Are Standing Arm Break Unsportsmanlike in MMA?

[Gerry Seymour]

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_]

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]

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]

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.

Roman times and back in the arena.

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.

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]

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]

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

No I was describing you not insulting you.

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]

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

What you say above is internally inconsistent.

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

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

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."

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.

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.

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]

you want to be a smartarse

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

Are we all adults here?

asking for a friend

Good heavens no, how boring would that be!

 

[Anarax]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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