# Are Standing Arm Break Unsportsmanlike in MMA?



## Anarax

I was reviewing some of the unorthodox techniques in MMA and Waki Gatame(the first lock I was taught) caught my eye. Shinya Aoki applied it beautifully in the video below. I of course had to read the YouTube comments and some were saying the break was unsportsmanlike. 

I can see part of their point given it's a break and is done so quickly it doesn't give his opponent enough time to tap. However; the Waki Gatame is a difficult technique to control your opponent with especially in a pro MMA bout, thus it must be done more explosively to be effective. When you opponent is trying to beat you unconscious is the arm-break that inappropriate or unsportsmanlike? Understand I'm referring to MMA bouts not grappling competitions.  

Standing Arm-breaks Yea or Nay? Why or why not?


----------



## jobo

Anarax said:


> I was reviewing some of the unorthodox techniques in MMA and Waki Gatame(the first lock I was taught) caught my eye. Shinya Aoki applied it beautifully in the video below. I of course had to read the YouTube comments and some were saying the break was unsportsmanlike.
> 
> I can see part of their point given it's a break and is done so quickly it doesn't give his opponent enough time to tap. However; the Waki Gatame is a difficult technique to control your opponent with especially in a pro MMA bout, thus it must be done more explosively to be effective. When you opponent is trying to beat you unconscious is the arm-break that inappropriate or unsportsmanlike? Understand I'm referring to MMA bouts not grappling competitions.
> 
> Standing Arm-breaks Yea or Nay? Why or why not?


Yes deliberately breaking your opponents arm  is unspOrting in a sporting contest,  the guys probably got kids and a mortgage, and bills, stopping him from looking after his family is not sporting


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If you ever test your MA skill in golden glove boxing in a small red neck Texas town (such as Liberty Hill, Texas), you will feel that everybody there will fight like animal and try to kill you in the ring without mercy.

To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. In the ring (or on the mat), you try to act like a tiger and eat your opponent alive. It's better for you to break your opponent's arm than for your opponent to break your arm.


----------



## Headhunter

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. In the ring (or on the mat), you try to act like a tiger and eat your opponent alive. It's better for you to break your opponent's arm than for your opponent to break your arm.


That is absolutely ridiculous. This guy applied a move that can brake an arm instantly. More than likely the other guy wouldn't do w move like that especially since he's a great grappler. This is a sport not a street fight. Stuff like this and punching opponents while they're obviously unconscious is disgraceful in my opinion. This sports dangerous enough without thug moves like that


----------



## Headhunter

jobo said:


> Yes deliberately breaking your opponents arm  is unspOrting in a sporting contest,  the guys probably got kids and a mortgage, and bills, stopping him from looking after his family is not sporting


Absolutely in a self defence situation I'd have no issue breaking a guys arm if need be. But in a sport no way. I've had positions in training where the guy wasn't tapping and I knew my submission was tight and he held on being stubborn and I just let go. My egos not so fragile I need to break someone's arm to feel good about myself


----------



## Anarax

Headhunter said:


> Stuff like this and punching opponents while they're obviously unconscious is disgraceful in my opinion.


I see your point, but those two scenarios aren't the same thing. Aoki's opponent wasn't neutralized and he was taking punches to the face until he broke his arm. If the opponent is out cold on the canvas and the striker continues beating him he's doing more damage after his opponent is neutralized.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you ever test your MA skill in golden glove boxing in a small red neck Texas town (such as Liberty Hill, Texas), you will feel that everybody there will fight like animal and try to kill you in the ring without mercy.
> 
> To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself. In the ring (or on the mat), you try to act like a tiger and eat your opponent alive. It's better for you to break your opponent's arm than for your opponent to break your arm.




Well that's a load of bollocks. What 'enemy'? Why would you want to kill someone in a sporting contest? To have such a mindset and ego that makes you think that's okay is shocking.

Your post however answers a lot of questions I've been wondering about recently.



Anarax said:


> If the opponent is out cold on the canvas and the striker continues beating him he's doing more damage after his opponent is neutralized.




If he's doing that the ref should be disqualifying him, simple as that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tez3 said:


> Well that's a load of bollocks. What 'enemy'? Why would you want to kill someone in a sporting contest?


In the boxing ring, when you barely dodged a punch that's 2 inches away from your head, you knew that if you failed that dodging, you might be on the ground unconscious.

In the boxing ring, either you knock your opponent down, or your opponent knocks you down. The sooner that you can knock your opponent down, the safer that you will be.

In the boxing ring, you may not want to kill your opponent. But you do want to knock out your opponent before he can knock you out.

Since to knock your opponent down/out is part of the sport, comparing to serious head injury, the arm breaking is almost nothing.

My wife had to go to EM to fix her broken shoulder during one of the "friendly sport" ground game. Was her opponent not friendly to her? She just refused to tap out. That was 100% her fault.


----------



## Tez3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the boxing ring, when you barely dodged a punch that's 2 inches away from your head, you knew that if you failed that dodging, you might be on the ground unconscious.
> 
> In the boxing ring, either you knock your opponent down, or your opponent knocks you down. The sooner that you can knock your opponent down, the safer that you will be.
> 
> In the boxing ring, you may not want to kill your opponent. But you do want to knock out your opponent before he can knock you out.




and you teach your grandmother to suck eggs as well.

Look, boxing is consensual violence, same as MMA, we know what to expect when we get in the ring/cage, we have a referee who takes the safety of the fighters seriously, we have rules, it's a competition, a game. You play by the game or you are an idiot.
it's not warfare, it's not an attack, it's a game and that's where the fun lies for the competitors. Physical chess, all this talk about 'killing' etc is just nonsense.

If you are thinking about what might have happened when you are in the ring then you are very foolish, you keep your mind on what you are doing. Afterwards, when the fight is over you shake hands, go off get showered and changed and meet your opponent in the bar for drinks and craic. You can't do that if you break his arm, why on earth would you do that on purpose, it's bad enough when it happens by accident.


----------



## Martial D

I think that's a dirt bag move in MMA sport fighting. The reasons why have been mentioned here already.

Great move for non sport fighting though.

I think it's very important to maintain the distinction here.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the boxing ring, when you barely dodged a punch that's 2 inches away from your head



Dodging a punch by 2" is at least 1.5" of wasted movement.

Unless it's already 2" away from your head, in which case you don't need to dodge it at all.


----------



## Headhunter

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the boxing ring, when you barely dodged a punch that's 2 inches away from your head, you knew that if you failed that dodging, you might be on the ground unconscious.
> 
> In the boxing ring, either you knock your opponent down, or your opponent knocks you down. The sooner that you can knock your opponent down, the safer that you will be.
> 
> In the boxing ring, you may not want to kill your opponent. But you do want to knock out your opponent before he can knock you out.
> 
> Since to knock your opponent down/out is part of the sport, comparing to serious head injury, the arm breaking is almost nothing.
> 
> My wife had to go to EM to fix her broken shoulder during one of the "friendly sport" ground game. Was her opponent not friendly to her? She just refused to tap out. That was 100% her fault.


Tbh you're just sounding like one of those wannabe tough guys you see on YouTube videos.....an arm break is almost nothing.....um no...if the guys arms broken he can't fight, he can't train, he can't drive, he can't play with his kids, he can't work a normal job so it seriously screws up his life.

Also that's not how boxing works yeah knock downs and knock outs happen. But there's hundreds of fights where there's no knockdown or ko at all. Yes fighters are trying to win the match but they're not trying to give them brain damage or kill them in the ring. Look at Chris Eubank after he gave his opponent serious brain damage he never fought the same again and wasn't as aggressive and it still affects him now. When his son was fighting and giving his opponent a beating and the ref wasn't stopping it he told his to stop hitting the head as the ref wasn't stopping it so to just go to the body. He didn't want history to repeat itself. I've been around the fight game for years and I've spoken to fights who've either killed or seriously injured their opponents and trust me none of them ever felt good at all about it. A number of them retired from fighting after it, one had a  breakdown and another committed suicide because of it. So saying fighters trying to kill each other is frankly dumb and disrespectful


----------



## paitingman

It's like the debate on the knee kicks right now. 

With sports medicine where it's at today in the world of pro athletes, there is less concern for elbows and knees, but rising concern for head trauma.
Some say it's a dirty move, but others turn around and say blown knees are just deserts when you're in a game where blunt force trauma to the brain is a typical occurance. 

I'm waiting for more research since I'm still not sure how to call it


----------



## paitingman

"You're whining about knee kicks when you're trying to kick my brain off??" --things I've heard in the gym


----------



## Dirty Dog

Headhunter said:


> if the guys arms broken he can't fight, he can't train, he can't drive, he can't play with his kids, he can't work a normal job so it seriously screws up his life.



Just to play devils advocate...

The typical time between fights for a pro is PLENTY long enough to heal.
I trained with a broken hand. I trained the day I was released from the hospital after 18" of gut and a half dozen tumors removed. Same when I had a radical neck dissection. Same with the next abdominal surgery. Every time I've trained in the last 13 years, I've done so with a compression fracture at T6, a couple spinous process fractures, and a couple rib fractures that never healed, thanks to a motorcycle accident.
If you can't drive with one arm, there's something wrong with you other than the arm... I broke my hand at the dojang, finished the match, reduced the fracture when I took off my gloves, finished the class, then got in my car and drove home. Then I put an ACE wrap and some ice on it and took a nap before I went to work that night.
If you can't play with your kids because your arm is broken, there's something wrong with you other than the arm.
I worked just fine with a broken hand. I worked half the shift before I got time to xray it. Yes, the cast made some procedures in the ER difficult, and some things absolutely require two hands. But I worked just fine.

There's a lot of drama in your statement, but not a lot of fact.

Note that I am neither condoning nor condemning the technique applied in the OPs video. I'm just injecting (see what I did there?) a dose of reality.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> If you can't drive with one arm, there's something wrong with you other than the arm...



I'd have to change cars to drive safely with one arm, otherwise it'd mean taking my hand off the steering wheel to change gear...

Never owned a slush box.


----------



## Anarax

I don't condone the the extra shots post KO, but sometimes the ref isn't able to get between the fighters in time.


----------



## Anarax

paitingman said:


> Some say it's a dirty move, but others turn around and say blown knees are just deserts when you're in a game where blunt force trauma to the brain is a typical occurance.



That was the angle I was coming from. Full contact shots(punches, elbows, kicks, knees) to the head or body can result in concussions, ruptured internal organs or even broken bones. However, arm breaks are considered too extreme?


----------



## DanT

If I break an arm it's unsportsmanlike, but if I break a nose or shatter a jaw or cause a spleen to rupture it's a good punch?


----------



## Steve

I don’t think a legal technique is unsportsmanlike, and the easy way to avoid a broken arm is to defend it correctly or submit.


----------



## Headhunter

Anarax said:


> I don't condone the the extra shots post KO, but sometimes the ref isn't able to get between the fighters in time.


That's not the issue the issue is the fighters shouldn't be throwing those extra shots at all. When you knock a guy out you know he's out. Look at mark hunt he never follows up. Look at rich Franklin vs Nate quarry never followed up because it was obvious. I believe if you ko a guy and continue to punch you should be disqualified because that's what turns it from a sport into a thugs game


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> I'd have to change cars to drive safely with one arm, otherwise it'd mean taking my hand off the steering wheel to change gear...
> 
> Never owned a slush box.



You just cant turn corners and change gears.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> I'd have to change cars to drive safely with one arm, otherwise it'd mean taking my hand off the steering wheel to change gear...
> 
> Never owned a slush box.



Absolutely, very difficult here to drive safely with one arm, very few people have automatic cars here, most have gear sticks. You need to change gear more times than just going around a corner.



Anarax said:


> That was the angle I was coming from. Full contact shots(punches, elbows, kicks, knees) to the head or body can result in concussions, ruptured internal organs or even broken bones. However, arm breaks are considered too extreme?




From your  earlier post you said the arm break was a deliberate move intended to break bones and the other fighter wasn't given the opportunity to tap. The other shots can as you say cause those injuries but they aren't deliberately targeted to do that unlike the arm break. You don't punch someone in the head and think, 'there, that will give him concussion' or elbow him in the stomach thinking that should rupture an organ or two, lets see how much damage I can really inflict in this competition.



Steve said:


> I don’t think a legal technique is unsportsmanlike, and the easy way to avoid a broken arm is to defend it correctly or submit.




If the opponent is given the chance to defend or submit, the OP said he wasn't, it was a deliberate move intended to break the arm so going on that it was unsportsmanlike.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


>


That guys the biggest scumbag in the whole sport


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

The issue to me is deliberate damage versus 'occupational' damage. i've never had an official match, so take this with a grain of salt. But if I was fighting someone and they were punching my head, and I took severe damage from that, I wouldn't blame them since they wouldn't know they were causing that. As far as they were concerned it was a normal fight. However, if I was fighting and they broke my arm, they made an active decision to do so, knowing the damage it could cause me (as an average person, not a pro mma/ufc fighter. The rules may change for them). 

Intent matters to me for sportsmanship a lot more than result does.


----------



## jobo

DanT said:


> If I break an arm it's unsportsmanlike, but if I break a nose or shatter a jaw or cause a spleen to rupture it's a good punch?


Well yes it's intent that matters, your not I hope trying to cause brain damage or rupture a spleen, you are setting out to deliberately break an arm,

The problem is with mma, contests should be stopped if it's an obvious miss match, which seems like a lot of them from the little I've seen in telly  at least they should be stopped at the first sign of distress, blurred eyes loss of balance serious blood injurt , co ordination, taking undefended blows, much as they ( should ) do with boxing.

Saying an arm break is ok, because the rest of the rule set is bordering on the barbaric is faulty logic to my mind


----------



## jobo

Anarax said:


> I don't condone the the extra shots post KO, but sometimes the ref isn't able to get between the fighters in time.


GI've the ref, a whistle,or if that's not enough volume a air horn  any punch after that should instant disqualification.

How out of it do you have to be to need a ref, to tell you that your punching an unconscious opponent


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> I'd have to change cars to drive safely with one arm, otherwise it'd mean taking my hand off the steering wheel to change gear...
> 
> Never owned a slush box.



My car has a 6-speed manual. I still managed. Casting a broken arm does not prevent use of the fingers. Yes, your grip is different, but it's still usable.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> My car has a 6-speed manual. I still managed. Casting a broken arm does not prevent use of the fingers. Yes, your grip is different, but it's still usable.


It's rAther difficult if it's in a sling, which is where it should be, if you want good efficient healing .

My friend used to drive a manual car with one leg it's possible but not really a good idea all round


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> My car has a 6-speed manual. I still managed. Casting a broken arm does not prevent use of the fingers. Yes, your grip is different, but it's still usable.



Then by definition you had two arms available, not one.

Driving with one arm implies that no second arm is available in any capacity - it's either absent or completely immobilised.

When you said:



Dirty Dog said:


> If you can't drive with one arm, there's something wrong with you other than the arm...



I naturally assumed you actually meant one arm, not one normal arm and one in a heavy sleeve.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Absolutely, very difficult here to drive safely with one arm, very few people have automatic cars here, most have gear sticks. You need to change gear more times than just going around a corner.


 I’m getting conservative in my old age.   Still drive a stick shift, but I don’t know how I drove my ‘67 beetle while drinking coffee and smoking a cigarette with no cup holders.   


