# MMA "Fouls"



## TMA17

Quite a few.  

_*Association of Boxing Commissions*_ and adhered to by the *Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts*.

Holding onto the cage fencing
Holding opponent’s clothing or gloves
Headbutts
Biting or spitting
Hair pulling
Intentionally placing a finger into any orifice, or into any cut or laceration of an opponent
Eye gouging of any kind
Groin attacks of any kind
Downward elbow strikes
Small joint manipulation (bending fingers backwards for example)
Strikes to the spine or back of the head
Heel kicks to the kidney
Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
Clawing, pinching, twisting the flesh or grabbing the clavicle (collar bone)
Kicking the head of a grounded opponent
Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent
Stomping on a grounded fighter
The use of abusive language in fighting area
Any unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to opponent
Attacking an opponent during a break
Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee
Timidity (avoiding contact, consistent dropping of mouthpiece, or faking an injury)
Interference from a fighter's cornerman
Throwing an opponent out of the ring or caged area
Flagrant disregard of the referee’s instructions
Pinning an opponent to the floor on his or her head or neck
Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the round


----------



## Tez3

Did you think there weren't any rules? MMA is a sport and the rules are there for the safety of the fighters, why wouldn't they be?


----------



## TMA17

No, of course I knew there were rules.  I've just never seen them listed like this.  These are things one would  have to keep in mind in a street fight.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

#BringBackPride


----------



## JR 137

I think they should repeal the throwing the opponent out of the cage.  If you can pull that off, on a conscious opponent anyway, you deserve the win.    Just saying.

No no purple nurples, Indian burns, or smurf bites?  Well, good thing I never got into the cage.  The rules are obviously stacked against me.


----------



## pdg

JR 137 said:


> Indian burns



Is that where you grab a wrist (or similar) with both hands and twist in opposite directions?


----------



## JR 137

pdg said:


> Is that where you grab a wrist (or similar) with both hands and twist in opposite directions?


Yup.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

It's important to note that these are just the current iteration of the most commonly followed rules in the U.S.. There are promotions in other countries which use different rules and there have been many different versions of the rules in the past. Most of the "fouls" listed above have been allowed at one time or another and some of them are still allowed in different promotions.

In addition, while some of the fouls are effective techniques which have been used when the rules allowed it (and sometimes when the rules didn't allow it), my observation is that banning them hasn't done that much to change the overall structure of what works in an MMA match.


----------



## pdg

JR 137 said:


> Yup.



Those are called Chinese burns here.


----------



## Headhunter

TMA17 said:


> No, of course I knew there were rules.  I've just never seen them listed like this.  These are things one would  have to keep in mind in a street fight.


Well yes but Mma isn't a street fight it's a sport so it has rules....


----------



## wab25

Tony Dismukes said:


> In addition, while some of the fouls are effective techniques which have been used when the rules allowed it (and sometimes when the rules didn't allow it), my observation is that *banning them hasn't done that much to change the overall structure of what works in an MMA match*.


I question that banning them hasn't changed the overall structure. Or rather, I think that allowing some of them would change the structure. I am hoping that those with more experience than I, in MMA, can answer this for me.

As I understand it, when MMA started, and some of these things were legal... the fighters did not have the skills to put themselves into a position to use them effectively. I think that now, that the fighter skill has gone up, some of these might actually change things... as the fighters now have an opportunity to apply them effectively. Here are some examples:

Currently, a vertical elbow (12 to 6) is illegal, as are strikes to the spine. We also see fighters trying for wrestling take downs, where the other guy pressed up against the fence trying to defend a double or single leg take down. If the guy defending, were to use a vertical elbow, to strike the vertebrae with the point of the elbow, while defending the take down, would that be effective? My thinking here, is during the early days, when this was legal, people didn't know how to defend the take down and would end up taken down, before they could ever attempt such a thing. But, now, they can defend the take down for quite a while sometimes, where the other guys back and spine is fairly accessible to an elbow strike. Would receiving one or more vertical elbows, to the vertebrae, stop a take down attempt? Would it cause this style of take downs to be used less, in favor of take downs where the back is not so exposed? (more Judo style throws and foot sweeps)

The other example would be eye gouging. This has always been illegal. In the early years of MMA, the TMA guys were ridiculed about their deadly eye gouge techniques. However, we have seen now that accidental eye pokes have had such an effect, that they just changed the rules about it. Just looking a the effect that the accidental eye pokes sometimes have... leads me to think that if they were legal, they would be used more and could change the outcome of matches very suddenly. (we would also have a lot of fighters that couldn't see as well... )

I am not advocating making these things legal, as we do need to consider fighter safety. But, I have wondered about how these things would change fights. At this point, I think they would change how the fights progressed.. But, I would like to hear the opinions of the folks here that have much more MMA experience than I. (that really doesn't take too much  )

Thanks in advance. (And hopefully this comes across as me looking to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and not so much  as me trying to start an argument.)


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> I question that banning them hasn't changed the overall structure. Or rather, I think that allowing some of them would change the structure. I am hoping that those with more experience than I, in MMA, can answer this for me.
> 
> As I understand it, when MMA started, and some of these things were legal... the fighters did not have the skills to put themselves into a position to use them effectively. I think that now, that the fighter skill has gone up, some of these might actually change things... as the fighters now have an opportunity to apply them effectively. Here are some examples:
> 
> Currently, a vertical elbow (12 to 6) is illegal, as are strikes to the spine. We also see fighters trying for wrestling take downs, where the other guy pressed up against the fence trying to defend a double or single leg take down. If the guy defending, were to use a vertical elbow, to strike the vertebrae with the point of the elbow, while defending the take down, would that be effective? My thinking here, is during the early days, when this was legal, people didn't know how to defend the take down and would end up taken down, before they could ever attempt such a thing. But, now, they can defend the take down for quite a while sometimes, where the other guys back and spine is fairly accessible to an elbow strike. Would receiving one or more vertical elbows, to the vertebrae, stop a take down attempt? Would it cause this style of take downs to be used less, in favor of take downs where the back is not so exposed? (more Judo style throws and foot sweeps)
> 
> The other example would be eye gouging. This has always been illegal. In the early years of MMA, the TMA guys were ridiculed about their deadly eye gouge techniques. However, we have seen now that accidental eye pokes have had such an effect, that they just changed the rules about it. Just looking a the effect that the accidental eye pokes sometimes have... leads me to think that if they were legal, they would be used more and could change the outcome of matches very suddenly. (we would also have a lot of fighters that couldn't see as well... )
> 
> I am not advocating making these things legal, as we do need to consider fighter safety. But, I have wondered about how these things would change fights. At this point, I think they would change how the fights progressed.. But, I would like to hear the opinions of the folks here that have much more MMA experience than I. (that really doesn't take too much  )
> 
> Thanks in advance. (And hopefully this comes across as me looking to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and not so much  as me trying to start an argument.)



The short answer is people just get hurt more.


