put him away. But everyone on other forums are pretending that the three strikes to the back of the head were ok. I am not biased one bit. And I am in no way jumping on the DQ bandwagon... but those last 3 strikes to the back of the head were bogus and should have been at least mentioned by Rogan and Goldberg. I just wanted to see what all of your opinions are on it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-21-2009, 12:57 PM
GnP
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't think they were ok, but I also don't think they were intentional Vitor had essentially knocked out Rich at that point and was just swarming on him throwing anything it just happens they way Rich fell meant the first shots (and the only ones before the ref stepped in were to the back of the head/neck). Is that an excuse? no maybe a fighter should have more control but I suspect until others mentioned it the Commentators did not even really see it as an 'Incident'
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-21-2009, 02:42 PM
Preach
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GnP View Post
I don't think they were ok, but I also don't think they were intentional Vitor had essentially knocked out Rich at that point and was just swarming on him throwing anything it just happens they way Rich fell meant the first shots (and the only ones before the ref stepped in were to the back of the head/neck). Is that an excuse? no maybe a fighter should have more control but I suspect until others mentioned it the Commentators did not even really see it as an 'Incident'
+1
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-21-2009, 03:33 PM
logrus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Problem is nobody gets Dq'ed for it and nobody gets points taken away for it. Its one thing if a fighter turns into it, but when they are helpless or in a position where they never moved into it something needs to be done.

By the way I am not commented on the Rich fight, just in general when I see deliberate strikes to the head.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-21-2009, 05:27 PM
bj44's Avatar
bj44 bj44 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,107
Default

when somone has there face in the mat like that its kinda hard not to hit them in the back of the head..... Rich was done
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-21-2009, 09:43 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadro View Post
Don't get me wrong, Rich lost the fight. I saw the left hook to the chin that put him away. But everyone on other forums are pretending that the three strikes to the back of the head were ok. I am not biased one bit. And I am in no way jumping on the DQ bandwagon... but those last 3 strikes to the back of the head were bogus and should have been at least mentioned by Rogan and Goldberg. I just wanted to see what all of your opinions are on it.
Re watch it in slow motion.
Only the last shot hit the back of the head.

At least that is how it looked to me,
the second was clearly to the ear, and fair, and the last was dead on the back of the head.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-21-2009, 10:08 PM
Shane Lee 2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ok maybe I need to go back and watch the fight to see where the strikes landed. Also keep in mind fighters are taught to keep fighting till they are stopped and strikers will strike whats in front of them even though we train to control where they land it's still hard. However I was in the UFC fighters meeting and the Mohawk rule was used. Here is an excerpt about this from Sherdog:

Murky comprehension of regulation is, in most cases, due to murky exposition and not any sort of learning or language disability on the part of the broadcaster. (The mind-numbing patter of some professional voices would sometimes have you believe otherwise.) Most recently, there was divisive talk on what constitutes the back of the head when addressing illegal strikes: Is it a "Mohawk" stripe of no-contact, as industry ambassador "Big" John McCarthy believes, or a site ranging from ear to ear?

This confusion often spreads to the in-ring officials themselves, who are obviously a priority audience when it comes to understanding the rules.

To ease perplexed minds, McCarthy and athletic commission members recently sketched some amendments to the Unified Rules that look to spread some proverbial turf builder on the MMA landscape.

Strikes to the back of the head are now clearly delineated -- the Mohawk definition prevailed. Elbow strikes are no longer limited to "arcing" movements, a limitation that was preposterous since its inception. You can now drive the point of your elbow into your opponent's soft tissue with abandon. Amazingly, bureaucracy works.

Sometimes.


Also some other interesting links:

http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/...6543&zoneid=13

http://www.fighting-mma.com/articles...f-the-head.php

Last edited by Shane Lee 2; 09-22-2009 at 04:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-22-2009, 07:23 AM
chadro
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I apreciate the fact that you guys have actual opinions on the matter. The fact that you didn't call me a noob or a nuthugger or a troll shows that you guys are very well educated in mma. Like I said, Rich lost the fight and I take nothing away from Vitor's astonishing performance.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-22-2009, 11:51 AM
Chuck
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadro View Post
I apreciate the fact that you guys have actual opinions on the matter. The fact that you didn't call me a noob or a nuthugger or a troll shows that you guys are very well educated in mma. Like I said, Rich lost the fight and I take nothing away from Vitor's astonishing performance.
Oh hush you nuthugging, noob troll!

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.