> From your  earlier post you said the arm break was a deliberate move intended to break bones and the other fighter wasn't given the opportunity to tap. The other shots can as you say cause those injuries but they aren't deliberately targeted to do that unlike the arm break. You don't punch someone in the head and think, 'there, that will give him concussion' or elbow him in the stomach thinking that should rupture an organ or two, lets see how much damage I can really inflict in this competition.
> 
> If the opponent is given the chance to defend or submit, the OP said he wasn't, it was a deliberate move intended to break the arm so going on that it was unsportsmanlike.


i see your point.   My opinion is I don’t see a meaningful difference between this and any other technique.   What I mean is, a punch is thrown with intention to harm, armbars, head kicks, liver shots.   They’re all thrown hard and fast, and with the intention to end a fight.   And, the fight ends with a KO, a submission, an injury, or the it doesn’t end as the technique is defended.


----------



## Steve

Never been to England or driven a righthand drive car.  In a manual transmission, is the shifter on the left?   And are the pedals reversed?


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Never been to England or driven a righthand drive car.  In a manual transmission, is the shifter on the left?   And are the pedals reversed?



Gearstick is (usually) operated by the left hand, the most common place for it to live is kind of between the front seats.

Exactly where it lives in a left hand drive car in fact (unless column shift).

Pedals in the same order, accelerator on the right, brake in the middle, clutch on the left.

I've driven (and owned) both left and right hand drive cars, and driven both types on both sides of the road.

Personal preference - right hand drive. That way, the steering is under the influence of my dominant hand even when changing gear (or doing handbrake turns and stuff )


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Gearstick is (usually) operated by the left hand, the most common place for it to live is kind of between the front seats.
> 
> Exactly where it lives in a left hand drive car in fact (unless column shift).
> 
> Pedals in the same order, accelerator on the right, brake in the middle, clutch on the left.
> 
> I've driven (and owned) both left and right hand drive cars, and driven both types on both sides of the road.
> 
> Personal preference - right hand drive. That way, the steering is under the influence of my dominant hand even when changing gear (or doing handbrake turns and stuff )


I’ll have to give a righthand drive a go sometime.   Not sure how difficult it would be to shift with my left hand.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> It's rAther difficult if it's in a sling, which is where it should be, if you want good efficient healing .



Really? You want to argue medicine with me?


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> Then by definition you had two arms available, not one.
> 
> Driving with one arm implies that no second arm is available in any capacity - it's either absent or completely immobilised.
> 
> I naturally assumed you actually meant one arm, not one normal arm and one in a heavy sleeve.



OK, I'll rephrase. If you can't drive with one arm in a cast[...]
The implication through the entire post is that having a broken arm does not, except in a few cases, mean you cannot use it.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I’ll have to give a righthand drive a go sometime.   Not sure how difficult it would be to shift with my left hand.



The action of changing gear is no more or less complex or difficult with either hand.

The single most challenging part is remembering which hand to use...

When I lived in France (drive on the right hand side of the road) I had my right hand drive UK van and a left hand drive french car. Which one got used depended on purpose of journey (or my mood).

You get used to it


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, I'll rephrase. If you can't drive with one arm in a cast[...]
> The implication through the entire post is that having a broken arm does not, except in a few cases, mean you cannot use it.
> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.



I accept your revised scenario


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> The action of changing gear is no more or less complex or difficult with either hand.
> 
> The single most challenging part is remembering which hand to use...
> 
> When I lived in France (drive on the right hand side of the road) I had my right hand drive UK van and a left hand drive french car. Which one got used depended on purpose of journey (or my mood).
> 
> You get used to it


Yeah, I expect it’s all the same except the hand used.   I’m very right hand dominant, and I’ve been driving a stick shift for over 30 years.   The muscle memory is pretty well ingrained.   Thanks for the insight!


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Yeah, I expect it’s all the same except the hand used.   I’m very right hand dominant, and I’ve been driving a stick shift for over 30 years.   The muscle memory is pretty well ingrained.   Thanks for the insight!



You might be surprised how easily the muscle memory is able to switch sides.

First time I drove LHD was on holiday, after 12+ years of exclusively RHD on the left of the road.

I only tried to open the drivers door twice when going for the gearstick


----------



## Dirty Dog

pdg said:


> The action of changing gear is no more or less complex or difficult with either hand.



True. When we're in the UK, I like to rent cars from Bespokes since airport rental cars are icky. They've got a couple '69 E body Jaguars that I love, plus a few older Porsche 911's. All manual. They meet us at Heathrow and by the time I get out of the parking lot, I've gotten reasonably comfortable shifting with the left hand.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> Really? You want to argue medicine with me?


Certainly explain how you drive w with one arm in a sling ?


----------



## Anarax

Headhunter said:


> That's not the issue the issue is the fighters shouldn't be throwing those extra shots at all. When you knock a guy out you know he's out.


I don't disagree, but there is a varying degree of when it's appropriate/ inappropriate as well as a grey area to follow-up with additional shots. If the guys is out cold then I think additional shots are uncalled for. If the fighter is knocked down but still conscious and is trying to get back up then additional shots are justified. However, there are those grey areas where it's very difficult to judge. 



Headhunter said:


> Look at mark hunt he never follows up.


Yeah, but that's more of a personal preference.



Headhunter said:


> I believe if you ko a guy and continue to punch you should be disqualified because that's what turns it from a sport into a thugs game


I don't disagree, but my point was the ref is there to protect the fighters when they can't do so themselves(KO, TKO, choked out, etc) and make sure the rules are enforced. 



Tez3 said:


> The other shots can as you say cause those injuries but they aren't deliberately targeted to do that unlike the arm break.


A professional fighter striking with full force to their opponent's face, nose, jaw and liver is trying to inflict enough trauma to cause their body to fail so they can win the fight. The striker doesn't look surprised when their opponent's nose spurts out blood nor when they KO their opponent. Why? Because the intention to inflict injury is present. 



Tez3 said:


> ou don't punch someone in the head and think, 'there, that will give him concussion' or elbow him in the stomach thinking that should rupture an organ or two, lets see how much damage I can really inflict in this competition.


Striking areas like the nose, jaw and liver are targets for a reason. They're striking those areas to trigger a physical response from their opponent like a KO or shock. The intent to injure is still there.


----------



## Anarax

Steve said:


> I don’t think a legal technique is unsportsmanlike, and the easy way to avoid a broken arm is to defend it correctly or submit.


It was legal at the time of the video, I believe some MMA organizations have made it illegal afterwards though.



Tez3 said:


> If the opponent is given the chance to defend or submit, the OP said he wasn't, it was a deliberate move intended to break the arm so going on that it was unsportsmanlike.


Some submissions offer more control over their opponent's than others. The technique he did(Waki Gatame) offers very little to no control, especially against a pro fighter that knows grappling. In the video his opponent didn't appear to be familiar with that particular technique, for he didn't try and prevent the set up. He thought he was safe, hence is why he was striking Aoki in the face opposed trying to get his arm free or countering.


----------



## Anarax

Headhunter said:


> That guys the biggest scumbag in the whole sport


I agree, but continuing a submission after the opponent has tapped is totally different than what Aoki did.


----------



## paitingman

Anarax said:


> I don't disagree, but there is a varying degree of when it's appropriate/ inappropriate as well as a grey area to follow-up with additional shots. If the guys is out cold then I think additional shots are uncalled for. If the fighter is knocked down but still conscious and is trying to get back up then additional shots are justified. However, there are those grey areas where it's very difficult to judge.
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that's more of a personal preference.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree, but my point was the ref is there to protect the fighters when they can't do so themselves(KO, TKO, choked out, etc) and make sure the rules are enforced.
> 
> 
> A professional fighter striking with full force to their opponent's face, nose, jaw and liver is trying to inflict enough trauma to cause their body to fail so they can win the fight. The striker doesn't look surprised when their opponent's nose spurts out blood nor when they KO their opponent. Why? Because the intention to inflict injury is present.
> 
> 
> Striking areas like the nose, jaw and liver are targets for a reason. They're striking those areas to trigger a physical response from their opponent like a KO or shock. The intent to injure is still there.



I have a similar view. 

There are lots of practitioners who throw strikes to the face and head carefully and lots who apply joint locks with care.

In competition, there are those that are trying to put you out and kick you in the skull full force and those who will snap your arm. 

I think the stigma of broken limbs and the like is hard to let go of. People seem to have numbed a bit to head trauma, but that too is rising again, rightly so.


----------



## paitingman

Or maybe the stigma with strikes has just been worn down and accepted for centuries. All the joint locks and less known and accepted techniques still jarring to a lot of people.

1890: 
"Hey, he just punched that guy in the face!"
"Yeah. It's a fight."
2010: 
"Hey, he just kneed that guy in the face!"
"Yeah. It's a fight!"
2018: 
"Hey, he just kicked that guy in the knee!"
"WTF? d!ck move."


----------



## Headhunter

Anarax said:


> I agree, but continuing a submission after the opponent has tapped is totally different than what Aoki did.


Intentionally hurting an opponent that's what both do


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Some submissions offer more control over their opponent's than others. The technique he did(Waki Gatame) offers very little to no control, especially against a pro fighter that knows grappling. In the video his opponent didn't appear to be familiar with that particular technique, for he didn't try and prevent the set up. He thought he was safe, hence is why he was striking Aoki in the face opposed trying to get his arm free or countering.




You know your assumption that I know nothing about MMA is wearing a bit thin now. You are also assuming you know what was in the fighter's mind at the time.


----------



## Headhunter

paitingman said:


> Or maybe the stigma with strikes has just been worn down and accepted for centuries. All the joint locks and less known and accepted techniques still jarring to a lot of people.
> 
> 1890:
> "Hey, he just punched that guy in the face!"
> "Yeah. It's a fight."
> 2010:
> "Hey, he just kneed that guy in the face!"
> "Yeah. It's a fight!"
> 2018:
> "Hey, he just kicked that guy in the knee!"
> "WTF? d!ck move."


Um leg kicks have been in martial arts since the very beginning. Also you're missing the point completely


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I was reviewing some of the unorthodox techniques in MMA and Waki Gatame(the first lock I was taught) caught my eye. Shinya Aoki applied it beautifully in the video below. I of course had to read the YouTube comments and some were saying the break was unsportsmanlike.
> 
> I can see part of their point given it's a break and is done so quickly it doesn't give his opponent enough time to tap. However; the Waki Gatame is a difficult technique to control your opponent with especially in a pro MMA bout, thus it must be done more explosively to be effective. When you opponent is trying to beat you unconscious is the arm-break that inappropriate or unsportsmanlike? Understand I'm referring to MMA bouts not grappling competitions.
> 
> Standing Arm-breaks Yea or Nay? Why or why not?


I'm not fond of any technique in competition (as opposed to actual defensive use) that can't be effective without causing significant injury. Standing arm bars are among those. I've brought this up before in other threads - these can be useful in self-defense, but are dick moves in competition. Taking things like this out of training is better for competition, but arguably not good for self-defense training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I see your point, but those two scenarios aren't the same thing. Aoki's opponent wasn't neutralized and he was taking punches to the face until he broke his arm. If the opponent is out cold on the canvas and the striker continues beating him he's doing more damage after his opponent is neutralized.


Aoki chose a technique that gave him no option but to break the arm, in my opinion. That's actually just as bad as the person who doesn't have the control to stop when his opponent is unconscious. Both might be chalked up to an adrenaline overdose in the heat of competition, or might be dick moves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DanT said:


> If I break an arm it's unsportsmanlike, but if I break a nose or shatter a jaw or cause a spleen to rupture it's a good punch?


The difference is the choice. That technique doesn't have a good alternative to a break. A punch can have worse effects than intended, but that spleen rupture isn't the primary effect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I’ll have to give a righthand drive a go sometime.   Not sure how difficult it would be to shift with my left hand.


When injured, I've shifted a left-hand drive car with my left hand. It was a bit awkward, but not awful. Putting the shift on that side would make it fairly easy, I'd think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, I'll rephrase. If you can't drive with one arm in a cast[...]
> The implication through the entire post is that having a broken arm does not, except in a few cases, mean you cannot use it.
> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.


A broken elbow would likely make it more difficult. I've never had one, but the cast would be well past the elbow, wouldn't it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> You might be surprised how easily the muscle memory is able to switch sides.
> 
> First time I drove LHD was on holiday, after 12+ years of exclusively RHD on the left of the road.
> 
> I only tried to open the drivers door twice when going for the gearstick


My best story of this was the first time I drove a stick-shift car after driving a (manual gearshift) motorcycle as my primary transport for more than a year. I kept noticing the turn signal was on. Apparently, my left hand (clutch hand on motorcycle) needed something to do when shifting gears.


----------



## Anarax

paitingman said:


> I think the stigma of broken limbs and the like is hard to let go of. People seem to have numbed a bit to head trauma, but that too is rising again, rightly so.


I think the *appearance* of an arm breaking is more violent than a KO or a full contact liver shot. You see the damage being inflicted to the limb opposed to the subcutaneous damage of power shots to the vulnerable areas.



Headhunter said:


> Intentionally hurting an opponent that's what both do


That's what all pro fighters do. Power shots are meant to hurt and inflict damage.



Tez3 said:


> You know your assumption that I know nothing about MMA is wearing a bit thin now. You are also assuming you know what was in the fighter's mind at the time.


Explaining the dynamics of the submission has nothing to do with what I think your MMA comprehension is. It's simply explaining the dynamics to convey my point. There's nothing in the video showing his opponent knew it was coming nor defended it in anyway.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> My best story of this was the first time I drove a stick-shift car after driving a (manual gearshift) motorcycle as my primary transport for more than a year. I kept noticing the turn signal was on. Apparently, my left hand (clutch hand on motorcycle) needed something to do when shifting gears.



Oddly, never had the slightest issue switching from bike to car.

Even with a suicide shift (bike, left foot clutch, left hand shift).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Oddly, never had the slightest issue switching from bike to car.
> 
> Even with a suicide shift (bike, left foot clutch, left hand shift).


When I was driving both, never a problem. It was just after a year of not driving a car, then borrowing one.


----------



## Headhunter

Anarax said:


> I think the *appearance* of an arm breaking is more violent than a KO or a full contact liver shot. You see the damage being inflicted to the limb opposed to the subcutaneous damage of power shots to the vulnerable areas.
> 
> 
> That's what all pro fighters do. Power shots are meant to hurt and inflict damage.
> 
> 
> Explaining the dynamics of the submission has nothing to do with what I think your MMA comprehension is. It's simply explaining the dynamics to convey my point. There's nothing in the video showing his opponent knew it was coming nor defended it in anyway.


My god you really are ignorant about fighting competition aren't you....they're trying to win that is it...yes injuries happen but no one is seeking to injure them they're not going in the ring hoping to break an arm...it's the same as football no player is trying to break another players leg with a tackle but it does happen and accepted as part of the risk. Same as fighting these guys are trying to win that is it...I've stepped in the ring numerous times and never once wanted to hurt anyone and thankfully never did


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> Certainly explain how you drive w with one arm in a sling ?



Most arm fractures do not require a sling.



gpseymour said:


> A broken elbow would likely make it more difficult. I've never had one, but the cast would be well past the elbow, wouldn't it?