----------



## Headhunter

wab25 said:


> I question that banning them hasn't changed the overall structure. Or rather, I think that allowing some of them would change the structure. I am hoping that those with more experience than I, in MMA, can answer this for me.
> 
> As I understand it, when MMA started, and some of these things were legal... the fighters did not have the skills to put themselves into a position to use them effectively. I think that now, that the fighter skill has gone up, some of these might actually change things... as the fighters now have an opportunity to apply them effectively. Here are some examples:
> 
> Currently, a vertical elbow (12 to 6) is illegal, as are strikes to the spine. We also see fighters trying for wrestling take downs, where the other guy pressed up against the fence trying to defend a double or single leg take down. If the guy defending, were to use a vertical elbow, to strike the vertebrae with the point of the elbow, while defending the take down, would that be effective? My thinking here, is during the early days, when this was legal, people didn't know how to defend the take down and would end up taken down, before they could ever attempt such a thing. But, now, they can defend the take down for quite a while sometimes, where the other guys back and spine is fairly accessible to an elbow strike. Would receiving one or more vertical elbows, to the vertebrae, stop a take down attempt? Would it cause this style of take downs to be used less, in favor of take downs where the back is not so exposed? (more Judo style throws and foot sweeps)
> 
> The other example would be eye gouging. This has always been illegal. In the early years of MMA, the TMA guys were ridiculed about their deadly eye gouge techniques. However, we have seen now that accidental eye pokes have had such an effect, that they just changed the rules about it. Just looking a the effect that the accidental eye pokes sometimes have... leads me to think that if they were legal, they would be used more and could change the outcome of matches very suddenly. (we would also have a lot of fighters that couldn't see as well... )
> 
> I am not advocating making these things legal, as we do need to consider fighter safety. But, I have wondered about how these things would change fights. At this point, I think they would change how the fights progressed.. But, I would like to hear the opinions of the folks here that have much more MMA experience than I. (that really doesn't take too much  )
> 
> Thanks in advance. (And hopefully this comes across as me looking to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and not so much  as me trying to start an argument.)


To put it simply I have no interest in watching guys gouge each other's eyes or kick each other in the groin. Elbows to the spine can cripple someone, eye gouges can blind people I have no interest in seeing that happen in a sport that's already dangerous enough as it is


----------



## Tez3

TMA17 said:


> These are things one would have to keep in mind in a street fight.



Why?


----------



## pdg

Headhunter said:


> To put it simply I have no interest in watching guys ... kick each other in the groin.



Really?







I'd watch "ow my balls", but I have no interest in watching mma...


----------



## Tony Dismukes

wab25 said:


> I question that banning them hasn't changed the overall structure. Or rather, I think that allowing some of them would change the structure. I am hoping that those with more experience than I, in MMA, can answer this for me.
> 
> As I understand it, when MMA started, and some of these things were legal... the fighters did not have the skills to put themselves into a position to use them effectively. I think that now, that the fighter skill has gone up, some of these might actually change things... as the fighters now have an opportunity to apply them effectively. Here are some examples:
> 
> Currently, a vertical elbow (12 to 6) is illegal, as are strikes to the spine. We also see fighters trying for wrestling take downs, where the other guy pressed up against the fence trying to defend a double or single leg take down. If the guy defending, were to use a vertical elbow, to strike the vertebrae with the point of the elbow, while defending the take down, would that be effective? My thinking here, is during the early days, when this was legal, people didn't know how to defend the take down and would end up taken down, before they could ever attempt such a thing. But, now, they can defend the take down for quite a while sometimes, where the other guys back and spine is fairly accessible to an elbow strike. Would receiving one or more vertical elbows, to the vertebrae, stop a take down attempt? Would it cause this style of take downs to be used less, in favor of take downs where the back is not so exposed? (more Judo style throws and foot sweeps)
> 
> The other example would be eye gouging. This has always been illegal. In the early years of MMA, the TMA guys were ridiculed about their deadly eye gouge techniques. However, we have seen now that accidental eye pokes have had such an effect, that they just changed the rules about it. Just looking a the effect that the accidental eye pokes sometimes have... leads me to think that if they were legal, they would be used more and could change the outcome of matches very suddenly. (we would also have a lot of fighters that couldn't see as well... )
> 
> I am not advocating making these things legal, as we do need to consider fighter safety. But, I have wondered about how these things would change fights. At this point, I think they would change how the fights progressed.. But, I would like to hear the opinions of the folks here that have much more MMA experience than I. (that really doesn't take too much  )
> 
> Thanks in advance. (And hopefully this comes across as me looking to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and not so much  as me trying to start an argument.)



Good questions. I'll address the examples you gave and a few more.

Downward elbows to the spine: Coupled with good takedown defense, they can indeed inflict some real punishment against someone attacking with a sloppy (head down) wrestling shot. It's possible that allowing these strikes might increase the use of other takedowns. I suspect the more likely change is that people would learn to be more disciplined about shooting in correctly. Either way, the most important aspect in play is good takedown defense. Without it, those downward elbows are mostly useless.

Eye pokes and gouges: If these were allowed, you would absolutely see more fights ending as a result of them. However, the skills and delivery mechanisms for applying (and defending against) these eye attacks are the same skills and delivery mechanisms that work for applying and defending against jabs to the face and grappling head control. That's what I mean when I say the structure of what works hasn't changed.

Other examples:

Kicking the head of a downed opponent: This is an effective technique. However if you look at the promotions where the technique is allowed, the overall skillset in play looks like those where it is not allowed. The only difference is that you don't get fighters "working the rules" by leaving one hand grounded to prevent their opponent from kicking their head. I dislike that when I see it in the UFC, but fortunately it doesn't come up that often.

Hair pulling: If this were allowed again (as it used to be), fighters would all shave their heads or cut their hair really short. Most of them do this anyway.

Grabbing clothing: With the current dress code, banning this doesn't do anything but avoid inadvertent x-rated wardrobe malfunctions. If fighters wore substantial clothing (as in Kudo competition), then there would be some additional skill sets coming into play. It wouldn't negate the existing skillsets, but would add to them.

Head butts: These can be effective and would lead to some knockouts if allowed. However the proper head positioning for using/defending against head butts is pretty much the same positioning that you want for good wrestling anyway, so allowing them wouldn't much alter the structure of how the fighters operate.

Hope that clarifies my point.


----------



## wab25

Headhunter said:


> To put it simply I have no interest in watching guys gouge each other's eyes or kick each other in the groin. Elbows to the spine can cripple someone, eye gouges can blind people I have no interest in seeing that happen in a sport that's already dangerous enough as it is


I agree with you. I am not hoping they change the sport... it is dangerous enough. (however America's Funniest Videos has shown that guys taking groin shots can be highly entertaining...)

In another thread here, I located and posted the statistics about take downs in MMA. Those numbers showed that successful double leg take downs far out numbered all other forms of take downs... including the Judo style throws. Double leg take downs were huge, single leg take downs were respectable... every other type of take down, had very small numbers.

Many years ago, people were taught that karate style blocks would break the attackers arm and that a back fist punch would break the skull. Now, 1000s of full contact blocks and back fist punches later we see that those ideas were not exactly correct. While effective, these techniques are on par with other blocking and striking techniques in terms of how fight ending they could be.

My question is, are elbows to the spine effective enough at crippling, or injuring the other guy, to change the distribution of successful take downs? Would this bring the number Judo throws and other trips up to where the wrestling take downs are? Would they out number the wrestling take downs?

Are these rules, adjusting which techniques are currently viewed as "the most successful?"

(reading Tony's response now...)


