The Great Elbow Debate

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I just finished watching a KOTC fight where the guy who was gettin pretty dominated ended up winning after landing one elbow. This elbow didn't rock the guy or anything, but it did open up a massive cut. Now, this doesn't seem fair.

 

So what should be done? Should they be illegal? Should fighters wear elbow pads? Should cut stoppages from single elbow strikes be reevaluated and declared No Contest instread of a TKO?

[Lord of The Curry 0]

It's pretty love/hate for me when it comes to them for the obvious reason. I loves me some Loiseau and the 'bows are very much a part of that love. I don't think it's fair to equate throwing elbows = inferior fighter like I've heard people say before but if situations like Rudo stated came up ever in a big match situation *coughAcecough* it could impact the crowd negatively. Or it might solidify Loiseau's elbows in a class of it's own with the crowd.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I think there are fighters who use the elbows as a loop hole. Florian, for example. They win on technicalities, not because they were the better fighter. They aim for the bridge of the nose or around the eye and hit with the point of the elbow. Part of me thinks it's not worth it, and I would gladly exchange it for knees on the ground. PRIDE RULZ!

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Yeah, I'd easily trade up elbows for soccer kicks, stomps and knees on the ground.

[Guest AndrewisyourHero]

I think there are fighters who use the elbows as a loop hole. Florian, for example.

 

I was going to mention Florian as an example. The only reason he made it to the TUF1 finals instead of Leben was because of a lucky shot which cut Chris open. The same thing happened in his fight with Karalexis.

[I like Forums 0]

I think maybe elbow pads would be a good solution. I can understand the logic though, that if these were real fights and someone landed a great elbow after being pounded and cut their opponent up badly. You can imagine that the cut would definately lead to a momentum change. The cut would only get worse. Technically, that person would be able to win that fight from that point on easily. It's logical to include elbows in MMA because in a real fight situation it is just as relevent as any other strike. Cutting your opponent is the same as KO'ing them. Its a foregone conclusion that the cut would get worse and the cutter would win. Makes sense... just disappointing from an entertainment point of view.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I disagree that cutting your opponent is the same as KO'ing them, the massive difference between the two being that when somebody is knocked out, they're done. A lot of times when fights are stopped due to cuts the fighter who's cut is able to continue on just fine.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The problem comes when a guy is getting his ass kicked and ends up getting the win because of an elbow. In that scenario, what are the odds that the guy getting his ass kicked is going to turn it around because his opponent has a cut? I don't think it's that likely.

[Lei Tong 0]

Okay, let's cut this "Florian is lucky/a cheat/sucks nonsense" off at the knees:

 

For some odd reason, most likely the overwhelming potential for idiocy in your average MMA fan, anytime a MMA match ends in an unexpected or unusual fashion one word seems to dominate the conversation anywhere you go, fluke. This magical five letter word has been a cure all anytime a fighter or his considerable internet posse has been in desperate need of a means of explaining away a *gasp* loss! Certainly no fighter could ever be legitimately beaten by a superior opponent, it was food poisoning damnit, food poisoning.

 

Now, I would tend to think that the unexpected is one major aspect of why sports and specifically MMA have any kind of popularity whatsoever. Apparently, I am dead wrong given what has happenned in the wake of the Chris Leben vs. Kenny Florian semifinal match on The Ultimate Fighter. As the majority of observers did, I expected the larger and more experienced Leben to beat the smaller but game Florian. Up until the latter portion of the second round, things were going as expected with Leben brushing off what little offense Florian had to offer and countering with his own trademark blitzkrieg of punches. But no, Florian couldnt be content with putting on a gutsy performance, he just had to win the damn thing.

 

It wasn't enough for Florian to win either, as he ended the fight with a deadly accurate clinch elbow that opened up a considerable gash over Leben's brow which forced an almost immediate stoppage. Unfortunately, this wasnt any old stoppage, this was a cut stoppage and I know that about half of you just read "cut stoppage" as "total BS fluke". Which is understandable given the fact that Leben was winning, what makes that belief absurd however is the fact that Leben got nailed by a clean elbow that opened him up like a stuck pig. This is fighting ladies and gentlemen, cuts happen and when they're caused by clean strikes they're no different from any other effective means of damaging your opponent.

 

Some may argue that cut stoppages are a cheap way of getting a win given the fact that the loser is often willing to continue fighting. Unfortunately, a fighters desire to continue fighting often overwhelms any consideration he may have for his own well being, see: Tim Sylvia post arm destruction. If Leben had been allowed to continue either one of two things would have happenned, he'd have quit on his own after seeing the amount of blood he was losing or upon going blind in one eye he would have found himself getting picked apart with jabs and left hooks from Florian. Why fans have this need to see a fighter receive unnecessary damage when they are simply unfit to continue fighting is beyond me but I will say this, it reflects poorly on both the sport and its fans.

 

I am not trying to say that flukes do not happen because they do and have happenned. Who could forget Matt Lindland's infamous self KO against Falaniko Vitale? While Vitale will tell you that he reversed the throw and caused Lindland to damage himself, an under reported fact is that many fighters complained that night of the canvas being improperly padded which led to several hard spots on the canvas. Guess where Lindland's considerable dome landed? A subsequent rematch quickly put to rest the idea that Vitale did anything to earn his original win over Lindland.