Depends on the exact details of the break.But consider this. Put your hand on top of the steering wheel with your elbow at 90 degrees. Now turn the wheel. You'll notice that it is done mostly from the shoulder, which would be minimally affected (if at all) by the cast. Now notice that even if you're driving a stick, you don't need to turn the wheel significantly while you're shifting gears. Unless you're trying to set a lap record, which I certainly wouldn't recommend while casted.


----------



## paitingman

Headhunter said:


> Um leg kicks have been in martial arts since the very beginning. Also you're missing the point completely


it's a joke, but please tell me what the point is


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Most arm fractures do not require a sling.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the exact details of the break.But consider this. Put your hand on top of the steering wheel with your elbow at 90 degrees. Now turn the wheel. You'll notice that it is done mostly from the shoulder, which would be minimally affected (if at all) by the cast. Now notice that even if you're driving a stick, you don't need to turn the wheel significantly while you're shifting gears. Unless you're trying to set a lap record, which I certainly wouldn't recommend while casted.


I was more thinking of the difficulty of shifting if I had to reach across to shift, and had that big cast in the way. I've never had to try it, but it seems difficult, at best.

I agree it's entirely possible to drive without shifting while turning in almost all cases. Without the cast, reaching across to shift is awkward, but entirely doable.

EDIT: That's with a relatively short-throw shifter. Can't remember the shifter in my truck well enough to know whether I could reasonably have reached all the gears reaching across to shift.


----------



## paitingman

Headhunter said:


> My god you really are ignorant about fighting competition aren't you....they're trying to win that is it...yes injuries happen but no one is seeking to injure them they're not going in the ring hoping to break an arm...it's the same as football no player is trying to break another players leg with a tackle but it does happen and accepted as part of the risk. Same as fighting these guys are trying to win that is it...I've stepped in the ring numerous times and never once wanted to hurt anyone and thankfully never did



I would hope everyone would have the same attitude as you. 
But you can't seriously say that there are not those who throw strikes with bad intentions. Those fighters definitely exist and I don't think people love it, but they are more vocal about this type of arm break stuff. 

My current thinking is that there is a wavey, visceral line drawn where people go, "You shouldn't intentionally cause serious injury to your opponent... unless it's a good, honest knee to the face or something." lol


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I was more thinking of the difficulty of shifting if I had to reach across to shift, and had that big cast in the way. I've never had to try it, but it seems difficult, at best.
> 
> I agree it's entirely possible to drive without shifting while turning in almost all cases. Without the cast, reaching across to shift is awkward, but entirely doable.
> 
> EDIT: That's with a relatively short-throw shifter. Can't remember the shifter in my truck well enough to know whether I could reasonably have reached all the gears reaching across to shift.



I just went out, sat in the Vette, and ran through all 6 gears with my elbow at 90 degrees. No problem. No, I wouldn't call it speed shifting. But I certainly wouldn't hesitate to drive it with a long arm cast in place.


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> these can be useful in self-defense, but are dick moves in competition.


Even in a full contact pro MMA bout where your opponent is trying to take your head off?


gpseymour said:


> Aoki chose a technique that gave him no option but to break the arm, in my opinion.


I think Aoki, like most fighters, chose a technique based on what his opponent gave him, in this example his arm. Aoki saw an opportunity to execute a legal technique on a fully conscious opponent. I don't see how that's different from a fighter kicking an opponent in the head with full force because they left their head exposed/leaned in too far.


gpseymour said:


> That's actually just as bad as the person who doesn't have the control to stop when his opponent is unconscious.


I don't see how. One you have a conscious opponent punching you in the face and is leaving himself open to a legal fight-ending technique. In the other scenario your opponent is unconscious, you have already won the fight and your opponent is no longer a threat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I think Aoki, like most fighters, chose a technique based on what his opponent gave him, in this example his arm. Aoki saw an opportunity to execute a legal technique on a fully conscious opponent. I don't see how that's different from a fighter kicking an opponent in the head with full force because they left their head exposed/leaned in too far.


Every time I train, I have the option of using techniques (or completing them) that would hurt people. I choose those that won't (or don't complete the ones that would). Just because there's an opportunity for it, that doesn't change the ethics. As I said before, that technique really doesn't have another option. It's a break. A kick to the head is intended to cause a concussion, and I'm not really okay with that, either, but it's generally accepted by competitors that a concussion is not unlikely. What the people involved consider okay is part of ethics.


----------



## pdg

I can get all the gears in the land rover by reaching over with the wrong hand - I'd have to lean a bit though as it's got like a twenty foot throw between gears.

Just in a cast I could drive most cars safely.

With one arm (like really one arm) I probably wouldn't try to drive a manual.



Edit: I definitely wouldn't try to drive the land rover with one arm - at the best of times the steering seems to be a way of vaguely suggesting to the vehicle which way you'd prefer to go and hoping it happens to agree with you.

Oh, and it doesn't really self centre either.


----------



## paitingman

gpseymour said:


> Every time I train, I have the option of using techniques (or completing them) that would hurt people. I choose those that won't (or don't complete the ones that would). Just because there's an opportunity for it, that doesn't change the ethics. As I said before, that technique really doesn't have another option. It's a break. A kick to the head is intended to cause a concussion, and I'm not really okay with that, either, but it's generally accepted by competitors that a concussion is not unlikely. What the people involved consider okay is part of ethics.


I relate to what you're saying. I keep bringing up knee kicks since it seems relevant. I've seen two camps arise since these types of techniques have become topic for discussion. All sorts of martial artists and pro fighters seem split on the issue.

The ethics are still not clear idk. Some act as if a line was never drawn, but other's always thought there was a line. 
Everyone's got their personal ethics on the matter right now, but I think the MA and fight community should all be more vocal and very clear about what exactly the ethics, rules, and lines are with these techniques


----------



## Gerry Seymour

paitingman said:


> I relate to what you're saying. I keep bringing up knee kicks since it seems relevant. I've seen two camps arise since these types of techniques have become topic for discussion. All sorts of martial artists and pro fighters seem split on the issue.
> 
> The ethics are still not clear idk. Some act as if a line was never drawn, but other's always thought there was a line.
> Everyone's got their personal ethics on the matter right now, but I think the MA and fight community should all be more vocal and very clear about what exactly the ethics, rules, and lines are with these techniques


I don't think there's a common clear line on the breaks, either. For me, breaks and hard knee kicks are not something I'd do in competition or training. I also wouldn't kick someone in the head as hard as I can in the name of winning. Nor punch them in the head as hard as I can in the name of winning. Nor come to the point (or probably even very close to it in most cases) of breaking something for the sake of winning. Others have a different view.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Every time I train, I have the option of using techniques (or completing them) that would hurt people. I choose those that won't (or don't complete the ones that would). Just because there's an opportunity for it, that doesn't change the ethics. As I said before, that technique really doesn't have another option. It's a break. A kick to the head is intended to cause a concussion, and I'm not really okay with that, either, but it's generally accepted by competitors that a concussion is not unlikely. What the people involved consider okay is part of ethics.


are you comparing your training to a professional MMA bout?  Frankly, I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other.


----------



## DanT

jobo said:


> Well yes it's intent that matters, your not I hope trying to cause brain damage or rupture a spleen, you are setting out to deliberately break an arm,
> 
> The problem is with mma, contests should be stopped if it's an obvious miss match, which seems like a lot of them from the little I've seen in telly  at least they should be stopped at the first sign of distress, blurred eyes loss of balance serious blood injurt , co ordination, taking undefended blows, much as they ( should ) do with boxing.
> 
> Saying an arm break is ok, because the rest of the rule set is bordering on the barbaric is faulty logic to my mind


But when I did fight, I did try and kill the opponent within the rules of the sport. I tried to kill them when I kicked them in the head, I tried to break their leg when I kicked it, I tried to snap their neck when I slammed them... you can't read someone's intent, you have two people kicking the **** out of each other, what part of that includes not trying to hurt the other person? If I had the mindset of not hurting, that would have put ME in danger. Look at Mike Tyson, he repeatedly said he tried to kill his opponents. Should his punches be considered more barbaric and be illegal too?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> are you comparing your training to a professional MMA bout?  Frankly, I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other.


Nope.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Nope.


Okay.  So, then why are you talking about your training and what you do in class?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, then why are you talking about your training and what you do in class?


It was in response to a post that seemed to assert that it was okay because Aoki just took what was available. Availability doesn't determine ethics.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It was in response to a post that seemed to assert that it was okay because Aoki just took what was available. Availability doesn't determine ethics.


Ethics?  Sorry, man.   This is apples and oranges.   You’re talking about a Sunday pickup game of football vs the nfl.   Sure, if you and I are playing football, don’t be a dick and hit me like you’re Kenny Easley.   But  What you do in your class has nothing to do with what happens between two professional mixed martial artists who are fighting for a living.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Ethics?  Sorry, man.   This is apples and oranges.   You’re talking about a Sunday pickup game of football vs the nfl.   Sure, if you and I are playing football, don’t be a dick and hit me like you’re Kenny Easley.   But  What you do in your class has nothing to do with what happens between two professional mixed martial artists who are fighting for a living.


To me, the ethics aren't entirely different. As I said in a previous post, that's just me, though, and others have a different view.


----------



## Steve

I think tez used to post a picture with an Harlan Ellison quote that I wish I could find right now.   It seriously seems like you’re posting an opinion about something you’re wholly unfamiliar with. And why then would you say ,”nope,” when I asked if you were comparing your training to professional mma?  That’s exactly what you’re doing and it’s incredibly naive.


----------



## Anarax

Headhunter said:


> My god you really are ignorant about fighting competition aren't you


No hh. KO/TKO shots are thrown with those intentions, KO/TKO=Trauma. The Pros throw with immense power and they are aware of that.



Headhunter said:


> they're trying to win that is it


Winning can be done by KO/TKO



Headhunter said:


> yes injuries happen but no one is seeking to injure them they're not going in the ring hoping to break an arm


They go in hoping to win and will do what's necessary to do so. 



Headhunter said:


> .it's the same as football no player is trying to break another players leg with a tackle but it does happen and accepted as part of the risk.


That's completely different. Football is won by scoring points with touchdowns and field goals. MMA matches can/are won by bearing your opponent via KO/TKO/Submission.


----------



## Anarax

To bring further context and another example to the thread. Pedro Rizzo is a retired pro MMA fighter. His leg kicks were so powerful he left a permanent indentation in Randy Couture's femur. Should he be expected to not kick with full power in a pro bout because of the immense damage/trauma he'll inflict?


----------



## Anarax

gpseymour said:


> Every time I train, I have the option of using techniques (or completing them) that would hurt people. I choose those that won't (or don't complete the ones that would). Just because there's an opportunity for it, that doesn't change the ethics. As I said before, that technique really doesn't have another option. It's a break. A kick to the head is intended to cause a concussion, and I'm not really okay with that, either, but it's generally accepted by competitors that a concussion is not unlikely. What the people involved consider okay is part of ethics.



I can understand if someone is personally against doing such techniques themselves. However, the ethical dynamic isn't exactly the same in real life vs professional bouts. How you conduct yourself outside the ring is important and is unfortunately the downfall of many amazing fighters. However, being ferocious in the ring within the confines of the rules isn't inherently unethical.


----------



## Headhunter

Anarax said:


> No hh. KO/TKO shots are thrown with those intentions, KO/TKO=Trauma. The Pros throw with immense power and they are aware of that.
> 
> 
> Winning can be done by KO/TKO
> 
> 
> They go in hoping to win and will do what's necessary to do so.
> 
> 
> That's completely different. Football is won by scoring points with touchdowns and field goals. MMA matches can/are won by bearing your opponent via KO/TKO/Submission.


Have you ever actually fought in the ring....because funny you quote everything apart from the bit where I say I've fought numerous times and never tried to hurt anyone....funny that isn't it.....so have you ever fought? Or are you just talking a bunch of noncence to sound impressive....I'm betting on the second option


----------



## Anarax

Headhunter said:


> Have you ever actually fought in the ring


Yes, I have. You need to look beyond yourself when discussing such topics though. Listen to the interviews of pro fighters and they'll tell you they go in looking to KO their opponent, many times they have or will deliver on that promise. Thus they verbally convey their intentions and physically convey it in the ring as well. These are veteran professional fighters, yet your advice based on your X amount of fights circumvents all of their advice?



Headhunter said:


> Or are you just talking a bunch of noncence to sound impressive


You think I sound impressive? Thanks HH 



Headhunter said:


> .I'm betting on the second option


You seem to always default to insulting people when you can't articulate your thoughts. It gets boring after a while


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> That's completely different. Football is won by scoring points with touchdowns and field goals




No, that's not football, that's the American version of rugby.



Anarax said:


> MMA matches can/are won by bearing your opponent via KO/TKO/Submission.




'Bearing' your opponent? that's not actually what they do and often matches are won by points.




Anarax said:


> They go in hoping to win and will do what's necessary to do so.



Only to a point, they aren't going to break someone's neck to win. You seem to want to make it sound as if we are in Roman times and back in the arena. MMA is exciting enough, varied enough and is finally starting to make it as a main stream sport, we don't need this rubbish. I've spent over 20 years now working towards this ( and the inclusion of women)  and you want it to go back to being labelled cock fighting etc.* Professional fighters don't want the reputation of being nasty, of breaking opponents, not necessarily for moral reasons but because no one will agree to fight them and they will be out of work. *We don't want amateur fighters and youngsters emulating pro fighters in their bad habits.


----------



## Headhunter

Tez3 said:


> No, that's not football, that's the American version of rugby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Bearing' your opponent? that's not actually what they do and often matches are won by points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to a point, they aren't going to break someone's neck to win. You seem to want to make it sound as if we are in Roman times and back in the arena. MMA is exciting enough, varied enough and is finally starting to make it as a main stream sport, we don't need this rubbish. I've spent over 20 years now working towards this ( and the inclusion of women)  and you want it to go back to being labelled cock fighting etc.* Professional fighters don't want the reputation of being nasty, of breaking opponents, not necessarily for moral reasons but because no one will agree to fight them and they will be out of work. *We don't want amateur fighters and youngsters emulating pro fighters in their bad habits.


Yep theres even a video of a guy who was easily beating up his opponent and the ref didnt stop it so he tapped. He chose to lose instead of hurting the guy


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think tez used to post a picture with an Harlan Ellison quote that I wish I could find right now.   It seriously seems like you’re posting an opinion about something you’re wholly unfamiliar with. And why then would you say ,”nope,” when I asked if you were comparing your training to professional mma?  That’s exactly what you’re doing and it’s incredibly naive.


No, I didn't compare my training to a professional MMA fight. That'd be odd, at best. I didn't even compare my training to MMA training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Anarax said:


> I can understand if someone is personally against doing such techniques themselves. However, the ethical dynamic isn't exactly the same in real life vs professional bouts. How you conduct yourself outside the ring is important and is unfortunately the downfall of many amazing fighters. However, being ferocious in the ring within the confines of the rules isn't inherently unethical.


I can see your point - as I said earlier, what participants agree is okay is part of the ethics.

I just don't see a good reason to significantly injure someone in the name of sport. And, as I said before, that's just me.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I just don't see a good reason to significantly injure someone in the name of sport. And, as I said before, that's just me.



NO! It's not just you, the vast majority of MMA fighters I have ever worked with, trained with, reffed, cornered and judged feel exactly the same way. Yes you get into the ring/cage with the aim of winning, you know you will both take hits and give hits but you do not go in there with the intent to maim or damage significantly your opponent.