----------



## wab25

Thanks for the great break down Tony. Those are great points, especially now that I understand better what you meant by the "structure of what works." I agree with most of what you said there... I am processing the rest. Definitely seeing a few things in a new light.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Good questions. I'll address the examples you gave and a few more.
> 
> Downward elbows to the spine: Coupled with good takedown defense, they can indeed inflict some real punishment against someone attacking with a sloppy (head down) wrestling shot. It's possible that allowing these strikes might increase the use of other takedowns. I suspect the more likely change is that people would learn to be more disciplined about shooting in correctly. Either way, the most important aspect in play is good takedown defense. Without it, those downward elbows are mostly useless.
> 
> Eye pokes and gouges: If these were allowed, you would absolutely see more fights ending as a result of them. However, the skills and delivery mechanisms for applying (and defending against) these eye attacks are the same skills and delivery mechanisms that work for applying and defending against jabs to the face and grappling head control. That's what I mean when I say the structure of what works hasn't changed.
> 
> Other examples:
> 
> Kicking the head of a downed opponent: This is an effective technique. However if you look at the promotions where the technique is allowed, the overall skillset in play looks like those where it is not allowed. The only difference is that you don't get fighters "working the rules" by leaving one hand grounded to prevent their opponent from kicking their head. I dislike that when I see it in the UFC, but fortunately it doesn't come up that often.
> 
> Hair pulling: If this were allowed again (as it used to be), fighters would all shave their heads or cut their hair really short. Most of them do this anyway.
> 
> Grabbing clothing: With the current dress code, banning this doesn't do anything but avoid inadvertent x-rated wardrobe malfunctions. If fighters wore substantial clothing (as in Kudo competition), then there would be some additional skill sets coming into play. It wouldn't negate the existing skillsets, but would add to them.
> 
> Head butts: These can be effective and would lead to some knockouts if allowed. However the proper head positioning for using/defending against head butts is pretty much the same positioning that you want for good wrestling anyway, so allowing them wouldn't much alter the structure of how the fighters operate.
> 
> Hope that clarifies my point.



The long answer.


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> I agree with you. I am not hoping they change the sport.. it is dangerous enough. (however America's Funniest Videos has shown that guys taking groin shots can be highly entertaining...)
> 
> In another thread here, I located and posted the statistics about take downs in MMA. Those numbers showed that successful double leg take downs far out numbered all other forms of take downs... including the Judo style throws. Double leg take downs were huge, single leg take downs were respectable... every other type of take down, had very small numbers.
> 
> Many years ago, people were taught that karate style blocks would break the attackers arm and that a back fist punch would break the skull. Now, 1000s of full contact blocks and back fist punches later we see that those ideas were not exactly correct. While effective, these techniques are on par with other blocking and striking techniques in terms of how fight ending they could be.
> 
> My question is, are elbows to the spine effective enough at crippling, or injuring the other guy, to change the distribution of successful take downs? Would this bring the number Judo throws and other trips up to where the wrestling take downs are? Would they out number the wrestling take downs?
> 
> Are these rules, adjusting which techniques are currently viewed as "the most successful?"
> 
> (reading Tony's response now...)



You need your hips to throw really good downward elbows. Which are being grabbed when they are going for a takedown.

There would be some turtle positions that downward elbows would suck with though.

So If I strarted jumping on a guys from here. Down elbows, soccer kicks and such. That would be bad news.





But to get there you messed up a long time ago.

Otherwise. This is why MMA takedowns by MMA guys work. And Zombie tackles by that guy in the demo gets stuffed by downward elbows.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> You need your hips to throw really good downward elbows. Which are being grabbed when they are going for a takedown.
> 
> There would be some turtle positions that downward elbows would suck with though.
> 
> So If I strarted jumping on a guys from here. Down elbows, soccer kicks and such. That would be bad news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to get there you messed up a long time ago.
> 
> Otherwise. This is why MMA takedowns by MMA guys work. And Zombie tackles by that guy in the demo gets stuffed by downward elbows.


I love how he just beats his oponant to that underhook. Magically overcoming reaction time and that the striker has the shorter distance.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Those are called Chinese burns here.


Either way, it's a racist term .


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> Either way, it's a racist term .


What if Indians invented it and named it?


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Either way, it's a racist term .




Perhaps not. Why Is It Called A Chinese Burn? - LBC


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> I think they should repeal the throwing the opponent out of the cage.  If you can pull that off, on a conscious opponent anyway, you deserve the win.    Just saying.


Agreed. Get me up over an 6-8' fence by force? You win. Heck, if you can manage to toss me up on top of the fence, I'll concede.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Either way, it's a racist term .


I don't think a reference to another group - even if it's a false attribution - is necessarily racist.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I don't think a reference to another group - even if it's a false attribution - is necessarily racist.



Everything is racist nowadays...

Funfact though - in my year at school a Chinese burn became known for a while as a chin-bu.

There was a Chinese kid in our year, and it was asked of him "is it just a burn to you, seeing as you're already Chinese?"

His reply was along the lines of "I'm half Chinese, so it's more like a chin-bu".


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't think a reference to another group - even if it's a false attribution - is necessarily racist.


That's true.  As a general statement, I agree with you.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps not. Why Is It Called A Chinese Burn? - LBC


i am not sure how credible this is .


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Everything is racist nowadays...
> 
> Funfact though - in my year at school a Chinese burn became known for a while as a chin-bu.
> 
> There was a Chinese kid in our year, and it was asked of him "is it just a burn to you, seeing as you're already Chinese?"
> 
> His reply was along the lines of "I'm half Chinese, so it's more like a chin-bu".


Not everything is racist but some things aee.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Not everything is racist but some things aee.



Oh, _I_ agree.

Plenty don't though... So it depends who you ask.

For instance, did you know that me liking Chinese food is racism through cultural appropriation?


I don't consider stuff like "Chinese burn" to be any more racist than calling a takeaway sweet and sour "Chinese food" - I mean, it may have been cooked by a Chinese person to a Chinese recipe, but that's not where it came from...


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Oh, _I_ agree.
> 
> Plenty don't though... So it depends who you ask.
> 
> For instance, did you know that me liking Chinese food is racism through cultural appropriation?
> 
> 
> I don't consider stuff like "Chinese burn" to be any more racist than calling a takeaway sweet and sour "Chinese food" - I mean, it may have been cooked by a Chinese person to a Chinese recipe, but that's not where it came from...


Look guys . I'm not going to debate this.  Terms like Indian burn are the same as saying you were gypped or that you jewed someone down in a negotiation, or that someone who does something dumb rode the short bus or is a tard.  

If you disagree with me, fine.  It's okay . I'll judge you though.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> or that someone who does something dumb rode the short bus or is a tard.



You forgot "window licker" and "scoper" 


Yeah fine, it's not big or clever but let's be honest here, it's a damn sight funnier than a lynching.

I (and society at large imo) have bigger things to worry about than an internet random (that's you, no offence) judging me for using, without malice or intent, decades old colloquialisms - so judge away if you like


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> i am not sure how credible this is .