 

The difference between these two matches is that one was decided by a factor beyond the control of the fighters. Florian ended the fight with a clean offensive manuever while Vitale won the fight on bum luck; a cosmic allignment involving Lindland's lopsided bowling ball of a head and a canvas that a backyard promotion would pass on. Then again, it could have been the food poisoning.

 

http://www.upstandingfuckingcitizens.org/i...id=97&Itemid=28

 

Also, consider that in the second instance of Florian winning via a cut caused by an elbow (vs. Alex Karalxis), he was hardly getting his ass kicked. Hurt? Sure, but it seems easy for people to forget that Florian had dominated the first round, during which time he nailed Karalexis with a liver kick that made Alex look like he was shitting himself.

 

Now have there been shitty cut stoppages caused by elbows? Yes.

 

Shitty cut stoppages caused by punches, knees or numerous other types of strikes? Hell yes.

 

Shitty stoppages due not to cuts, but rather inept reffing? You bet your ass.

 

To suggest that elbows are somehow the soul cause of questionable or otherwise improbable wins is recockulous. However, might I suggest that from now on no fight shall be decided by any technique without it's user first yelling out the move's name and intended effect, anime-style?

 

"FLASH KNOCKDOWN ARM PUNCH OF 10-8 L337NESS!!!"

 

 

Now, I would LOVE to have some UFC sponsored soccer kicks, head stomps, and three/four point knee attacks, but I'd also love spiking elbows and Johil D'Olivei... er, I mean headbutts, to be brought back as well. I'm for MMA fighters having as many weapons available to them, outside of no-no's like groin attacks, biting, gouging, etc. And what's with the constant "elbows vs. knees/stomps/soccer kicks" debate, as though having one automatically means prohibiting the other?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The UFC has incorporated rules and limits for not only the safety of the fighters but for entertainment purposes as well. I think more fights have been stopped because of cuts-due-to-elbow-strikes and then subsequently booed by the fans, than an entertaining fight being due to elbows. Elbows are like a buzzkill to a fight.

 

These cuts do not establish who the better fighter is because then fighting becomes "who can land the best placed elbow -not for the ko- but for the cut" and it then becomes Fighter X vs. Fighter Y's skin. I think speculation on the effects the cut would have on the fighter is just that, speculation. I can see in some cases where a cut would end up working against a fighter, but I don't think that is necessarily applicable to everything. I also think a fighter wanting to go on with blood dripping down is different from a broken arm.

 

..Re...cock...u...lous??

[I like Forums 0]

A cut is a perfectly legitimate way of winning a fight. If you open a cut on your opponent, their vision will be impaired or they will lose blood and weaken. They will be easy pickings.

 

It may not be the most entertaining way to decide a fight, but it is still a perfectly legitimate way to end a fight.

[Lei Tong 0]

I think more fights have been stopped because of cuts-due-to-elbow-strikes and then subsequently booed by the fans, than an entertaining fight being due to elbows.

 

Riggs/Lytle, Florian/Karalexis...and what else? Two competitive matches that ended due to legit strikes aren't a strong enough case to discount Loiseau or St. Pierre/anybody, Riggs/Doerksen, Trigg/Charuto, Tanner/Baroni I, Koscheck/Sanford, etc.

 

 

Elbows are like a buzzkill to a fight.

 

No more frequently than Nakamura, but I don't see his thread.

 

 

These cuts do not establish who the better fighter is because then fighting becomes "who can land the best placed elbow -not for the ko- but for the cut" and it then becomes Fighter X vs. Fighter Y's skin.

 

Sucks for the guy who agreed to fight under rules which utilized a technique he didn't avoid.

 

I think speculation on the effects the cut would have on the fighter is just that, speculation. I can see in some cases where a cut would end up working against a fighter, but I don't think that is necessarily applicable to everything.

 

The vast majority of cut stoppages from elbows have been rather fair, though of course older exceptions like Sinosic/Tanner still exist.

 

I also think a fighter wanting to go on with blood dripping down is different from a broken arm.

 

And Leben wanting to continue when his continued, untreated bleeding could've left him blinded, and possibly even lead to shock from blood loss is less dangerous than letting him fight with a broken arm?

 

..Re...cock...u...lous??

 

It'll come to you.

[starvenger 0]

These cuts do not establish who the better fighter is because then fighting becomes "who can land the best placed elbow -not for the ko- but for the cut" and it then becomes Fighter X vs. Fighter Y's skin.

Sucks for the guy who agreed to fight under rules which utilized a technique he didn't avoid.

It does suck, but does it truly establish who is the better fighter? Hard to say. As you note, it can determine which fighter is better able to make use of the rules, but that doesn't necessarily make them the better fighter.

 

To suggest that elbows are somehow the soul cause of questionable or otherwise improbable wins is recockulous.

Hughes-Newton, Fickett-Koschek and Irwin-Martin come to mind...