----------



## jobo

DanT said:


> But when I did fight, I did try and kill the opponent within the rules of the sport. I tried to kill them when I kicked them in the head, I tried to break their leg when I kicked it, I tried to snap their neck when I slammed them... you can't read someone's intent, you have two people kicking the **** out of each other, what part of that includes not trying to hurt the other person? If I had the mindset of not hurting, that would have put ME in danger. Look at Mike Tyson, he repeatedly said he tried to kill his opponents. Should his punches be considered more barbaric and be illegal too?


Hang on straw man at play!!!!!!

Your clearly trying to cause pain and discomfort, but Are you really saying you'd be ok with the other guy bbc wing dead ? Coz that's a) immortal and b) murder if that was your intent,

Iron Mike , had a number of attributes that made him a good fighter and non that made him a good human being and he was a bit dim


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Every time I train, I have the option of using techniques (or completing them) that would hurt people. I choose those that won't (or don't complete the ones that would). Just because there's an opportunity for it, that doesn't change the ethics. As I said before, that technique really doesn't have another option. It's a break. A kick to the head is intended to cause a concussion, and I'm not really okay with that, either, but it's generally accepted by competitors that a concussion is not unlikely. What the people involved consider okay is part of ethics.


what exactly does your training have to do with this conversation?


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> NO! It's not just you, the vast majority of MMA fighters I have ever worked with, trained with, reffed, cornered and judged feel exactly the same way. Yes you get into the ring/cage with the aim of winning, you know you will both take hits and give hits but you do not go in there with the intent to maim or damage significantly your opponent.


You do accept that it may happen, as with any contact sport.  You also accept that it is more likely to happen if you aren’t well trained and don’t know when to submit or don’t want to submit.  This is why rules tend to be more restrictive for amateurs and novices.   At an elite level, athletes are expected to know when they are beaten, and are relied upon to submit when appropriate.   

If you fight dirty, looking for eye pokes or fish hooks, that’s on you.   If you hold onto chokes and submissions after the tap, that’s also on you.   If I don’t tap and essentially invite injury, that’s on me.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> what exactly does your training have to do with this conversation?




He was talking ethics and well they do play a part in all things in life


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> You do accept that it may happen, as with any contact sport.  You also accept that it is more likely to happen if you aren’t well trained and don’t know when to submit or don’t want to submit.  This is why rules tend to be more restrictive for amateurs and novices.   At an elite level, athletes are expected to know when they are beaten, and are relied upon to submit when appropriate.
> 
> If you fight dirty, looking for eye pokes or fish hooks, that’s on you.   If you hold onto chokes and submissions after the tap, that’s also on you.   If I don’t tap and essentially invite injury, that’s on me.




Every time yo go into a dojo you could get hurt and you accept that so don't say that it purely a cage fight or whatever it is called situation and knowing when you beaten is a mind set as I have seen many people that are beat keep trying to stand up and go on.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> He was talking ethics and well they do play a part in all things in life


Do they?  What about context?  Do you think context matters, in general and also specific to a discussion about ethics? 

To clarify, it’s not a discussion about ethics I am questioning.  Rather, it’s the muddling of disparate contexts.  The ethics of training aikido as a middle aged, white collar worker are completely different than the ethics of a full time, elite level, professional combat athlete.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Do they?  What about context?  Do you think context matters, in general and also specific to a discussion about ethics?
> 
> To clarify, it’s not a discussion about ethics I am questioning.  Rather, it’s the muddling of disparate contexts.




Ok then I bow to your wisdom sir and will endeavour not to every post again on something unless it is in context


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Every time yo go into a dojo you could get hurt and you accept that so don't say that it purely a cage fight or whatever it is called situation and knowing when you beaten is a mind set as I have seen many people that are beat keep trying to stand up and go on.


I love that scene in Cool Hand Luke.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I love that scene in Cool Hand Luke.




Ok


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Ok then I bow to your wisdom sir and will endeavour not to every post again on something unless it is in context


I think you should do what you want, post what you want, and you shouldn’t let a random dude in the internet discourage you.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Ok


Have you seen the movie?  Truly a classic, and I believe Paul Newman’s second best ever.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> I think you should do what you want, post what you want, and you shouldn’t let a random dude in the internet discourage you.




Oh you won't lol


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Oh you won't lol


Ah, you were being snarky.  Well, good.  You should still watch the movie. It’s a classic.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Have you seen the movie?  Truly a classic, and I believe Paul Newman’s second best ever.



Long time ago 

As far as this thread is concerned you mentioned knowing when your beat  and being relied upon to tap out , well I would say again knowing when you are beat is a cool hand luke lol and the relying upon anything  are ethical  

Think on this you walk into an Aikido dojo ...you are paired with a yudansha , regardless of what training you have and as you are the athlete is the yudansha going to wait for you to tap out in a pin ? or wait for you to have a look on your face on complete dismay when he launches you threw the air ? and you do not know how to take that ukemi or if he decides to do rokkyo and you have no clue as to where he is going or what is happening is that not ehtics and the same as you saying it is relied upon that you know when you are beat or to tap out ? to me it is what @gpseymour  I think was saying any yudansha would never follow through on a tech just cause he could and rely upon you as uke to call it of or tap out etc he would use his ethics and go as far as you could go safely ................................so ethics play a part in things


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Ah, you were being snarky.  Well, good.  You should still watch the movie. It’s a classic.




no sarky I think you will find is what I was being


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Ah, you were being snarky.  Well, good.  You should still watch the movie. It’s a classic.



Like the Japanese can in their language ....us Brits can be very sarcastic but very polite at the same time ...one should note this in your little book for future reference


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Long time ago
> 
> As far as this thread is concerned you mentioned knowing when your beat  and being relied upon to tap out , well I would say again knowing when you are beat is a cool hand luke lol and the relying upon anything  are ethical
> 
> Think on this you walk into an Aikido dojo ...you are paired with a yudansha , regardless of what training you have and as you are the athlete is the yudansha going to wait for you to tap out in a pin ? or wait for you to have a look on your face on complete dismay when he launches you threw the air ? and you do not know how to take that ukemi or if he decides to do rokkyo and you have no clue as to where he is going or what is happening is that not ehtics and the same as you saying it is relied upon that you know when you are beat or to tap out ? to me it is what @gpseymour  I think was saying any yudansha would never follow through on a tech just cause he could and rely upon you as uke to call it of or tap out etc he would use his ethics and go as far as you could go safely ................................so ethics play a part in things


Okay, serious response, if this were a thread about aikido training, or even training in general, I would agree.   The point is, it’s not about training.  Make sense?

And the other point is, ethics are very contextual.  They are also, often, not universal.   So, inappropriately applying the ethics of one context to another doesn’t work.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Like the Japanese can in their language ....us Brits can be very sarcastic but very polite at the same time ...one should note this in your little book for future reference


You’re not as subtle as you think.   and why is my book little?  I happen to have a very large book, with lots of notes in it.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Okay, serious response, if this were a thread about aikido training, or even training in general, I would agree.   The point is, it’s not about training.  Make sense?
> 
> And the other point is, ethics are very contextual.  They are also, often, not universal.   So, inappropriately applying the ethics of one context to another doesn’t work.




yes ethics are not universal and they are I would venture not contextual but down to the individual who holds them. 
 ethics are beholden to the individual and how he/she  applies them regardless of rules or context


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> yes ethics are not universal and they are I would venture not contextual but down to the individual who holds them.
> ethics are beholden to the individual and how he/she  applies them regardless of rules or context


Ethics aren’t contextual?  Can you tell me more about that?


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> You’re not as subtle as you think.   and why is my book little?  I happen to have a very large book, with lots of notes in it.




Then I shall  endeavour to try harder and use larger words or maybe my own language and then thy's book will have even more notes on same and the spelling will be checked as ethically you should be instructed to have the correct version there after you may choose to deviate and that there in leves you the ethical question of do you or don't you


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> Ethics aren’t contextual?  Can you tell me more about that?


 
There are more things in heaven and earth sir; than are dreamt of of in your philosophy


----------



## now disabled

and in there is a mistake so your challenge is do you tap out or do you not ...there in lies the dilemma


----------



## Steve

So, 


now disabled said:


> There are more things in heaven and earth sir; than are dreamt of of in your philosophy


there is no darkness but ignorance.


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> there is no darkness but ignorance


 

Ah shakespeare lol


----------



## TSDTexan

Anarax said:


> I was reviewing some of the unorthodox techniques in MMA and Waki Gatame(the first lock I was taught) caught my eye. Shinya Aoki applied it beautifully in the video below. I of course had to read the YouTube comments and some were saying the break was unsportsmanlike.
> 
> I can see part of their point given it's a break and is done so quickly it doesn't give his opponent enough time to tap. However; the Waki Gatame is a difficult technique to control your opponent with especially in a pro MMA bout, thus it must be done more explosively to be effective. When you opponent is trying to beat you unconscious is the arm-break that inappropriate or unsportsmanlike? Understand I'm referring to MMA bouts not grappling competitions.
> 
> Standing Arm-breaks Yea or Nay? Why or why not?




I say yea.
I am in the minority, but if it is legal, then it is not a dick move. If it had remained legal, everyone would become aware, and learn the defenses against it. and perhaps others would begin to train it.

With the attempt to apply it.

When UFC showed up, it showed that most striking arts were very susceptible to being submitted on the ground. Fast forward 20 years, and most all strikers have a solid takedown defense, or are competent groundfighters.

Evolution is sport.

Why doesn't UFC or other MMA brands require chest protectors?  

A well placed sidekick at proper range will break ribs. Which can be far more debilitating then a broken arm, or elbow.

Joe Lewis broke a number of opponents' ribs with his sidekicks. That was just part of the game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> what exactly does your training have to do with this conversation?


If you don't like the comment, Steve, ignore it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Ah, you were being snarky.  Well, good.  You should still watch the movie. It’s a classic.


What does that movie have to do with the topic of MMA fights?

See what I did there?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> yes ethics are not universal and they are I would venture not contextual but down to the individual who holds them.
> ethics are beholden to the individual and how he/she  applies them regardless of rules or context


I'd argue they are both individual and contextual. There are things I wouldn't be willing to do to win a contest, so those things are individual (assuming some others would, as seems the case in this thread). There are some things I wouldn't do in normal training, but would do in a competitive situation (either sparring to win, or a formal competition). Those things are contextual.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue they are both individual and contextual. There are things I wouldn't be willing to do to win a contest, so those things are individual (assuming some others would, as seems the case in this thread). There are some things I wouldn't do in normal training, but would do in a competitive situation (either sparring to win, or a formal competition). Those things are contextual.



a logical answer however I would still say that in the second it is still down to you as the individual but I guess that is picking nits and that I do not want to do lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> a logical answer however I would still say that in the second it is still down to you as the individual but I guess that is picking nits and that I do not want to do lol


I think it's fair to say ethics are always individual, and sometimes (often?, maybe always?) contextual. Point is, it seems there's always an individual component, and we could argue whether there's always a contextual component, as well.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I think it's fair to say ethics are always individual, and sometimes (often?, maybe always?) contextual. Point is, it seems there's always an individual component, and we could argue whether there's always a contextual component, as well.



Yes I agree


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> 'Bearing' your opponent? that's not actually what they do and often matches are won by points.


*Beating. That's entirely dependent on the fighter and their style though. Many of the Top MMA competitors have quite a few KOs on their record, even the ones that aren't known for their striking/KO power. Some fighters also have the intention both mentally and physically to KO their opponent, but aren't able to. Look at Ali and Foreman, Foreman was throwing everything he had at Ali but didn't manage to knock him out. Just about every shot Foreman threw was with the intention to KO/injure him. What about Pedro Rizzo who had devastating leg kicks. He TKOed opponents with his leg kicks and left a permanent indentation in Randy Couture's femur. Should Pedro not have thrown a legal leg kick with full force in a Pro MMA bout because of the massive damage it would inflict?



Tez3 said:


> Only to a point, they aren't going to break someone's neck to win.


That's what the rules are for



Tez3 said:


> You seem to want to make it sound as if we are in Roman times and back in the arena.


Not at all. Two fighters trying to kill each with weapons is different, for weapons greatly increase the lethality of the match. I don't condone an MMA fighter walking into the ring with a Gladius.



Tez3 said:


> MMA is exciting enough, varied enough and is finally starting to make it as a main stream sport, we don't need this rubbish.


Two professional fighters going into an agreed upon bout, both following the rules while trying to KO each other isn't rubbish.



Tez3 said:


> I've spent over 20 years now working towards this ( and the inclusion of women) and you want it to go back to being labelled cock fighting etc.


I'm not overly concerned with what some might label it. It's full contact professional fighting.



Tez3 said:


> Professional fighters don't want the reputation of being nasty, of breaking opponents, not necessarily for moral reasons but because no one will agree to fight them and they will be out of work.


Winning fights within the confines of the rules by KO/TKO isn't nasty. If other fighters are afraid to fight another fighter then it's the responsibility of the organization to find him/her an opponent. 



gpseymour said:


> I can see your point - as I said earlier, what participants agree is okay is part of the ethics.
> 
> I just don't see a good reason to significantly injure someone in the name of sport. And, as I said before, that's just me.


I understand and respect your stance on the matter, you're consistent in your beliefs. 



Steve said:


> This is why rules tend to be more restrictive for amateurs and novices. At an elite level, athletes are expected to know when they are beaten, and are relied upon to submit when appropriate


Good point. Here in the US each state has different rules/laws concerning amateur bouts. Some even require the use of headgear. That's why I used Professional bouts as the benchmark.



Steve said:


> If you fight dirty, looking for eye pokes or fish hooks, that’s on you. If you hold onto chokes and submissions after the tap, that’s also on you.


Yeah, that's why I'm differentiating between winning within the confines of the rules.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

I didnt know this existed until now. (this particular move anyway)

I also wouldnt be much pleased if you broke my arm if the fight was establshed as sport/entertainment/fun.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Two professional fighters going into an agreed upon bout, both following the rules while trying to KO each other isn't rubbish.



I didn't say it was rubbish, I said what you are writing is rubbish.





Anarax said:


> Not at all. Two fighters trying to kill each with weapons is different, for weapons greatly increase the lethality of the match. I don't condone an MMA fighter walking into the ring with a Gladius.



You're not seeing the point of this all are you? What you seem to understand doesn't come from what I've written, you are on a different track altogether.





Anarax said:


> I'm not overly concerned with what some might label it. It's full contact professional fighting.



Really? when the professionals are calling it MMA, when the fighters are calling it MMA etc etc etc you want to be a smartarse and call it something else as if you were the arbiter of all things martial arts.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> Ah shakespeare lol


yeah man .  you quoted shahespeare first.   Right?  I thought we were having a moment.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it was rubbish, I said what you are writing is rubbish.


Okay, so the scenario I gave isn't rubbish. But what I typed is? That makes perfect sense 



Tez3 said:


> You're not seeing the point of this all are you? What you seem to understand doesn't come from what I've written, you are on a different track altogether.


You're the one who brought up Roman times, thus I was responding to your comment. 



Tez3 said:


> Really? when the professionals are calling it MMA, when the fighters are calling it MMA etc etc etc you want to be a smartarse and call it something else as if you were the arbiter of all things martial arts.


Most of the examples I gave apply to professional boxing, kickboxing and MMA. Full contact professional fighting is an umbrella term that encompasses all of them.