I didn't say it was, just that _perhaps_ it's not racist. We've had martial arts in the UK for a lot longer than a lot of other western countries so it's not impossible. It's possible too that 'Indian' actually refers to India the martial arts there were certainly known to the British from the 16th century CE onwards.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> You forgot "window licker" and "scoper"
> 
> 
> Yeah fine, it's not big or clever but let's be honest here, it's a damn sight funnier than a lynching.
> 
> I (and society at large imo) have bigger things to worry about than an internet random (that's you, no offence) judging me for using, without malice or intent, decades old colloquialisms - so judge away if you like


I agree.  That was my point.  But... I am judging you.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it was, just that _perhaps_ it's not racist. We've had martial arts in the UK for a lot longer than a lot of other western countries so it's not impossible. It's possible too that 'Indian' actually refers to India the martial arts there were certainly known to the British from the 16th century CE onwards.


Cool.  I think in the USA, we can be pretty sure that up until a few decades ago, Indian did not refer to folks from India .  Anymore, it's hit and miss .


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I agree.  That was my point.  But... I am judging you.



Sometimes, it's nice to know someone is thinking of you, even if it's to judge


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> Sometimes, it's nice to know someone is thinking of you, even if it's to judge


True story.  When I was stationed in Germany, just got there to my first duty station, a buck sgt comes through the room and the conversation stops.  He says, "oh you guys must have been talking about me."   Tech sgt replies, "sgt.  We don't even think about you when you're not around, much less talk about you."

So yeah.  I agree.  That happened 30 years ago and I haven't forgotten it.


----------



## Tez3

Steve said:


> Cool.  I think in the USA, we can be pretty sure that up until a few decades ago, Indian did not refer to folks from India .  Anymore, it's hit and miss .




However, America was a British colony ( India was one first)...……………… you even speak a form of English.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> However, America was a British colony ( India was one first)...……………… you even speak a form of English.


How dare you!!  I speak 'merican.  

I do like a good IPA, though I prefer our local, Washington hops to the British ones.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Look guys . I'm not going to debate this.  Terms like Indian burn are the same as saying you were gypped or that you jewed someone down in a negotiation, or that someone who does something dumb rode the short bus or is a tard.
> 
> If you disagree with me, fine.  It's okay . I'll judge you though.


There’s nothing inherently negative (or positive) about giving someone a skin burn. Most likely, the term (both of them) came from someone claiming it’s something a specific group would/might do in a fight or something. It’s an almost certainly incorrect attribution, but I don’t see any racism.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> However, America was a British colony ( India was one first)...……………… you even speak a form of English.


You take that back!! Damned lies!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> How dare you!!  I speak 'merican.
> 
> I do like a good IPA, though I prefer our local, Washington hops to the British ones.


I have a problem with the P in that stuff. Pale is okay for wine, but beer???


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I have a problem with the P in that stuff. Pale is okay for wine, but beer???



There's nothing nice about P in beer...



Steve said:


> I do like a good IPA, though I prefer our local, Washington hops to the British ones.



Historically, if it's made with hops it's IPL at best, not IPA.

But apparently, that may have changed...


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> You take that back!! Damned lies!!




what! you want us to take you back? well perhaps you can come as refugees when things get too bad...………...


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> There’s nothing inherently negative (or positive) about giving someone a skin burn. Most likely, the term (both of them) came from someone claiming it’s something a specific group would/might do in a fight or something. It’s an almost certainly incorrect attribution, but I don’t see any racism.


Everything I've seen/heard ever refers to the color it turns your skin.   This is literally the first time I've heard otherwise .


----------



## Tez3

My local brewery, a couple of miles down the road from me.
Richmond Brewing Company | Home


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I have a problem with the P in that stuff. Pale is okay for wine, but beer???


pale is just fine.


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> There's nothing nice about P in beer...
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, if it's made with hops it's IPL at best, not IPA.
> 
> But apparently, that may have changed...


Lager vs ale is not about hops, rather it's about the fermentation.   Longer at lower temps is a lager.


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> My local brewery, a couple of miles down the road from me.
> Richmond Brewing Company | Home


We have several in the seattle area, but my favorite is georgetown Brewing .  They make an unfiltered IPA that's just delicious .


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> Lager vs ale is not about hops, rather it's about the fermentation.   Longer at lower temps is a lager.



In the olden days, ale pretty much meant hopeless beer.

Well, it did in English at least


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> In the olden days, ale pretty much meant hopeless beer.
> 
> Well, it did in English at least


“Hopeless beer”.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> “Hopeless beer”.



Freudian autocorrect.

(I thought I'd turned that off...)


----------



## Steve

I've honestly never heard of a hopless beer.


----------



## pdg

Steve said:


> I've honestly never heard of a hopless beer.



It's possible they predate america, and have become so 'specialist' as to have no fame nowadays.

There's usually a good handful of gruits at most beerfests around here...


----------



## Steve

pdg said:


> It's possible they predate america, and have become so 'specialist' as to have no fame nowadays.
> 
> There's usually a good handful of gruits at most beerfests around here...


I'm game to try it . I'll keep my eyes out .


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Not everything is racist but some things aee.



As a side note. I am fine with a bit of racism so long as it isn't malicious.

I find I am more racist towards people I trust.

Which means the less racist I am being the more I am factoring in their race.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Look guys . I'm not going to debate this.  Terms like Indian burn are the same as saying you were gypped or that you jewed someone down in a negotiation, or that someone who does something dumb rode the short bus or is a tard.
> 
> If you disagree with me, fine.  It's okay . I'll judge you though.


Since none of you seem to get the issues here (Steve excluded)

Indian burn: self explanatory

Gypped: Assuming that someone who takes advantage is a gypsy

Jewed someone: fairly certain this comes from nazis, that a jew takes advantage of others money-wise

shortbus/tard: making fun of someone for having below average intelligence.

In my profession, I have seen people be upset by all 4/5 of those, and in some cases exacerbating the issues. It's the same as using the N-word or the C-word, but because they're not for 'minority' groups, it's considered okay. 

The two big ones that people have directed towards me are 'fake paddy', and either 'spic' or 'spicorican'. Those offend me for different reasons (I am Irish/cuban), and as far as people are concerned I don't fit in with either group. There really is no reason to use a term that offends people, and the idea that it is the fault of the offended is ridiculous. 

That would be like me saying someone being punched in the face being upset by that is being a baby. I'm okay with it, and most likely if I met one of you and you punched me in the face, I wouldn't care all that much (it happens often enough in sparring). But if you punched a random person in the face (In NY at least) you could get arrested for assault. Just because you're okay with something doesn't mean everyone else is, nor does it mean that they should be okay with it.


----------



## Tez3

kempodisciple said:


> Since none of you seem to get the issues here (




As a Jew and daughter of a concentration camp survivor, trust me I get it. 
Britain's last anti-Jewish riots
Anti-Semitism is on the march across Europe
Anti-Semitic incidents rise 60 per cent in a year in US


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> As a side note. I am fine with a bit of racism so long as it isn't malicious.
> 
> I find I am more racist towards people I trust.
> 
> Which means the less racist I am being the more I am factoring in their race.


Most of us, if we admit it, are that way. It's why black comedians in the US can get away with saying things white comedians often cannot.