Tez3 said:


> you want to be a smartarse


Easy now Tez. You shouldn't need to resort to name calling to make your point


----------



## now disabled

Steve said:


> yeah man .  you quoted shahespeare first.   Right?  I thought we were having a moment.



No actually I mis quoted Shakespeare lol


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> If you don't like the comment, Steve, ignore it.


 I asked a question and your post above is not an answer.  If you aren't going to answer, just say so, but don't deflect.


----------



## Steve

now disabled said:


> No actually I mis quoted Shakespeare lol


its okay.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I asked a question and your post above is not an answer.  If you aren't going to answer, just say so, but don't deflect.


I answered. You didn't like my answer, and re-asked the question. I don't have a different answer to give you.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Ethics aren’t contextual?  Can you tell me more about that?



Morality isn't contextual. Ethics or at least empathy is.

This happens a lot.

Quick example. Heaven is not for good people. Heaven is for people who accept Jesus.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I answered. You didn't like my answer, and re-asked the question. I don't have a different answer to give you.


Okay.  Can you remind me of your answer?  I went back and couldn’t find it.


----------



## drop bear

So Roy Nelson who went off at the ref for not calling a fight early enough.

But didn't stop hitting the guy.


----------



## wanderingstudent

I know there was intent to break his opponent's arm, but this is exactly why I suck at practicing ChinNa.  Too many classes, people start out nice 'n easy; then next thing you know- some one is bleeding or torque.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> Morality isn't contextual. Ethics or at least empathy is.
> 
> This happens a lot.
> 
> Quick example. Heaven is not for good people. Heaven is for people who accept Jesus.


 
While I agree with the quick example, it misses a certain nuance.
Heaven is for people who submit themselves to Jesus, who trust in him and follow him and his teachings.

But.... this discussion of Jesus is a religious one
.. and really I think it violates the guidelines... and we might want to step away from it before it leads to a threadlock by the admins.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> While I agree with the quick example, it misses a certain nuance.
> Heaven is for people who submit themselves to Jesus, who trust in him and follow him and his teachings.
> 
> But.... this discussion of Jesus is a religious one
> .. and really I think it violates the guidelines... and we might want to step away from it before it leads to a threadlock by the admins.



OK
 The Serbians and the Croatians could murder each other. (Commit genocide) Because their morality was external and absolute.

The other side was evil and wiping them out was for the greater good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay.  Can you remind me of your answer?  I went back and couldn’t find it.


You asked if I was comparing my training to MMA fights, and I said no. You later asked something about my reason for mentioning it, and I said something about the reference of a prior post that seemed to say it's ethical because it's available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So Roy Nelson who went off at the ref for not calling a fight early enough.
> 
> But didn't stop hitting the guy.


Yeah, and it's my knee-jerk reaction to say, "You could have stopped hitting him and just gone to control moves." At the same time, looking at it from his standpoint, we've seen fights where one guy was absolutely done - or so we thought - and he somehow got free and with one wild swing that connected won the match. If he knew the guy wasn't a threat, he should stop hitting him. But that might cause him to lose the match.

Me? I'd rather lose.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> OK
> The Serbians and the Croatians could murder each other. (Commit genocide) Because their morality was external and absolute.
> 
> The other side was evil and wiping them out was for the greater good.



well this is a thread departure.
I could argue pros and cons for the topic of the inherently evil act of ethnic cleansing... but it is far outside of the scope of the thread.

being a good sportsman is abiding by the rules set of the sport, nothing more, nothing less.
if the rules say you can break arms to win... that's fair. if the rules say you can tap out to avoid the broken arm... that's fair too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TSDTexan said:


> well this is a thread departure.
> I could argue pros and cons for the topic of the inherently evil act of ethnic cleansing... but it is far outside of the scope of the thread.
> 
> being a good sportsman is abiding by the rules set of the sport, nothing more, nothing less.
> if the rules say you can break arms to win... that's fair. if the rules say you can tap out to avoid the broken arm... that's fair too.


In my opinion (for all that's worth), sportsmanship goes beyond just obeying the rules (though that's definitely the larger part of it). Throwing a fit if you lose isn't usually against the rules, but many people would consider it poor sportsmanship.


----------



## Jaeimseu

IMO, an opponent should be given the opportunity to submit from any technique. A fighter is free (or his corner can) throw in the towel if he or she is taking too much of a beating. Applying a joint break with no chance to tap seems pretty dickish to me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TSDTexan

gpseymour said:


> In my opinion (for all that's worth), sportsmanship goes beyond just obeying the rules (though that's definitely the larger part of it). Throwing a fit if you lose isn't usually against the rules, but many people would consider it poor sportsmanship.


but..  imho that's more in the vein of youth and team sports.

I can think of many tennis pros who come unglued when they win or lose.  It's so common, that no one bats an eye.

Your prefight interviews and weigh ins in MMA and UFC are notorious for unsportsmanlike behavior and it seems the audience and fans eat that misbehavior up.

In Brazil Vale Tudo, guys routinely refused to tap and got broken arms etc. It was almost like a right of passage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TSDTexan said:


> but..  imho that's more in the vein of team sports.
> I can think of many tennis pros who come unglued when they win.   it's so common, that no one bats an eye.


I wouldn't say "no one". I apply the same standards to individual sports.


----------



## TSDTexan

gpseymour said:


> I wouldn't say "no one". I apply the same standards to individual sports.


alright... almost no one seems to bat an eye...

is that better?


----------



## paitingman

Jaeimseu said:


> IMO, an opponent should be given the opportunity to submit from any technique. A fighter is free (or his corner can) throw in the towel if he or she is taking too much of a beating. Applying a joint break with no chance to tap seems pretty dickish to me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If a significant strike is about to land, ref should definitely step in and give the fighter who was going to a be struck a chance to admit defeat. Of course, they are free to eat the strike and take their chances, but it's d!ckish to just blast em, right?

I think in the pro world, both have shown they have accepted these possibilities by stepping into the ring. 
What injuries occur within the rules BEFORE the fight has been stopped are just the risks you take. Still sucks though


----------



## paitingman

Any current or former pros out there care to weigh in? 

I can only speak from amateur experience where I think we can all agree things like this would be way overboard..


----------



## TSDTexan

“If you’d like to have your face smashed, your *** kicked and your arms broken, get in touch with Carlos at the Gracie Academy.”

An add that used to run in the newspapers in Brazil.


----------



## TSDTexan

worth a read...

Vale Tudo: A Rich, Storied & Complex Past - Conde Koma and the Gracies


----------



## paitingman

Can anyone give insight into how often breaks occur in submission grappling competitions?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> In my opinion (for all that's worth), sportsmanship goes beyond just obeying the rules (though that's definitely the larger part of it). Throwing a fit if you lose isn't usually against the rules, but many people would consider it poor sportsmanship.



And that is precisely the point about the difference between morality and empathy.

Man I was so on topic.


----------



## drop bear

paitingman said:


> Can anyone give insight into how often breaks occur in submission grappling competitions?



We have a guy called the Danimal who just never taps and so generally leaves a competition injured.

Otherwise not so much in bjj


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> And that is precisely the point about the difference between morality and empathy.
> 
> Man I was so on topic.


 Except when you were talking about religion or ethnic cleansing. Then you definitely were so off topic.


----------



## Jaeimseu

paitingman said:


> If a significant strike is about to land, ref should definitely step in and give the fighter who was going to a be struck a chance to admit defeat. Of course, they are free to eat the strike and take their chances, but it's d!ckish to just blast em, right?
> 
> I think in the pro world, both have shown they have accepted these possibilities by stepping into the ring.
> What injuries occur within the rules BEFORE the fight has been stopped are just the risks you take. Still sucks though



Who said anything about referees stepping in mid strike? People eat strikes all the time without injury. If I break your arm, you’ll be injured 100% of the time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paitingman

Jaeimseu said:


> Who said anything about referees stepping in mid strike? People eat strikes all the time without injury. If I break your arm, you’ll be injured 100% of the time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If you're not trying to injure my face why to heck are you punching it???


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You asked if I was comparing my training to MMA fights, and I said no. You later asked something about my reason for mentioning it, and I said something about the reference of a prior post that seemed to say it's ethical because it's available.


What you say above is internally inconsistent.


----------



## Tez3

TSDTexan said:


> Your prefight interviews and weigh ins in MMA and UFC are notorious for unsportsmanlike behavior and it seems the audience and fans eat that misbehavior up.



That's not so much unsportsmanlike behaviour but management encouraged show business 'PR' based on 'pro wrestling' hype designed purely to sell tickets to the fan boys.


----------



## pdg

TSDTexan said:


> I can think of many tennis pros who come unglued when they win or lose. It's so common, that no one bats an eye



Except for the people who issue the "unsportsmanlike conduct" fines...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> What you say above is internally inconsistent.


If you say so. I don't see an inconsistency in it.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Easy now Tez. You shouldn't need to resort to name calling to make your point



I'm not name calling, it's an adjective.





Anarax said:


> You're the one who brought up Roman times, thus I was responding to your comment.


And you missed the point.





Anarax said:


> Okay, so the scenario I gave isn't rubbish. But what I typed is? That makes perfect sense



If you didn't understand the original comment there's no chance you are going to understand the rest.





drop bear said:


> Quick example. Heaven is not for good people. Heaven is for people who accept Jesus.



Absolutely right. Good luck with this though, you've hit a nerve, which I know from past experience here, that will have you being assigned to burn in hell. You'll probably pick up a religious stalker as well.





Rules may be rules, but good sportsmanship is something better than rules, it's about being the better human being not the one who has to win at all costs ( not just to others but usually also to themselves).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> If you say so. I don't see an inconsistency in it.


If you agree that ethics are contextual, which you have said you do.   And you apply an ethical standard from one context to another (which is unrelated to your own and also foreign to you).   Then....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If you agree that ethics are contextual, which you have said you do.   And you apply an ethical standard from one context to another (which is unrelated to your own and also foreign to you).   Then....


Except that I didn't apply the ethical standard of one context to the other. I used an example to counter a statement that didn't seem to rely upon context. If the poster I quoted thinks I misunderstood or didn't make a valid point, I'd love to hear from him. As for your entry to this, I'm not sure why you've lately taken to trying to find something specifically wrong with my posts (rather than my points). I used to enjoy our discussions, because you made good counter-points that gave me something to think about. Lately, you mostly seem to pick at the post, rather than the point.


----------



## _Simon_

paitingman said:


> Any current or former pros out there care to weigh in?
> 
> I can only speak from amateur experience where I think we can all agree things like this would be way overboard..


Weeeeell... my last fight right, I had him riiiight where I wanted him! I threw a reverse punch to the face, and another, ref said nothing. Did another, and another, and another. Still nothing!

Oh, did I forget to mention it was a noncontact tournament? [emoji14]


----------



## paitingman

Is this technique rarely seen like this because it's dirty or easy to defend?

I've done this and had this done to me in live training probably a bunch. Or rather this movement on these joints. Dudes will turn you from an overhook position, but I've never seen it done from a position with this kind of leverage on the elbow. In my opinion, it is easy to defend, but is that the only reason it's rare?


----------



## TSDTexan

pdg said:


> Except for the people who issue the "unsportsmanlike conduct" fines...



yeah... but that is usually selectively enforced on people who are hated by Management, or are really bad, more often then not.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> I'm not name calling, it's an adjective.


No Tez, it's a derogatory name. Let's not pretend you didn't know that.



Tez3 said:


> Roman times and back in the arena.





Tez3 said:


> And you missed the point.


Your point was me condoning MMA techniques/outcomes(KOs, TKOs, arm-breaks) that are allowed within the confines of the rules makes me more align with the practices of the Roman Gladiatorial Arena. That's why I made the distinction that the arena and modern day MMA are completely different. That's why your comparison is way off.     



Tez3 said:


> If you didn't understand the original comment there's no chance you are going to understand the rest.


There's nothing to understand if you keep contradicting yourself. I'm all for having a conversation about the actual topic. However, when you resort to name-calling and making false comparisons, it makes it difficult to have a productive conversation.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Except that I didn't apply the ethical standard of one context to the other. I used an example to counter a statement that didn't seem to rely upon context. If the poster I quoted thinks I misunderstood or didn't make a valid point, I'd love to hear from him. As for your entry to this, I'm not sure why you've lately taken to trying to find something specifically wrong with my posts (rather than my points). I used to enjoy our discussions, because you made good counter-points that gave me something to think about. Lately, you mostly seem to pick at the post, rather than the point.


oh are we back here again?   Rather than address the issue at hand, this is now about how you feel sad and long for the good old days?  Is it possible that the problem here is youre understanding of this particular counterpoint which has led to an inordinate number of back and forth posts?

 All I have to work with are your posts .  if it feels like I'm addressing those, great.  That is the idea . the alternative is to make it personal, which seems to be the trajectory you're on. 

Regarding what little substance you provide above that isn't chiding me for addressing the post and not the poster, you still havent answered the question .


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> No Tez, it's a derogatory name. Let's not pretend you didn't know that.




No I was describing you not insulting you. 




Anarax said:


> Your point was me condoning MMA techniques/outcomes(KOs, TKOs, arm-breaks) that are allowed within the confines of the rules makes me more align with the practices of the Roman Gladiatorial Arena. That's why I made the distinction that the arena and modern day MMA are completely different. That's why your comparison is way off.



Again, no, absolutely you have missed the point. That's not what I said or meant. I think you are picking arguments because you surmise, correctly, that you are wrong and want it to appear otherwise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> oh are we back here again?   Rather than address the issue at hand, this is now about how you feel sad and long for the good old days?  Is it possible that the problem here is youre understanding of this particular counterpoint which has led to an inordinate number of back and forth posts?
> 
> All I have to work with are your posts .  if it feels like I'm addressing those, great.  That is the idea . the alternative is to make it personal, which seems to be the trajectory you're on.
> 
> Regarding what little substance you provide above that isn't chiding me for addressing the post and not the poster, you still havent answered the question .


I answered it. You don’t like my answer. 

And I wasn’t chiding you for “addressing the post and not the poster” but for addressing the post but not the point. All you seem to be saying is that I’m comparing my training to MMA fights and that’s not a good comparison. You really haven’t made any point about what I said the point was, when you asked. Get the point?

As for the rest of your post, you can do better than that crap.


----------



## Steve

It's a lot, but I went back to read through every one of the posts in this merry go round exchange.  In your post below, you clearly reference the decision making process you use in your aikido training.  It's literally spelled out below.  





gpseymour said:


> Every time I train, I have the option of using techniques (or completing them) that would hurt people. I choose those that won't (or don't complete the ones that would). Just because there's an opportunity for it, that doesn't change the ethics. As I said before, that technique really doesn't have another option. It's a break. A kick to the head is intended to cause a concussion, and I'm not really okay with that, either, but it's generally accepted by competitors that a concussion is not unlikely. What the people involved consider okay is part of ethics.


Now, here I'll take responsibility for asking the wrong question.  I asked the following:


Steve said:


> are you comparing your training to a professional MMA bout?  Frankly, I don’t see how one has anything to do with the other.


That was actually a rhetorical question, because, as I posted above, you clearly did.  Now, you acknowledge this later, but for now, I asked a yes or no question, and you pulled a trump.  You said:


gpseymour said:


> No, I didn't compare my training to a professional MMA fight. That'd be odd, at best. I didn't even compare my training to MMA training.