A friend of mine who was black (he still is black, we just lost touch) understood this well, and he and I often made "racist" comments at each other - usually backwards, making fun of the stereotypes. I had a couple of friends like that in high school. We'd pass each other in the hall, and they'd call me some nasty epithet usually reserved for blacks, and I'd return the favor with some nasty epithet usually reserved for whites.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> Since none of you seem to get the issues here (Steve excluded)
> 
> Indian burn: self explanatory
> 
> Gypped: Assuming that someone who takes advantage is a gypsy
> 
> Jewed someone: fairly certain this comes from nazis, that a jew takes advantage of others money-wise
> 
> shortbus/tard: making fun of someone for having below average intelligence.
> 
> In my profession, I have seen people be upset by all 4/5 of those, and in some cases exacerbating the issues. It's the same as using the N-word or the C-word, but because they're not for 'minority' groups, it's considered okay.
> 
> The two big ones that people have directed towards me are 'fake paddy', and either 'spic' or 'spicorican'. Those offend me for different reasons (I am Irish/cuban), and as far as people are concerned I don't fit in with either group. There really is no reason to use a term that offends people, and the idea that it is the fault of the offended is ridiculous.
> 
> That would be like me saying someone being punched in the face being upset by that is being a baby. I'm okay with it, and most likely if I met one of you and you punched me in the face, I wouldn't care all that much (it happens often enough in sparring). But if you punched a random person in the face (In NY at least) you could get arrested for assault. Just because you're okay with something doesn't mean everyone else is, nor does it mean that they should be okay with it.


Where did you get the idea that none of the rest of us understood those references?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Most of us, if we admit it, are that way. It's why black comedians in the US can get away with saying things white comedians often cannot.
> 
> A friend of mine who was black (he still is black, we just lost touch) understood this well, and he and I often made "racist" comments at each other - usually backwards, making fun of the stereotypes. I had a couple of friends like that in high school. We'd pass each other in the hall, and they'd call me some nasty epithet usually reserved for blacks, and I'd return the favor with some nasty epithet usually reserved for whites.


Trust and context make all the difference.  One of my good friends is Samoan, and I can make jokes with him I could not with most.   Also, saying something intentionally to a friend as a gesture of good natured, and mutually understood, camaraderie is very different from carelessly using a term, like the ones I and others mention above.   As with most things, mindfulness makes a big difference.   

Or, how about this?  If you’re going to say something that is racist, at least do it on purpose.


----------



## JR 137

Here’s how out of control people calling out racism goes...

Me: Did you see Jose?
Idiot: Who’s Jose?
Me: The Puerto Rican guy on the basketball team.
Idiot: That’s racist.
Me: How’s that racist?
Idiot: You called him Puerto Rican.
Me:  He’s from Puerto Rico. And he’s on the basketball team. And he’s 6’7, so you really can’t miss him if he was in the hallway.
Idiot: But calling someone Puerto Rican is racist.

Jose walks in the room; perfect timing.

Me (to Jose): Is calling you Puerto Rican racist?
Jose: How?
Me (pointing to the idiot): Ask this clown over here; he told me it was.
Jose (to the idiot): What the f$&k is the matter with you?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Getting back to the original subject of the thread ...

Many people assume that if a particular technique or tactic is outlawed in a given combat sport then the competitors in that system don’t know how to use or defend against the forbidden moves. Often the correct assessment is that they know how not to let the ref see them using the tactic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Getting back to the original subject of the thread ...
> 
> Many people assume that if a particular technique or tactic is outlawed in a given combat sport then the competitors in that system don’t know how to use or defend against the forbidden moves. Often the correct assessment is that they know how not to let the ref see them using the tactic.


I expect that's true (it happens in non-combat sports, too). And it crawls all over me that people do that.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> Here’s how out of control people calling out racism goes...
> 
> Me: Did you see Jose?
> Idiot: Who’s Jose?
> Me: The Puerto Rican guy on the basketball team.
> Idiot: That’s racist.
> Me: How’s that racist?
> Idiot: You called him Puerto Rican.
> Me:  He’s from Puerto Rico. And he’s on the basketball team. And he’s 6’7, so you really can’t miss him if he was in the hallway.
> Idiot: But calling someone Puerto Rican is racist.
> 
> Jose walks in the room; perfect timing.
> 
> Me (to Jose): Is calling you Puerto Rican racist?
> Jose: How?
> Me (pointing to the idiot): Ask this clown over here; he told me it was.
> Jose (to the idiot): What the f$&k is the matter with you?


Did that happen?  Lol.


----------



## Reedone816

There are currently new rules added in ABC meeting several days ago.
And those currently quite interesting.
Fight night weight in penalty.
Reff as the sole arbitrator even after fight end as long as no official step in the ring after the fight.

I'm just still wondering with the reverse result made by ONE FC several times several days after the fights by giving winning to the one that lost after reff stop the fight and award the opponent the win by tko.
But to be fair, their weight in policy is really good.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## JR 137

Steve said:


> Did that happen?  Lol.


Yes.  I’m not good enough to make that up.


----------



## Steve

JR 137 said:


> Yes.  I’m not good enough to make that up.


Had a guy tell me that Puerto Rican’s can’t vote.  Not sure of that was ignorant or racist.  Hard to tell sometimes.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Had a guy tell me that Puerto Rican’s can’t vote.  Not sure of that was ignorant or racist.  Hard to tell sometimes.


Specifically because its puerto rican, my momey would be on ignorant.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Had a guy tell me that Puerto Rican’s can’t vote.  Not sure of that was ignorant or racist.  Hard to tell sometimes.


It can be two things.


----------



## punisher73

JR 137 said:


> I think they *should repeal the throwing the opponent out of the cage.*  If you can pull that off, on a conscious opponent anyway, you deserve the win.    Just saying.
> 
> No no purple nurples, Indian burns, or smurf bites?  Well, good thing I never got into the cage.  The rules are obviously stacked against me.



Watch Tank Abbot in one of the early UFC's he fought in.  He tried to do just that and that is when they raised the height of the fence.

Behind every weird rule, there is a person behind it. LOL


----------



## Reedone816

punisher73 said:


> Watch Tank Abbot in one of the early UFC's he fought in.  He tried to do just that and that is when they raised the height of the fence.
> 
> Behind every weird rule, there is a person behind it. LOL


In ganryujima mma, throwing opponent outside is legal.
Taken that they use the sumo like platform with no ring nor cage.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

punisher73 said:


> Watch Tank Abbot in one of the early UFC's he fought in.  He tried to do just that and that is when they raised the height of the fence.
> 
> Behind every weird rule, there is a person behind it. LOL


I'm picturing the exhibition match in one of the Rocky movies, with the wrestler.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Reedone816 said:


> In ganryujima mma, throwing opponent outside is legal.
> Taken that they use the sumo like platform with no ring nor cage.
> 
> Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk


I had not heard of Ganryujima before, so I had to look it up. Pretty interesting.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> I'm picturing the exhibition match in one of the Rocky movies, with the wrestler.


Rocky 3 - Rocky vs Thunder Lips, aka hulk hogan


----------



## punisher73

gpseymour said:


> I'm picturing the exhibition match in one of the Rocky movies, with the wrestler.



Clip of the Day: Tank Abbott tries to throw opponent out of the Octagon | BJPenn.com

here is a clip of it.  I was wrong though.  The fence was the higher level and not the lower level like I thought.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Dont you have to actually face claw people to be good at face clawing people?   the bio mechanics might be similar to a certain degree , but you need to actually use the striking area actively to be good at using it. 

Im not really fond of watching MMA anyway, i dotn view it as special or a pinnacle of anything.     Plus the annoying gaming of the rules and the segments where you could easily end a actual fight if you did a illegal move are annoying.

Its a pretty good media to look at how effective groin shots are, a good one usually results in the receiver getting the fight taken out of them.    should make them pursue a guard more fit for stopping them in the future i imagine.    (and thats with cups on)


obviously i get you cant kill people or overly seek to maim them, but then there is at this point in time full body armour you can wear.  Helmets exist, gorgets exist, cups exist, shin pads, thigh pads, elbow pads etc.           If it really is realstic etc, why dont they stick  suits of padded armour on and do just about everything short of crippling each other.  you could do fights based on simulated damage done to each other. 


Damn that was a rant/tangent and a half.


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> Dont you have to actually face claw people to be good at face clawing people? the bio mechanics might be similar to a certain degree , but you need to actually use the striking area actively to be good at using it.



No you really don't.


----------



## Tez3

Rat said:


> Its a pretty good media to look at how effective groin shots are, a good one usually results in the receiver getting the fight taken out of them. should make them pursue a guard more fit for stopping them in the future i imagine.  (and thats with cups on)




No, not really, I have watched ( through reffing, cornering and judging as well as working on shows, sometimes even sitting watching them) thousands of MMA fights, most live and I can honestly say that groin shots aren't a game changer. The ref can give them time to recover if they wish but as with other injuries picked up during a fight, adrenaline carries fighters through. I've never seen a goin shot change a fight.


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> Its a pretty good media to look at how effective groin shots are, a good one usually results in the receiver getting the fight taken out of them. should make them pursue a guard more fit for stopping them in the future i imagine.  (and thats with cups on)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> No, not really, I have watched ( through reffing, cornering and judging as well as working on shows, sometimes even sitting watching them) thousands of MMA fights, most live and I can honestly say that groin shots aren't a game changer. The ref can give them time to recover if they wish but as with other injuries picked up during a fight, adrenaline carries fighters through. I've never seen a goin shot change a fight.


I've seen a few that would have changed the fight if there wasn't a reprieve. I've also seen some that had no noticeable effect.


----------



## wab25

gpseymour said:


> I've seen a few that would have changed the fight if there wasn't a reprieve.


Some of these might fit the bill... I dare you not to laugh 











I couldn't find it... but I remember one fight in UFC where the guy got kicked in the groin, and they brought out a bucket for him toss his cookies into... after the 5 minutes recovery time, he won the fight. I am not quite sure he would have won, without stopping the action for the recovery period. Many of the recipients in the above videos don't look like they would be at 100%, if the fight were allowed to continue without the break and recovery period.


----------



## wab25

I thought I would circle back here. At the beginning of the thread, I asked some questions about how things might change, if there were no rules. I got some great answers, especially the one from Tony. I have been processing the information here, and have reached some conclusions that I thought I would run by the group here... maybe get some more feed back.

First, I think that when we look at the early fights, with less rules, we need to remember that many of those fighters were not skilled enough, to have the opportunity to apply some of the now illegal tactics. A specific example would be take down defense. Since they couldn't stop the first take down, they were never in position to apply the illegal attacks. Things have changed now, and most fighters have a decent take down defense.

I still think the structure of the fight would change. I don't believe we would see long periods where one guy has the other pressed against the fence, while he is bent over, hips high, trying to get both legs or ankles. Without the rules, I think strikes, and elbows to the back of the head, neck and spine would be effective enough to make that a bad position to hang out in. I think we would see people shoot for the take down, and either get it or switch to something else right away... rather than leave their back exposed for long periods of time.

I think Tony is right, that what the fighters train currently, already covers those illegal moves. If anything, it would be more important to get the details right, because sloppy techniques would have more risk. However, any change in the training, would only need to be about the importance of certain details, already being trained. 

So, in the end, I think that some fights may have a different pace. But, what gets trained would stay mostly the same. We might even see less sloppy take down attempts, in favor of better set up and better executed shots. I think that what is being trained today, is sufficient to deal with the illegal moves as well.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

wab25 said:


> I don't believe we would see long periods where one guy has the other pressed against the fence, while he is bent over, hips high, trying to get both legs or ankles. Without the rules, I think strikes, and elbows to the back of the head, neck and spine would be effective enough to make that a bad position to hang out in. I think we would see people shoot for the take down, and either get it or switch to something else right away... rather than leave their back exposed for long periods of time.


Yeah, one of the fighters at my gym (who I helped prep for a fight recently) relies on that tactic a lot. If elbows to the back of the spine were allowed, he would definitely not spend so much time in that position.


----------



## FriedRice

TMA17 said:


> These are things one would  have to keep in mind in a street fight.



Why?


----------



## FriedRice

wab25 said:


> The other example would be eye gouging. This has always been illegal. In the early years of MMA, the TMA guys were ridiculed about their deadly eye gouge techniques. However, we have seen now that accidental eye pokes have had such an effect, that they just changed the rules about it. Just looking a the effect that the accidental eye pokes sometimes have... leads me to think that if they were legal, they would be used more and could change the outcome of matches very suddenly. (we would also have a lot of fighters that couldn't see as well... )
> 
> I am not advocating making these things legal, as we do need to consider fighter safety. But, I have wondered about how these things would change fights. At this point, I think they would change how the fights progressed.. But, I would like to hear the opinions of the folks here that have much more MMA experience than I. (that really doesn't take too much  )
> 
> Thanks in advance. (And hopefully this comes across as me looking to learn and possibly adjust my way of thinking and not so much  as me trying to start an argument.)




1.  There were no disqualifying rules in the early UFC's, so a TMA fighter could have eye gouged Royce Gracie to win it all....which they did and failed miserably. They eye gouged and also bit Gracie, in trying to get out holds. That's why you see Gracie trying to break their arms off and not letting them go after they're seen tapping furiously and the Ref having to jump in and prying Gracie off.  Same  deal, when you see Gracie not letting go of choke holds. Good for Gracie. They're just very lucky that this wasn't in Brazil, behind closed doors. 

2.  When fighters are fighting for lots of money and world wide fame, they should always cry over everything.....including micro grazes to their nutsack or slight eye scrapes and just about everything else that's illegal, b/c they're all justified....even if it didn't cause much damage or hardly any. Because a lot of $$$$ is on the line and can be huge advantages, ie. causing their opponent to be scared to strike near there after that.....as 1 point deduction in a 3 or 5 round fight is huge. Worse = DQ.  

3.  In the streets, I don't think that poking a trained killer in the eye is going to stop them....what's an eye poke really? It's just a jab with the finger(s) out. Think Boxers don't know how to handle things thrown at their face? And who's going to be faster, more precise and more powerful at it?