Sure.  I agree that this is odd, which is precisely why I asked the initial question.  But what I really should have asked is why you are making this comparison, which we both agree is odd.  


Steve said:


> Okay.  So, then why are you talking about your training and what you do in class?





gpseymour said:


> It was in response to a post that seemed to assert that it was okay because Aoki just took what was available. Availability doesn't determine ethics.


Sure, in an aikido class, this may be true.  How much experience do you have with MMA again?  So, I replied:


Steve said:


> Ethics?  Sorry, man.   This is apples and oranges.   You’re talking about a Sunday pickup game of football vs the nfl.   Sure, if you and I are playing football, don’t be a dick and hit me like you’re Kenny Easley.   But  What you do in your class has nothing to do with what happens between two professional mixed martial artists who are fighting for a living.


In the post above, the point I was trying to make is that you are trying to apply the ethics of training aikido with other middle aged, white collar workers to the ethics of elite level combat athlete who are working for a paycheck.  Context matters.  


gpseymour said:


> To me, the ethics aren't entirely different. As I said in a previous post, that's just me, though, and others have a different view.


This is the, "it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it," cop out.  So, I said:


Steve said:


> I think tez used to post a picture with an Harlan Ellison quote that I wish I could find right now.   It seriously seems like you’re posting an opinion about something you’re wholly unfamiliar with. And why then would you say ,”nope,” when I asked if you were comparing your training to professional mma?  That’s exactly what you’re doing and it’s incredibly naive.


For what it's worth, I think that my post above remains very apropos, considering your previous post was the functional equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalala. I can't hear you."


gpseymour said:


> If you don't like the comment, Steve, ignore it.


I thought this was odd.  Like has nothing to do with it, but I will note that this is when you started personalizing things.


gpseymour said:


> What does that movie have to do with the topic of MMA fights?
> 
> See what I did there?


I missed this the first time.  Had I seen it, I would freely have acknowledged it was a tangent and has nothing to do with MMA fights.  You, on the other hand, are digging in your heels and making things personal.  But if it makes you feel better, good one.  You're very clever. 


Steve said:


> I asked a question and your post above is not an answer.  If you aren't going to answer, just say so, but don't deflect.


Still true.  You continue to deflect.  


gpseymour said:


> I answered. You didn't like my answer, and re-asked the question. I don't have a different answer to give you.


Well, going back, I have to admit.  You did answer, and while "like" is subjective and makes things personal, which this isn't (at least on my side of it), your answer to the rhetorical question I originally posed is not true on the face of it, because you clearly did, in your original post, compare your experiences as a middle aged, white collar, aikido instructor to elite level, professional MMA.  



Steve said:


> Okay.  Can you remind me of your answer?  I went back and couldn’t find it.


In my defense, in the post above, I didn't recognize your initial post as an answer.  So, sure, you said, "nope."  You later agreed that it would be odd.  But to clarify, the question for discussion relates to your belief that the ethics of your training correlates in some way to the ethics of a high level, professional MMA bout.  You haven't answered that yet. 



gpseymour said:


> You asked if I was comparing my training to MMA fights, and I said no.


Well, hopefully we can both agree now that you clearly did, which led to this rabbit hole we're currently in.





> You later asked something about my reason for mentioning it, and I said something about the reference of a prior post that seemed to say it's ethical because it's available.


Right.  I was trying to understand what about your training is similar to a professional MMA bout.  The contexts are very different, which makes the entire decision making process different.  This is what I meant when I said:



Steve said:


> What you say above is internally inconsistent.





gpseymour said:


> If you say so. I don't see an inconsistency in it.


Ah, more evasiveness.  So, I explain the inconsistency again:


Steve said:


> If you agree that ethics are contextual, which you have said you do.   And you apply an ethical standard from one context to another (which is unrelated to your own and also foreign to you).   Then....


To spell it out, after the ellipses (plus a period/full stop for the brits), the unstated part is, "your posts are internally inconsistent."



gpseymour said:


> Except that I didn't apply the ethical standard of one context to the other. I used an example to counter a statement that didn't seem to rely upon context. If the poster I quoted thinks I misunderstood or didn't make a valid point, I'd love to hear from him. As for your entry to this, I'm not sure why you've lately taken to trying to find something specifically wrong with my posts (rather than my points). I used to enjoy our discussions, because you made good counter-points that gave me something to think about. Lately, you mostly seem to pick at the post, rather than the point.


You're just screwing with me at this point, saying the opposite of what I say.  



Steve said:


> oh are we back here again?   Rather than address the issue at hand, this is now about how you feel sad and long for the good old days?  Is it possible that the problem here is youre understanding of this particular counterpoint which has led to an inordinate number of back and forth posts?
> 
> All I have to work with are your posts .  if it feels like I'm addressing those, great.  That is the idea . the alternative is to make it personal, which seems to be the trajectory you're on.
> 
> Regarding what little substance you provide above that isn't chiding me for addressing the post and not the poster, you still havent answered the question .





gpseymour said:


> I answered it. You don’t like my answer.
> 
> And I wasn’t chiding you for “addressing the post and not the poster” but for addressing the post but not the point. All you seem to be saying is that I’m comparing my training to MMA fights and that’s not a good comparison. You really haven’t made any point about what I said the point was, when you asked. Get the point?
> 
> As for the rest of your post, you can do better than that crap.


And here we are.  You're getting much more personal, and acting, frankly, like kind of a baby about this.  I'm hoping that by posting the entire sad affair in one contiguous post with some cliff notes attached, you will get over yourself and decide if you'd like to have an adult discussion or have a pity party and continue feeling sorry for yourself.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> you want to be a smartarse





Tez3 said:


> I'm not name calling, it's an adjective.





Tez3 said:


> No I was describing you not insulting you.


No Tez, that's called an insult, don't back pedal. FYI, a lot of insults are adjectives. 



Tez3 said:


> Again, no, absolutely you have missed the point. That's not what I said or meant. I think you are picking arguments because you surmise, correctly, that you are wrong and want it to appear otherwise.


I'm not picking anything. I broke down just about everything you said and replied to it. The only thing you were able to do was to insult and act offended at the same time. You didn't articulate the inconsistency of allowing full contact shots while condemning arm breaks.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> No Tez, that's called an insult, don't back pedal. FYI, a lot of insults are adjectives.
> 
> 
> I'm not picking anything. I broke down just about everything you said and replied to it. The only thing you were able to do was to insult and act offended at the same time. You didn't articulate the inconsistency of allowing full contact shots while condemning arm breaks.




And you are rankled because what I said was true, you broke down_ what you thought I'd written or what you wanted to understand by what I wrote_ but you are very wrong so that's where you are being a smartarse ( *it's only an insult if it's not true*). I'm not actually sure whether you know what you wrote.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's a lot, but I went back to read through every one of the posts in this merry go round exchange.  In your post below, you clearly reference the decision making process you use in your aikido training.  It's literally spelled out below.
> Now, here I'll take responsibility for asking the wrong question.  I asked the following:
> That was actually a rhetorical question, because, as I posted above, you clearly did.  Now, you acknowledge this later, but for now, I asked a yes or no question, and you pulled a trump.  You said:
> Sure.  I agree that this is odd, which is precisely why I asked the initial question.  But what I really should have asked is why you are making this comparison, which we both agree is odd.
> 
> Sure, in an aikido class, this may be true.  How much experience do you have with MMA again?  So, I replied:
> In the post above, the point I was trying to make is that you are trying to apply the ethics of training aikido with other middle aged, white collar workers to the ethics of elite level combat athlete who are working for a paycheck.  Context matters.
> This is the, "it's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it," cop out.  So, I said:
> For what it's worth, I think that my post above remains very apropos, considering your previous post was the functional equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalala. I can't hear you."
> I thought this was odd.  Like has nothing to do with it, but I will note that this is when you started personalizing things.
> I missed this the first time.  Had I seen it, I would freely have acknowledged it was a tangent and has nothing to do with MMA fights.  You, on the other hand, are digging in your heels and making things personal.  But if it makes you feel better, good one.  You're very clever.
> Still true.  You continue to deflect.
> Well, going back, I have to admit.  You did answer, and while "like" is subjective and makes things personal, which this isn't (at least on my side of it), your answer to the rhetorical question I originally posed is not true on the face of it, because you clearly did, in your original post, compare your experiences as a middle aged, white collar, aikido instructor to elite level, professional MMA.
> 
> In my defense, in the post above, I didn't recognize your initial post as an answer.  So, sure, you said, "nope."  You later agreed that it would be odd.  But to clarify, the question for discussion relates to your belief that the ethics of your training correlates in some way to the ethics of a high level, professional MMA bout.  You haven't answered that yet.
> 
> Well, hopefully we can both agree now that you clearly did, which led to this rabbit hole we're currently in.Right.  I was trying to understand what about your training is similar to a professional MMA bout.  The contexts are very different, which makes the entire decision making process different.  This is what I meant when I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, more evasiveness.  So, I explain the inconsistency again:
> To spell it out, after the ellipses (plus a period/full stop for the brits), the unstated part is, "your posts are internally inconsistent."
> 
> You're just screwing with me at this point, saying the opposite of what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> And here we are.  You're getting much more personal, and acting, frankly, like kind of a baby about this.  I'm hoping that by posting the entire sad affair in one contiguous post with some cliff notes attached, you will get over yourself and decide if you'd like to have an adult discussion or have a pity party and continue feeling sorry for yourself.


Whatever, Steve. Much of ethics is opinion. I really do think my opinion is just mine in this. I can even argue (and did, in one place) another side from my own. So, not really a cop-out, so much as an acknowledgement that there are valid points to be made counter. As for the difference in the context, I still maintain there not a difference based on availability. There are certainly other differences, and I've pointed some of those out.

But you really are trying hard to make this about me. You're finally around to making a point (which you failed to do with the first part of this), but your point seems to be, "Gerry doesn't like it and can't defend his ridiculous assertion." I've given the reasons I made my point, and why I think it's valid. I've also stated (contrary to your assertion) that there's a difference in the contexts, and that I don't think that difference is salient to the point about something being available, so is ethical.


----------



## paitingman

Are we all adults here? 

asking for a friend


----------



## Tez3

paitingman said:


> Are we all adults here?
> 
> asking for a friend




Good heavens no, how boring would that be!


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> that's where you are being a smartarse ( *it's only an insult if it's not true*).


So people are only offended when an insult isn't true? Thus me interpreting it as an insult(which it clearly is) makes it untrue?  That's an amazing worldview you have. You completely remove all responsibility from yourself by the words you choose to use.


----------



## Anarax

paitingman said:


> Are we all adults here?
> 
> asking for a friend



I'm for that sentiment. However, speaking for myself, when someone no longer wants to debate ideology but resort to personal attacks it makes if difficult to keep it friendly.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> I'm for that sentiment. However, speaking for myself, when someone no longer wants to debate ideology but resort to personal attacks it makes if difficult to keep it friendly.




or when people decide that what you've written is not what they meant and put their own spin on and come up with a load of bollocks.
We don't discuss ideology on here btw, that comes under politics and against the rules here.

Being offended is a choice, you don't have to be, you can shrug and go 'whatever' but you chose to be.  Go and have a talk with yourself.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Whatever, Steve. Much of ethics is opinion. I really do think my opinion is just mine in this. I can even argue (and did, in one place) another side from my own. So, not really a cop-out, so much as an acknowledgement that there are valid points to be made counter. As for the difference in the context, I still maintain there not a difference based on availability. There are certainly other differences, and I've pointed some of those out.
> 
> But you really are trying hard to make this about me. You're finally around to making a point (which you failed to do with the first part of this), but your point seems to be, "Gerry doesn't like it and can't defend his ridiculous assertion." I've given the reasons I made my point, and why I think it's valid. I've also stated (contrary to your assertion) that there's a difference in the contexts, and that I don't think that difference is salient to the point about something being available, so is ethical.


Never mind . I'll avoid the bait.  I think the point ia there should you choose to consider it.


----------



## drop bear

paitingman said:


> Is this technique rarely seen like this because it's dirty or easy to defend?
> 
> I've done this and had this done to me in live training probably a bunch. Or rather this movement on these joints. Dudes will turn you from an overhook position, but I've never seen it done from a position with this kind of leverage on the elbow. In my opinion, it is easy to defend, but is that the only reason it's rare?



It is like knee kicks. If you walked away with a broken limb every time they would ban it. But because it has about the same injury potential as anything else. They leave it in.

And hey you want to see a guy pop an arm in MMA. Check this one.


----------



## paitingman

drop bear said:


> It is like knee kicks. If you walked away with a broken limb every time they would ban it. But because it has about the same injury potential as anything else. They leave it in.
> 
> And hey you want to see a guy pop an arm in MMA. Check this one.


that was brutal 
double legs must be banned


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

There are plenty of ways to disagree with someone.  Keep in mind, that while you do have a fair bit of leeway to attack the message that someone is sending, you're certainly not allowed to attack the messenger.  

If you feel that someone is in violation of the rules, then use the "REPORT" feature that's part of the Xenforo software.  

Now that y'all have had your warnings, the next occurrences will be met with warning points, and that's something you don't want to get...


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> We don't discuss ideology on here btw, that comes under politics and against the rules here.


Martial Arts Ideology  



Tez3 said:


> Being offended is a choice, you don't have to be, you can shrug and go 'whatever' but you chose to be.  Go and have a talk with yourself.


You misunderstand. I understand you have the right to say what you want, but you don't have immunity nor exemption from being confronted when you insult others. It must be easy to put 100% of the responsibility on those you insult yet 0 responsibility on what you choose to say.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Martial Arts Ideology
> 
> 
> You misunderstand. I understand you have the right to say what you want, but you don't have immunity nor exemption from being confronted when you insult others. It must be easy to put 100% of the responsibility on those you insult yet 0 responsibility on what you choose to say.



As you don't live in the UK you obviously don't understand that 'smartarse' isn't an 'insult'. I'm sorry you don't understand British English but to make a huge fuss about something you think is an insult is ridiculous. We don't complain when you come across here calling those silly little bags 'fanny bags' even though that's very rude. and not a word we use in front of the children.It's often used as a self descriptor and a humorous word for a mate who can do something you can't. Another definition is "someone who mouths of to provoke or be funny to people/persons" your premise that breaking arms is perfectly acceptable in fact is provoking if not trolling yet you complain about a word that is perfectly acceptable here in polite society. the censorship is from MT not the sites themselves.
smart | Definition of smart in English by Oxford Dictionaries
Definition of SMART  you were being disrespectful and don't like being called on it, but if you notice the word smartarse isn't marked as an insult but as I said an adjective.
SMARTARSE - Definition and synonyms of smartarse in the English dictionary  of course if you are saying you aren't clever...……………………..

Ms. Smartarse
Smartarse
Time-travelling smartarse ‘is terrible role model for children’

Lisa Stansfield: 'Corbyn comes across as a real smartarse'
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of-the-word/smartarse.html

It's the name of company here too Smartarse Design Ltd: Eastleigh Hampshire Car Dealer

and finally this Colloquialism Examples and Definition - Literary Devices

You also choose not to defend my saying you were patronising in your replies to me which you were instead focussing on a word which any Brit will tell you is not an insult. However it's been a very amusing interlude in many ways, people on their high horses taking offence on the internet has always to be a childish and pointless exercise.