----------



## JR 137

FriedRice said:


> 1.  There were no disqualifying rules in the early UFC's, so a TMA fighter could have eye gouged Royce Gracie to win it all....which they did and failed miserably. They eye gouged and also bit Gracie, in trying to get out holds. That's why you see Gracie trying to break their arms off and not letting them go after they're seen tapping furiously and the Ref having to jump in and prying Gracie off.  Same  deal, when you see Gracie not letting go of choke holds. Good for Gracie. They're just very lucky that this wasn't in Brazil, behind closed doors.
> 
> 2.  When fighters are fighting for lots of money and world wide fame, they should always cry over everything.....including micro grazes to their nutsack or slight eye scrapes and just about everything else that's illegal, b/c they're all justified....even if it didn't cause much damage or hardly any. Because a lot of $$$$ is on the line and can be huge advantages, ie. causing their opponent to be scared to strike near there after that.....as 1 point deduction in a 3 or 5 round fight is huge. Worse = DQ.
> 
> 3.  In the streets, I don't think that poking a trained killer in the eye is going to stop them....what's an eye poke really? It's just a jab with the finger(s) out. Think Boxers don't know how to handle things thrown at their face? And who's going to be faster, more precise and more powerful at it?


I got accidentally poked in the eye plenty on times in wrestling.  It stopped me EVERY time when I was in a standing/neutral position.  I needed some time before I could open my eyes, let alone see straight.  If those were fights without a referee to stop and give me a few minutes, I’d be done.  Not from the eye poke, but from the immediate follow up.  Again, these instances I’m referring to where incidental eye pokes while standing.

None of that means it’s a reliable technique to connect with.  That also doesn’t mean that I’d let go of a choke, joint lock, etc. that was already sunk in.  I’ve been eye gouged when I’ve had people on their back.  And I had my nuts squeezed intentionally (I wasn’t wearing a cup).  It never stopped me from getting the pin.

Edit: with the nut squeeze, time ran out in the period before I could pin him, but I didn’t lose any control.  So next period, I got some payback.  I slammed him and got a warning.  Then I slammed him again and gave up a point.  Then I slammed him again and gave up another point.  The next penalty point would’ve been a DQ, so I pinned him using the most painful pinning combination I knew - double bar stack.  He was hurting far more than I was at the end.  When I shook his coach’s hand at the end of the match, he smiled and said good job in a way that told me his guy got what he deserved.


----------



## FriedRice

JR 137 said:


> I got accidentally poked in the eye plenty on times in wrestling.  It stopped me EVERY time when I was in a standing/neutral position.  I needed some time before I could open my eyes, let alone see straight.  If those were fights without a referee to stop and give me a few minutes, I’d be done.  Not from the eye poke, but from the immediate follow up.  Again, these instances I’m referring to where incidental eye pokes while standing.



Yeah, but that's mostly because you weren't expecting to get eye poked in wrestling, although possible. And you were in a safe place with witnesses, so it's expected that you'd take advantage of the rules.  However in a street fight, you should be expecting anything, especially expecting the really high chances of your attacker, being really sucky at fighting and can't throw **** in comparison to a trained fighter. And if some fat slob did manage to eye poke you, then I'd question your Boxing abilities such as head movement, parrying, countering, etc. 

Now if you did happen to run into some some grand master of chopsocky in the street and somehow managed to piss him off so badly that he's going full ninja eye strikes on you.....then I think that you'd still keep on fighting while squinting.....I have that much faith in you. Like when Vitor Belfort eye gouged Randy Coutoure and won the belt from him, Coutoure quit & lose because if he chose to continue and fight with double vision, it would have been lost of belt by devastating KO and ****'ed up for 6-12 months or worse.  Coutoure had a choice, but   not in the streets where he'd have to fight.



> None of that means it’s a reliable technique to connect with.  That also doesn’t mean that I’d let go of a choke, joint lock, etc. that was already sunk in.  I’ve been eye gouged when I’ve had people on their back.  And I had my nuts squeezed intentionally (I wasn’t wearing a cup).  It never stopped me from getting the pin.
> 
> Edit: with the nut squeeze, time ran out in the period before I could pin him, but I didn’t lose any control.  So next period, I got some payback.  I slammed him and got a warning.  Then I slammed him again and gave up a point.  Then I slammed him again and gave up another point.  The next penalty point would’ve been a DQ, so I pinned him using the most painful pinning combination I knew - double bar stack.  He was hurting far more than I was at the end.  When I shook his coach’s hand at the end of the match, he smiled and said good job in a way that told me his guy got what he deserved.



That's a good story. I bet the Ref was giving you some slack too if his own coach was on your side.


----------



## JR 137

FriedRice said:


> Yeah, but that's mostly because you weren't expecting to get eye poked in wrestling, although possible. And you were in a safe place with witnesses, so it's expected that you'd take advantage of the rules.  However in a street fight, you should be expecting anything, especially expecting the really high chances of your attacker, being really sucky at fighting and can't throw **** in comparison to a trained fighter. And if some fat slob did manage to eye poke you, then I'd question your Boxing abilities such as head movement, parrying, countering, etc.
> 
> Now if you did happen to run into some some grand master of chopsocky in the street and somehow managed to piss him off so badly that he's going full ninja eye strikes on you.....then I think that you'd still keep on fighting while squinting.....I have that much faith in you. Like when Vitor Belfort eye gouged Randy Coutoure and won the belt from him, Coutoure quit & lose because if he chose to continue and fight with double vision, it would have been lost of belt by devastating KO and ****'ed up for 6-12 months or worse.  Coutoure had a choice, but   not in the streets where he'd have to fight.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good story. I bet the Ref was giving you some slack too if his own coach was on your side.


I could’ve kept going after the eye pokes.  That’s not the issue.  The issue is if it were an actual fight, my uncontrolled response would give an opponent an easy opening before I’d have time to recover.  1 second could easily get you knocked out, grounded and pounded, etc.

But the point is that it’s not something that’ll land very easily nor reliably.  An eye poke in a fight is most likely going to be unintentional while standing and grappling rather than thrown and landed like a jab.  That wrestling range where I got poked all those times is also a far more likely range in an actual fight than a dancing around boxing or kicking range is.

The eye poke will stop you for a second.  An all out eye gouge can get you pretty good unless you’re in full control.  If I’ve got you in an arm bar and you somehow gouge with the other hand, I’ll have enough time to snap the arm before I let go and address the eye gouge.  Same for if you manage to bite me or squeeze my sack.  After I snap your arm, chances are pretty high you’re going to be rolling around in pain rather than still coming at me.

And yeah, someone’s typically not going to land an eye poke thrown like a jab.  It might land, but it’ll miss my eye. Unless they’re really, really good at it, it’s set up right, and other stuff is going on where I’m not addressing other stuff and it’s snuck in.

A groin kick isn’t highly reliable to land. An eye poke is far less reliable.  Unless you’re Larry, Curly, or Moe, then all bets are off.  There’s an exception to every rule


----------



## FriedRice

JR 137 said:


> I could’ve kept going after the eye pokes.  That’s not the issue.  The issue is if it were an actual fight, my uncontrolled response would give an opponent an easy opening before I’d have time to recover.  1 second could easily get you knocked out, grounded and pounded, etc.



You would have no choice but to fight, which was my point.....if you get KO'ed then that's that.  Which is why an experienced fighter who've fought in the ring/cage is going to fare much better than TMA's who don't fight nor often spar for full KO's. There's a certain mentality that Sports Fighters have that many TMA's who never fought before, don't understand, which is, a sports fight is still a fight using the same, full power to kill the other person. Just nobody dies b/c the Ref stops it. But everything before that, both fighters are throwing everything they have into trying to KO the other, which is the prelude to killing someone. In the streets, if you wanted to kill someone who you just KO'ed, all it takes is  a few head stomps on someone who's unconscious, maybe just 1 or 2.   



> But the point is that it’s not something that’ll land very easily nor reliably.  An eye poke in a fight is most likely going to be unintentional while standing and grappling rather than thrown and landed like a jab.  That wrestling range where I got poked all those times is also a far more likely range in an actual fight than a dancing around boxing or kicking range is.
> 
> The eye poke will stop you for a second.  An all out eye gouge can get you pretty good unless you’re in full control.  If I’ve got you in an arm bar and you somehow gouge with the other hand, I’ll have enough time to snap the arm before I let go and address the eye gouge.  Same for if you manage to bite me or squeeze my sack.  After I snap your arm, chances are pretty high you’re going to be rolling around in pain rather than still coming at me.



Yeah, it's funny how people think that they can eye gouge to get out of a locked armbar. The pain of the elbow popping is horrific. Usually you can just tuck your head to get away from gouging fingers. And people who thinks biting will help, are really delusional.  The human bite is not really that strong. It wouldn't even hurt that much during an adrenaline rush. I'd be more worry about a  nasty infection the next day, more than anything.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TMA17 said:


> No, of course I knew there were rules.  I've just never seen them listed like this.  These are things one would  have to keep in mind in a street fight.


I have heard a

- Preying mantis teacher taught his beginner students those 8 legal striking areas. He taught his advance students those 8 illegal striking areas.
- Judo teacher taught his beginner students all legal techniques. He taught his advance students all illegal techniques.

The

- legal technique is good for sport.
- illegal technique is good for combat.


----------



## JR 137

FriedRice said:


> You would have no choice but to fight, which was my point.....if you get KO'ed then that's that.  Which is why an experienced fighter who've fought in the ring/cage is going to fare much better than TMA's who don't fight nor often spar for full KO's. There's a certain mentality that Sports Fighters have that many TMA's who never fought before, don't understand, which is, a sports fight is still a fight using the same, full power to kill the other person. Just nobody dies b/c the Ref stops it. But everything before that, both fighters are throwing everything they have into trying to KO the other, which is the prelude to killing someone. In the streets, if you wanted to kill someone who you just KO'ed, all it takes is  a few head stomps on someone who's unconscious, maybe just 1 or 2.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's funny how people think that they can eye gouge to get out of a locked armbar. The pain of the elbow popping is horrific. Usually you can just tuck your head to get away from gouging fingers. And people who thinks biting will help, are really delusional.  The human bite is not really that strong. It wouldn't even hurt that much during an adrenaline rush. I'd be more worry about a  nasty infection the next day, more than anything.


I trained bare knuckle karate in my 20s.  I wrestled from grade 4-12.  You’re preaching to the choir about training against resistance and combat sports (not tap point fighting).

Above all, that stuff teaches you you’re not made out of glass and to take a hit/pain and keep going.  It builds mental and physical toughness like nothing else will.  I’m 42 now, so that stuff’s behind me.  No realistic need for it.


----------



## FriedRice

JR 137 said:


> I trained bare knuckle karate in my 20s.  I wrestled from grade 4-12.  You’re preaching to the choir about training against resistance and combat sports (not tap point fighting).
> 
> Above all, that stuff teaches you you’re not made out of glass and to take a hit/pain and keep going.  It builds mental and physical toughness like nothing else will.  I’m 42 now, so that stuff’s behind me.  No realistic need for it.



I know that. I wasn't talking about you, just in general.


----------



## FriedRice

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have heard a
> 
> - Preying mantis teacher taught his beginner students those 8 legal striking areas. He taught his advance students those 8 illegal striking areas.
> - Judo teacher taught his beginner students all legal techniques. He taught his advance students all illegal techniques.
> 
> The
> 
> - legal technique is good for sport.
> - illegal technique is good for combat.



Aren't "illegal techniques" in Judo, just regular Jujutsu?

The Praying Mantis "advanced students" needed someone to teach them how to kick another dude in the nutsack?


----------



## hoshin1600

FriedRice said:


> And people who thinks biting will help, are really delusional. The human bite is not really that strong. It wouldn't even hurt that much during an adrenaline rush. I'd be more worry about a nasty infection the next day, more than anything.


im not saying that biting someone will stop them from snapping your arm but a human bite is a lot stronger than you think.
Man bites off golfer's finger to the knuckle at Massachusetts golf club
Man accused of biting off golfer's finger due in court


----------



## TMA17

LOL I guess it depends on how much adrenaline is pumping through your body.  I can't envision a strong bite or kick to the groin not hurting.


----------



## FriedRice

hoshin1600 said:


> im not saying that biting someone will stop them from snapping your arm but a human bite is a lot stronger than you think.
> Man bites off golfer's finger to the knuckle at Massachusetts golf club
> Man accused of biting off golfer's finger due in court



That's really not that impressive of a bite, I mean I should hope that humans can bite to the bone of a finger where there's not that much flesh before it gets to the bone.

While the situation that we were debating about was; when a trained BJJ'er gets someone in an armbar and they try to bite their way out. I think the biters elbow getting popped is going to hurt a lot more and he'll scream in pain and let go of the bite.

Here's a video of a fat guy who bit off another dude's ear clean off, worse than Tyson on Holyfield.....and it didn't even phased him one bit as he was ready & willing to keep on fighting.


----------



## FriedRice

TMA17 said:


> LOL I guess it depends on how much adrenaline is pumping through your body.  I can't envision a strong bite or kick to the groin not hurting.



It's a weird thing. I can take repeated blunt force trauma to my head and body and not tap; to the point of getting  knocked the **** out. But an armbar that's locked and about to snap my elbow off, I will tap and fast. Maybe it's also the realization that it can be the end to my lifelong hobby as an MA'ist, especially also being a gym rat....so it would suck real bad to go from working out 4-6 days a week to 0, for the next year or more.

I've been bitten by 3 german shepherds (on 3 diff. occasions) and remember more fear than pain. And they were nasty punctures too. Nut kicks certainly work, but if you're in the streets, you have no choice but to keep fighting......and the Sports Fighter is going to be much more resilient than the non-fighting, Martial Artist.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

FriedRice said:


> The Praying Mantis "advanced students" needed someone to teach them how to kick another dude in the nutsack?


The new students have not started to compete in tournament yet but the advanced students have.

Here is a Chinese wrestler teacher taught his advance students how to use illegal techniques to injury their opponents in tournament. It's in Chinese but you can understand by watching the teacher's action in the clip.

1. Put pressure on opponent's wrist joint.






2. Pull opponent's face into your elbow.






3. Put metal edge under shoes.


----------



## FriedRice

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The new students have not started to compete in tournament yet but the advanced students have.
> 
> Here is a Chinese wrestler teacher taught his advance students how to use illegal techniques to injury their opponents in tournament. It's in Chinese but you can understand by watching the teacher's action in the clip.
> 
> 1. Put pressure on opponent's wrist joint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Pull opponent's face into your elbow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Put metal edge under shoes.




I don't see anything dirty about 1 & 2 in context to the early UFC's as these were all legal. Elbows to the face and wrist holds are still legal.

3, is just bringing in a weapon. I would think that in KF tourneys, they would check for it.  I guess this little guy trains KF.  




Early UFC's basically had zero disqualifying rules, which pretty much dispelled and answered all myths about that "street fight to the death" boogeyman.


----------