----------



## Anarax

Tez, you're back pedaling and contradicting yourself. First it's an insult, then it's not. Please refer to your comments below.



Tez3 said:


> you are being a smartarse ( *it's only an insult if it's not true*).





Tez3 said:


> Brit will tell you is not an insult.





Tez3 said:


> However it's been a very amusing interlude in many ways, people on their high horses taking offence on the internet has always to be a childish and pointless exercise.



Confronting someone for resorting to using derogatory insults when they could no longer address the topic itself makes me childish? Seems logical.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> As you don't live in the UK you obviously don't understand that 'smartarse' isn't an 'insult'. I'm sorry you don't understand British English but to make a huge fuss about something you think is an insult is ridiculous. We don't complain when you come across here calling those silly little bags 'fanny bags' even though that's very rude. and not a word we use in front of the children.It's often used as a self descriptor and a humorous word for a mate who can do something you can't. Another definition is "someone who mouths of to provoke or be funny to people/persons" your premise that breaking arms is perfectly acceptable in fact is provoking if not trolling yet you complain about a word that is perfectly acceptable here in polite society. the censorship is from MT not the sites themselves.
> smart | Definition of smart in English by Oxford Dictionaries
> Definition of SMART  you were being disrespectful and don't like being called on it, but if you notice the word smartarse isn't marked as an insult but as I said an adjective.
> SMARTARSE - Definition and synonyms of smartarse in the English dictionary  of course if you are saying you aren't clever...……………………..
> 
> Ms. Smartarse
> Smartarse
> Time-travelling smartarse ‘is terrible role model for children’
> 
> Lisa Stansfield: 'Corbyn comes across as a real smartarse'
> https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of-the-word/smartarse.html
> 
> It's the name of company here too Smartarse Design Ltd: Eastleigh Hampshire Car Dealer
> 
> and finally this Colloquialism Examples and Definition - Literary Devices
> 
> You also choose not to defend my saying you were patronising in your replies to me which you were instead focussing on a word which any Brit will tell you is not an insult. However it's been a very amusing interlude in many ways, people on their high horses taking offence on the internet has always to be a childish and pointless exercise.


It's fanny pack.  Which, thinking about it, might be worse.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> It's fanny pack.  Which, thinking about it, might be worse.



It depends which side of the Atlantic you're on as to which part of the anatomy is a 'fanny'.

Hint - it's not around the back and only roughly half the population have one - not the males...


The same type of bag here is a bum bag - but that's likely offensive over the water.

Much like the "c" word - it's still (usually) offensive here, but for entirely different reasons.


----------



## pdg

Oh, and "smartarse" isn't a particularly offensive term either, in fact it's sometimes complimentary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Oh, and "smartarse" isn't a particularly offensive term either, in fact it's sometimes complimentary.


The Murican equivalent (smartass) is capable of being either insult or sarcastic compliment. It's not terribly offensive in most cases, and whether it's an insult or not mostly depends how much you like the person saying it and how you perceive their intent.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> The Murican equivalent (smartass) is capable of being either insult or sarcastic compliment. It's not terribly offensive in most cases, and whether it's an insult or not mostly depends how much you like the person saying it and how you perceive their intent.


And how much the person saying it likes you.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> It depends which side of the Atlantic you're on as to which part of the anatomy is a 'fanny'.
> 
> Hint - it's not around the back and only roughly half the population have one - not the males...
> 
> 
> The same type of bag here is a bum bag - but that's likely offensive over the water.
> 
> Much like the "c" word - it's still (usually) offensive here, but for entirely different reasons.


Bum is a very mild way to refer to the backside.   Moms will say it to their toddlers in the USA, “oh, did you fall on your bum?” Not offensive at all.  

As for smartass, I’d rather be a smartass than a dumbass.   at worst, smartass is like calling someone a wiseass.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Tez, you're back pedaling and contradicting yourself. First it's an insult, then it's not. Please refer to your comments below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confronting someone for resorting to using derogatory insults when they could no longer address the topic itself makes me childish? Seems logical.




Sweetie, you are someone who thinks breaking an arm in a competition is fine yet you hold on to a _perceived _insult ( and whinging to mods) as if I'd put your children in cages. It's your choice to keep this nonsense going. it's your choice to feel 'insulted' by a harmless word and your choice to actually ignore anything I've said about the actual subject which I suspect you actually know little about. You have only replied to my posts with patronising remarks yet spend an inordinate amount of time on the use of one word that you seem to think is a  monumental insult. Now dear boy, I'm off to Guide camp where the conversation despite their age tends to much more adult. Enjoy your day. 







PS I posted this because I'm a smartarse.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Bum is a very mild way to refer to the backside. Moms will say it to their toddlers in the USA, “oh, did you fall on your bum?” Not offensive at all.



I wasn't aware of that usage in the US.

In films and TV, it seems almost exclusively to be used as a reference for a person who is somehow perceived as a burden to society.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> I wasn't aware of that usage in the US.
> 
> In films and TV, it seems almost exclusively to be used as a reference for a person who is somehow perceived as a burden to society.


It can also be a synonym for vagrant but in thethe context of a bum bag I wioild take ir to refer to the backside and not a homeless person.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> Sweetie, you are someone who thinks breaking an arm in a competition is fine yet you hold on to a _perceived _insult


I clearly explained why I believe a legal technique is acceptable in a full-contact competition. My stance on legal techniques is irrelevant to how I respond to insults. 



Tez3 said:


> it's your choice to feel 'insulted' by a harmless word


Okay, I'll post your comment again so your can read it


Tez3 said:


> smartarse ( *it's only an insult if it's not true*).


You yourself said it's an insult, and you were even kind enough to *bold *it for me. 



Tez3 said:


> your choice to actually ignore anything I've said about the actual subject which I suspect you actually know little about.


I haven't ignored anything. I took every point you offered and responded to it.


----------



## Steve

Just to clarify my position on this.  Breaking a dude's arm is not the goal.  However, at this level, it is reasonable to assume that the competitors are well prepared and know how to handle themselves.  This is true whether its an ankle lock, a guillotine, or a standing arm lock.  If one guy is reefing on a shoulder lock and the other guy doesnt submit, we shouldbt be shocked when the shoulder pops.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> You yourself said it's an insult, and you were even kind enough to *bold *it for me.




No, I said it's only an insult if it's not true. If it's true it's not an insult...………... it isn't an insult.

and no you didn't address my point of you not actually knowing much about MMA.  It's clear you have little understanding of MMA (or what ever you arrogantly understand it to be) or competitive fighting. In fact you didn't answer anyone's questions on your experience in full contact fighting which meant you could intelligently and comprehensively pontificate on whether deliberately breaking people's arms in competition is such a great idea.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*A moderator warning has been placed.  I suggest everyone move on to discuss the technique at hand!*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just to clarify my position on this.  Breaking a dude's arm is not the goal.  However, at this level, it is reasonable to assume that the competitors are well prepared and know how to handle themselves.  This is true whether its an ankle lock, a guillotine, or a standing arm lock.  If one guy is reefing on a shoulder lock and the other guy doesnt submit, we shouldbt be shocked when the shoulder pops.


The issue is that this standing armbar doesn't really have a submission point. If you stop to allow a submission, it's entirely escapable. To use this to any real effect, you have to go for the break. If the armbar in question were on the ground (where there's a base to allow control for submission) my response changes. I still wouldn't break it, but using the technique isn't an issue, and it's mostly on the defender to know when it's time to tap out to avoid injury.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I wasn't aware of that usage in the US.
> 
> In films and TV, it seems almost exclusively to be used as a reference for a person who is somehow perceived as a burden to society.


I think mostly we picked up that usage from British TV. Enough of us see it, and it creeps into the vernacular.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> I think mostly we picked up that usage from British TV. Enough of us see it, and it creeps into the vernacular.




I take it the 'stiff upper lip' bit didn't stick though 

If as a pro fighter you deliberately use techniques that will absolutely result in injury and harm to your opponent, however 'legal' those rules are then that fighter is behaving appallingly. Competitions aren't 'win at any costs', respect for your opponent should be and mostly is there. As I said before once you get a reputation as a 'dirty' fighter ( yes even if it means using legal moves) you will not be matched unless it's against someone the same as you. It's not 'pro wrestling' where even the 'baddies' don't actually hurt their opponents, 'baddies' simply don't get matched, promoters don't want them on their shows ( insurance claims) fighters don't want to have to take time off through injuries that could be avoided, and no one actually wants to see bones broken. Fanboys might think that's great but trust me once they've seen an injury like that they are the first to rush out to be sick. 

On the subject of tapping out, I stopped a fight when a chap was in an armbar, he wasn't pleased because the pain he felt was only moderate but I could clearly see, through experience, that it was causing a lot of damage to his arm and if it went on there would be a serious injury. the fighter, an amateur, had a go at me as he got out of the cage. After another couple of fights I stepped out and he was back, this time apologising and his arm in a sling with the instruction to get it checked by a doctor, from the ringside medics. Fighters don't always know when to tap, it's not as obvious to them for a few reasons as it is to others. If it's a technique being used on them that they don't know, they again will not tap if it seems at face value they don't have to.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I take it the 'stiff upper lip' bit didn't stick though
> 
> If as a pro fighter you deliberately use techniques that will absolutely result in injury and harm to your opponent, however 'legal' those rules are then that fighter is behaving appallingly. Competitions aren't 'win at any costs', respect for your opponent should be and mostly is there. As I said before once you get a reputation as a 'dirty' fighter ( yes even if it means using legal moves) you will not be matched unless it's against someone the same as you. It's not 'pro wrestling' where even the 'baddies' don't actually hurt their opponents, 'baddies' simply don't get matched, promoters don't want them on their shows ( insurance claims) fighters don't want to have to take time off through injuries that could be avoided, and no one actually wants to see bones broken. Fanboys might think that's great but trust me once they've seen an injury like that they are the first to rush out to be sick.
> 
> On the subject of tapping out, I stopped a fight when a chap was in an armbar, he wasn't pleased because the pain he felt was only moderate but I could clearly see, through experience, that it was causing a lot of damage to his arm and if it went on there would be a serious injury. the fighter, an amateur, had a go at me as he got out of the cage. After another couple of fights I stepped out and he was back, this time apologising and his arm in a sling with the instruction to get it checked by a doctor, from the ringside medics. Fighters don't always know when to tap, it's not as obvious to them for a few reasons as it is to others. If it's a technique being used on them that they don't know, they again will not tap if it seems at face value they don't have to.


Amateurs, like white belts and kids, need to be protected from their inexperience and lack of technique .  I think if you were to have made that same stop in a bout between two elite level fighter, it wiuld be a terrible decision .


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Amateurs, like white belts and kids, need to be protected from their inexperience and lack of technique .  I think if you were to have made that same stop in a bout between two elite level fighter, it wiuld be a terrible decision .




No, because the arm was broken.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> The Murican equivalent (smartass) is capable of being either insult or sarcastic compliment. It's not terribly offensive in most cases, and whether it's an insult or not mostly depends how much you like the person saying it and how you perceive their intent.




There is often many many differences in what words here mean as to stateside and I have had on occasion to inform some of my friends that have been over here that ummm what you think it means ehhhh it may not lol the one I really got the laugh at was when a friend was out looking for work Braces and he asked the girl in the tool place for suspenders as he needed them ...she looked at him really weirdly and said she thought he was in the wrong shop ...I could not stop laughing when she told him the lingerie shop was in the centre of town ...he got really upset until I told him that eh suspenders are generally things the fairer sex wear not guys (well ok  ...nh not even going there lol) we call them Braces lol ...

Even the spelling of words that mean the exact same differs and when I was stateside (yup NC) i did have many a conversation with folks on the spelling of tyre (car tyre) as they all spelled it tire which I well it was funny some of the things that got said, Even pronunciation can vary greatly (and believe me even in the UK it does lol and even the folks from the southern parts of the UK can have difficulty understanding my accent (or indeed what words I use lol) and I have even here had discussions with those folks on what they use Gaelic words to mean in English where as in my native language they mean maybe the same sorta lol but also can mean other things too or depending on context something very different lol 

so what might be construed as offensive stateside may not here (or it may even be thought offensive in one part of the UK but not in the more northern regions lol) and vice versa


----------



## Anarax

I appreciate the conversations on the meaning of certain terms and words. However, when the one who uses the word says it's an insult it clearly conveys where it falls on the endearing/insulting spectrum.

Note: I don't want the thread to get shutdown so this is the last time I'm going to talk about it.


----------



## Anarax

Steve said:


> Amateurs, like white belts and kids, need to be protected from their inexperience and lack of technique . I think if you were to have made that same stop in a bout between two elite level fighter, it wiuld be a terrible decision .



I agree, kids, amateurs and professional fighters are completely different things. The ref isn't even responsible for stopping the actual submission. He only has to stop the bout in the event of a tap, TKO,  KO or chocked unconscious. Meaning if a fighter is caught in an armbar but doesn't tap, the fighter is will within the rules to break it and the ref doesn't need to stop the break from happening, only after the break has occurred. Essentially the ref usually steps in when the damage is done, he's there to prevent further unnecessary injury.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> No, because the arm was broken.


Ah ..sure.  So then yeah.


Anarax said:


> I agree, kids, amateurs and professional fighters are completely different things. The ref isn't even responsible for stopping the actual submission. He only has to stop the bout in the event of a tap, TKO,  KO or chocked unconscious. Meaning if a fighter is caught in an armbar but doesn't tap, the fighter is will within the rules to break it and the ref doesn't need to stop the break from happening, only after the break has occurred. Essentially the ref usually steps in when the damage is done, he's there to prevent further unnecessary injury.


Like tez describes in her example.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> The ref isn't even responsible for stopping the actual submission.




Incorrect. The ref has to stop the fight if one fighter cannot intelligently defend themselves or a fighter is refusing to tap with serious injury being caused hurt if it continues i.e.. the ankle is being twisted so far round that it is obvious it will break. The refs job is protect the fighters, quite often from themselves. The referee is the only one who can stop a fight ( no, the corners can't throw in a towel in MMA, though if it happens a ref will stop the fight but it's rare), the ringside doctor can advise the ref on stopping the fight as well, it doesn't have to just be a KO. If a doctor considers that the injury being caused is bad enough the fight can be stopped before the fighter taps. A fighter can use a legal move, and the ref can stop it if the damage is more than the ref considers acceptable, the fight will be awarded to the other fighter as a TKO. The injured fighter may consider it unfair and swear he could have got out of it but often his/her judgement is clouded, the refs shouldn't be and that's why they are there. Better to have a decision go against you and be able to have a rematch than be injured so badly you can't fight again. It's competition, a sport after all not warfare.
There's been cases where refs have stopped a fight in these circumstances and also not stopped fights, all have been criticised but what people don't seem to realise is the decision is solely down to the ref using their best judgement at the time. No one else can decide, only the ref sometimes with medical advice, sometimes not.

Don't pull the tone policing on me again. I have reffed many pro fights after training to be a ref under Marc Goddard. I do know what I'm talking about (and we use the 'UFC' rules0.


----------



## Tez3

Just in case it's not clear...……….. there are rules meetings before the fights where the refs will outline their policies on things like how long they will allow people to 'lay and pray' before they stand them up, at what point they would stop a fight, what techniques aren't allowed in case anyone needs an explanation ( often it's a demo) and how they want the fight to go ie fairly and with good sportsmanship. ( many have now had to say whether they want a handshake first before they tell them to fight, as some fighters having been throwing punches rather than handshakes, it just saves any misunderstandings before they get in the cage)  The refs first priority is the safety of the fighters and adherence to the rules which are made to that end, they don't care who wins.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> The ref has to stop the fight if one fighter cannot intelligently defend themselves or a fighter is refusing to tap with serious injury being caused hurt if it continues i.e.. the ankle is being twisted so far round that it is obvious it will break.


There's a bit of a gray area when a submission is causing pain and when it's inflicting significant damage. Different people have different ranges of motion. For example, in training I've gotten flexible people in a kimura lock and was able to bend it far pass the point I could with other people before they usually tap. The first time I rolled with them I didn't know of their flexibility, so I stopped as I was applying it and asked if they were okay. He said he was fine and was double jointed, thus I continued the submission until he tapped. All of that to say it's difficult for an outsider to always gauge the damage a submission(no matter how tight it looks) may cause.

There's also the escape or possibility of escape the fighter might/can pull off before the damage is inflicted by the submission. Look at the armbar escape Rich Franklin pulled off against Travis Lutter, it looked tight but Rich spun out of it.     


Tez3 said:


> The refs job is protect the fighters, quite often from themselves.


I disagree. Protecting them from each other is far more common and a much more prominent danger. I understand what you mean by ego though.



Tez3 said:


> A fighter can use a legal move, and the ref can stop it if the damage is more than the ref considers acceptable, the fight will be awarded to the other fighter as a TKO.


Here's the rules from the UFC site itself

"If an injury sustained during competition as a result of a legal maneuver is severe enough to terminate a bout, the injured contestant loses by technical knockout"

I think the key terms here are "sustained" and "severe". Sustained is past tense, thus the injury has already occurred. Severe conveys a critical level injury that has a moderate-high level of debilitation.

Though it says Technical Knockout, the UFC fight records show "submission" as the official method of winning. Other sources refer to it as a "technical submission, when a fighter doesn't tap but sustains too severe an injury to continue from a submission. It's really only semantics at this point.



Tez3 said:


> Better to have a decision go against you and be able to have a rematch than be injured so badly you can't fight again.


Professional fighters go into the ring/octagon already accepting that potential outcome. Very rarely are fighters caught in submissions, refuse to tap and suffer career ending injuries.


----------



## Steve

I think the key is that the ref isn’t there to prevent the initial result.  Rather, they are there to stop the fight once injurynhas occurred.  In the ufc, for example, they don’t stop the fight before the athlete taps.  They stop it as soon as the injury occurs or the tap occurs.   Just as tez describes .


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Professional fighters go into the ring/octagon already accepting that potential outcome. Very rarely are fighters caught in submissions, refuse to tap and suffer career ending injuries.



The fighters that have as got as far as being professionals in big promotions don't but there's a long road to get to that point and we don't just ref the big fights but all those ones on the way to the so called 'big time'. We referee all fights from the starting out as amateurs to the neo pros then seasoned pros and yes you  do get those who don't tap along the way, by the time they've survived getting to the point where they are being televised they have a lot more experience. We do have career ending injuries because they won't tap, we have broken bones etc. 
As refs we are there to protect the fighters full stop, whether from themselves, each other, random streakers, whatever. 

When you quote the rules you missed the one about the ref being the sole arbiter. The decisions are the referees and theirs alone.  
_"The referee is the sole arbiter of a contest and is the only individual authorized to stop a contest. The referee may take advice from the ringside physician and/or the Commission with respect to the decision to stop a contest."_

it will be explained, as I said, at the rules meeting before at what point the ref will stop a fights, fighters can question if they wish so they know what the ref wants. It's easy when you are a spectator deciding what the re should have done or should do ( it happens in all sports, the use of video replay is helping to make refs and umpires easier in some sports though) but the responsibility is firmly on the shoulders of the ref and ultimately it doesn't matter what you think it's the refs decision. Fanboys can disagree all they like but usually they have a distinct lack of knowledge and experience.


----------



## now disabled

Tez3 said:


> The fighters that have as got as far as being professionals in big promotions don't but there's a long road to get to that point and we don't just ref the big fights but all those ones on the way to the so called 'big time'. We referee all fights from the starting out as amateurs to the neo pros then seasoned pros and yes you  do get those who don't tap along the way, by the time they've survived getting to the point where they are being televised they have a lot more experience. We do have career ending injuries because they won't tap, we have broken bones etc.
> As refs we are there to protect the fighters full stop, whether from themselves, each other, random streakers, whatever.
> 
> When you quote the rules you missed the one about the ref being the sole arbiter. The decisions are the referees and theirs alone.
> _"The referee is the sole arbiter of a contest and is the only individual authorized to stop a contest. The referee may take advice from the ringside physician and/or the Commission with respect to the decision to stop a contest."_
> 
> it will be explained, as I said, at the rules meeting before at what point the ref will stop a fights, fighters can question if they wish so they know what the ref wants. It's easy when you are a spectator deciding what the re should have done or should do ( it happens in all sports, the use of video replay is helping to make refs and umpires easier in some sports though) but the responsibility is firmly on the shoulders of the ref and ultimately it doesn't matter what you think it's the refs decision. Fanboys can disagree all they like but usually they have a distinct lack of knowledge and experience.




I totally agree with you that the role of the ref is not just as superficial as might be viewed and that imo (and I am not a mma or tournament person) it is much more vital that the ref is on the ball in the lower "rank type" fights as there he/she has to be even more aware due I would think to lack of control of the "fighters" (due to their lower rank and experience) or their stubbornness thinking that they "know" best and they are way better than they actually are ! 

A thing that always springs to mind when I see things like this is an analogy from days in the Military ... A year bright eyed and bushy tailed rupert turns up all fresh and ready to go thinks he knows it all and is ready to tell everyone that and make his mark ... well if the CO doesn't say to him first (some will to spare his/her blushes some will depending on attitude let him/her blush) the when he reaches his platoon he/she will be (again depending on attitude) "invited to sit down shut up and listen and informed yes you have reached the "big show" but only reached it now you have to learn and find out what the "big show" really is not what you think it is...

Ok some of you will jump at that but in part it like the ref in a fight the sgts csgt's and csm's are the refs the officers are the commission and are all there to enforce the rules and make sure that the "newbie" or "wannabe" actually gets the chance to be a "BE" and not get either himself/herself or any other unnecessarily hurt or killed or have career ending injuries in the process.

So to me the ref is important and what folks on the side lines think or what even the fighters think is irrelevant the ref decision is final and if you don't like it then well pick another "show " to go take part in !!!


----------



## Tez3

now disabled said:


> I totally agree with you that the role of the ref is not just as superficial as might be viewed and that imo (and I am not a mma or tournament person) it is much more vital that the ref is on the ball in the lower "rank type" fights as there he/she has to be even more aware due I would think to lack of control of the "fighters" (due to their lower rank and experience) or their stubbornness thinking that they "know" best and they are way better than they actually are !
> 
> A thing that always springs to mind when I see things like this is an analogy from days in the Military ... A year bright eyed and bushy tailed rupert turns up all fresh and ready to go thinks he knows it all and is ready to tell everyone that and make his mark ... well if the CO doesn't say to him first (some will to spare his/her blushes some will depending on attitude let him/her blush) the when he reaches his platoon he/she will be (again depending on attitude) "invited to sit down shut up and listen and informed yes you have reached the "big show" but only reached it now you have to learn and find out what the "big show" really is not what you think it is...
> 
> Ok some of you will jump at that but in part it like the ref in a fight the sgts csgt's and csm's are the refs the officers are the commission and are all there to enforce the rules and make sure that the "newbie" or "wannabe" actually gets the chance to be a "BE" and not get either himself/herself or any other unnecessarily hurt or killed or have career ending injuries in the process.
> 
> So to me the ref is important and what folks on the side lines think or what even the fighters think is irrelevant the ref decision is final and if you don't like it then well pick another "show " to go take part in !!!




Now that's an analogy I can totally relate to! Totally gen.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> We referee all fights from the starting out as amateurs to the neo pros then seasoned pros and yes you do get those who don't tap along the way, by the time they've survived getting to the point where they are being televised they have a lot more experience.


That's why I specified Professional fighters. I have watched many independent MMA organizations both locally/semi-locally and non-televised. I've rarely seen a ref need to stop a submission before the fighter taps(excluding chokes). The overall submission danger awareness is a skill that will also develop the more they practice submissions(rolling) in training.    



Tez3 said:


> We do have career ending injuries because they won't tap, we have broken bones etc.


Broken bones alone aren't career-ending injuries. Other people have commented on here about injury recovery times concerning broken bones healing between fights. Granted it depends on what bone/bones and what find of fracture, but overall bones heal quite well. The injury will take time out of training, but it's rarely a career-ender.



Tez3 said:


> When you quote the rules you missed the one about the ref being the sole arbiter. The decisions are the referees and theirs alone.
> _"The referee is the sole arbiter of a contest and is the only individual authorized to stop a contest. The referee may take advice from the ringside physician and/or the Commission with respect to the decision to stop a contest."_


I saw that and understand the meaning. I understand what the authority of the ref is, but my point was the ref won't immediately stop a submission before the fighter taps. I was clarifying the leeway the ref has in when to intervene.

I understand the ref wants to keep the fighters safe, but they also want the fighters to compete until they can't no longer via TKO/KO/submission/technical submission/etc. No ref wants to be known(by professionals) for stopping fights too early or too late. If a ref repeatedly ignored the Physician's advice and it resulted in the fighter being needlessly injured he would quickly lose respect as a ref by other professionals(fighters, other refs, governing bodies, etc.

The same goes for stopping fights prematurely all in the hope of preventing injury. If the ref stopped a bout in the early stage of a submission many fighters wouldn't want that ref for their bout. There's an ideal narrow spectrum that refs like to stay in when refereeing a bout, somewhere between safety and acceptable/reasonable danger. That spectrum varies from ref to ref though.



Tez3 said:


> It's easy when you are a spectator deciding what the re should have done or should do ( it happens in all sports, the use of video replay is helping to make refs and umpires easier in some sports though) but the responsibility is firmly on the shoulders of the ref


Referees are only human, they are limited by their senses and can only act on what's in front of them. Even Big John Mccarthy has looked back on bouts and regretted how he refereed them.



Tez3 said:


> it doesn't matter what you think it's the refs decision. Fanboys can disagree all they like but usually they have a distinct lack of knowledge and experience.


I'm unsure if you mean spectators in general or myself. Either way, I have over 5 years of medical experience and have trained in both bjj(rolled with pros) and full-contact karate. When I watch MMA bouts I watch it from a Martial Arts and anatomical/physiological perceptive. If you meant other spectators, then I see your point about the average Joe fan that wears a Tapout/Affliction shirt and thinks he knows the sport.


----------



## Anarax

Steve said:


> Like tez describes in her example.


I'm not seeing where her and I disagree on the ref's authority/rules, yet she disagreed with what I said. There must be some difference that she sees at least to click disagree.


----------



## Tez3

Anarax said:


> Broken bones alone aren't career-ending injuries.




if you read the sentence correctly you will see I didn't say broken bones are career ending, there's a comma between 'career ending' and 'we have broken bones etc' indicting these are separate.



Anarax said:


> That's why I specified Professional fighters. I



Actually that doesn't mean anything, we have a lot of amateur fighters who fight pro rules. They are pro fighters because they have 'day job's but they fight under professional rules as opposed to semi pro or amateur rules.




Anarax said:


> The overall submission danger awareness is a skill that will also develop the more they practice submissions(rolling) in training.



You know, if you read what I said, I'd already said that!



Anarax said:


> The same goes for stopping fights prematurely all in the hope of preventing injury. If the ref stopped a bout in the early stage of a submission many fighters wouldn't want that ref for their bout. There's an ideal narrow spectrum that refs like to stay in when refereeing a bout, somewhere between safety and acceptable/reasonable danger. That spectrum varies from ref to ref though.




You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I have never said end a fight 'prematurely' or 'before' an injury happens. My example showed that injury had already happened and I stopped the fight to stop it getting worse. You are arguing about something I haven't even suggested. You aren't understanding my point and seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.







Anarax said:


> Either way, I have over 5 years of medical experience and have trained in both bjj(rolled with pros) and full-contact karate. When I watch MMA bouts I watch it from a Martial Arts and anatomical/physiological perceptive. If you meant other spectators, then I see your point about the average Joe fan that wears a Tapout/Affliction shirt and thinks he knows the sport.



I didn't mean you. I meant what I said, the trouble is you keep reading into my words things that aren't there.
For the record I also have full contact karate experience ( as well as BJJ, Muay Thai and Judo), in my over forty years of training martial arts. I have been training, coaching, reffing, judging, cornering, match matching and promoting MMA for nearly 20 years. I've trained with people like Ian Freeman, Leigh Remedios, Rosi Sexton etc etc. And just to bore the others on here because they already know, we gave Bisping his debut pro fight on our promotion. I was already a karate official before, been on countless refereeing and coaching courses, as I said before Marc Goddard does amazing MMA refs courses.


----------



## paitingman

Just for some perspective Aoki's opponent Keith Wisniewski recovered well and went on to win his next fight about 4 months later.
Arm broken January 29th, 2005. Next fight wasn't until May 14th 2005.


----------



## Anarax

Tez3 said:


> if you read the sentence correctly you will see I didn't say broken bones are career ending, there's a comma between 'career ending' and 'we have broken bones etc' indicting these are separate.


Commas can also be used to separate an initial statement from a clarification. Broken limbs are relevant considering the technique and video the thread is about.



Tez3 said:


> Actually that doesn't mean anything, we have a lot of amateur fighters who fight pro rules. They are pro fighters because they have 'day job's but they fight under professional rules as opposed to semi pro or amateur rules.


Actually it means a lot, and you're point about "day jobs" conveys why. Someone with a day job will not be able to put in the same amount of hours than a Pro will. The rules they fight under are one thing, but the skills they bring into the ring is going to set the tempo. A pro fighter can dedicate more time into training than an amateur can for the amateurs must work a day job to survive, which takes up a lot of time. While the amateur is working at their job, the pro fighter is at the gym drilling, conditioning and sparring. This additional training makes the pro more dangerous in bouts.



Tez3 said:


> You aren't understanding what I'm saying. I have never said end a fight 'prematurely' or 'before' an injury happens. My example showed that injury had already happened and I stopped the fight to stop it getting worse. You are arguing about something I haven't even suggested. You aren't understanding my point and seem to think I'm saying something I'm not.


No Tez, my post isn't about you, it's about refereeing as a whole. I'm using examples to illustrate my point.


----------



## Anarax

paitingman said:


> Just for some perspective Aoki's opponent Keith Wisniewski recovered well and went on to win his next fight about 4 months later.
> Arm broken January 29th, 2005. Next fight wasn't until May 14th 2005.


You beat me to it


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you ever test your MA skill in golden glove boxing in a small red neck Texas town (such as Liberty Hill, Texas), you will feel that everybody there will fight like animal and try to kill you in the ring without mercy.


What will you do if your opponent in the ring tries to do this to you?


----------



## _Simon_

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will you do if your opponent in the ring tries to do this to you?


Holy MOLY.......  that looks nasty.... :S


The Ki-No-Touch-Death-Touch (TM)(C)(Pty Ltd)?


----------