[Lei Tong 0]

These cuts do not establish who the better fighter is because then fighting becomes "who can land the best placed elbow -not for the ko- but for the cut" and it then becomes Fighter X vs. Fighter Y's skin.

Sucks for the guy who agreed to fight under rules which utilized a technique he didn't avoid.

It does suck, but does it truly establish who is the better fighter? Hard to say. As you note, it can determine which fighter is better able to make use of the rules, but that doesn't necessarily make them the better fighter.

 

To suggest that elbows are somehow the soul cause of questionable or otherwise improbable wins is recockulous.

Hughes-Newton, Fickett-Koschek and Irwin-Martin come to mind...

 

Well, what of these two examples? Despite being on their way to losing their respective bouts, Irvin and Fickett were able to land moves even more "lucky" than an elbow from Riggs/Florian. Do they somehow have more basis to claim that they were better fighters than their opponents?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Hughes-Newton didn't have an elbow "fluke" stoppage if I recall. One was a slam, the other was an elbow beatdown.

[Lei Tong 0]

That's why he mentioned other matches that have ended flukishly, that weren't because of elbows.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Well then he's not really arguing with you is he? It seems like he's just trying to agree with you. Though I don't agree that matt hughes win was flukish. He slammed a guy, was the first one to come to, and had Big John not been there he would have been pounding on Newton who didn't come to for a while.

 

Kurt Angle does a triangle choke? Shit, he's got an olympic gold medal and is a capable submission fighter off of his back. BRING ON FEDOR NOW!

[starvenger 0]

That's why he mentioned other matches that have ended flukishly, that weren't because of elbows.

Exactly. Hughes-Newton I (sorry, should've specified) is an example of a "questionable" win. The other two were improbable wins.

[starvenger 0]

Well then he's not really arguing with you is he? It seems like he's just trying to agree with you. Though I don't agree that matt hughes win was flukish. He slammed a guy, was the first one to come to, and had Big John not been there he would have been pounding on Newton who didn't come to for a while.

Take another look at that match. The only reason the powerbomb happened is because Hughes was out.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Riggs/Lytle, Florian/Karalexis...and what else? Two competitive matches that ended due to legit strikes aren't a strong enough case to discount Loiseau or St. Pierre/anybody, Riggs/Doerksen, Trigg/Charuto, Tanner/Baroni I, Koscheck/Sanford, etc.

 

So you took 2 matches that happened *this year* and compared them to matches that have happened in the past 3 years (while calling Tanner/Sinosic an "older" match)? One, Tanner/Baroni ended with the fans booing, two Kos/Sanford ended with a punch from the guard, three Loiseau/Tanner is a perfect example of what I was talking about with a guy dominating yet the opponent winning due to a technicality and the fans didn't seem to enjoy that finish either, St. Pierres vs. Sherk was entertaining so you have one, Trigg/Charuto wasn't entertaining because of the elbows and neither was Riggs/Doerkson.

 

Florian/Leben is a good example of the cheapness of elbows.

 

Sucks for the guy who agreed to fight under rules which utilized a technique he didn't avoid.

 

How do you train to avoid lucky elbow strikes? This is completely unreasonable. And yes, it does suck. Matches would be more enjoyable without the elbows, as PRIDE has shown.

 

The vast majority of cut stoppages from elbows have been rather fair, though of course older exceptions like Sinosic/Tanner still exist.

 

It's hard to say it was fair because there hasn't been many fights that have gone on when there was a cut. Who is to say what would happen? It's all speculation.

 

 

And Leben wanting to continue when his continued, untreated bleeding could've left him blinded, and possibly even lead to shock from blood loss is less dangerous than letting him fight with a broken arm?

 

Those are pretty big "could ofs" especially when there isn't a lot of proof of blindness and shock in MMA due to cuts, yet the broken arm was still a broken arm.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I don't understand what you mean when you say Riggs/Doerkson and Trigg/Charuto weren't entertaining because of the elbows. That's a very subjective point first of all. Second of all, rules shouldn't be made to make the fight game more entertaining, they should make it to resemble a fight within a sport with rules to protect the fighters, A fight is entertaining in and of itself. So whether a fight is entertaining because of one particular weapon (again, highly subjective) is not a valid point.

 

You wanna speculate about what might happen, that's fine. It's not that hard to figure out. Why do you think the refs use judgement as to when to stop a fight? You only speculate, for all you know after Nate Quarry had the stiff leg he could have come back, it was stopped early. For all you know when Chuck Liddell was getting beat on by Randy Couture it was stopped early, he wasn't out cold. All speculation. But nobody argues with those fights, the reason being because we don't need to wait it out for the worst to happen. The same with a cut. It's not hard to figure out that a helluva lot of blood loss is a helluva lot.

 

PRIDE isn't the best org to count on when it comes to professionalism. They let TK keep fighting Fedor with a cut on his *eyelid*. I hate to see this devolve into a PRIDE vs UFC thing, but to say elbows are lucky you might as well say knees are lucky too. Should we ban them? Cabbage shouldn't have gotten that win over tank with that knee, it was a bullshit stoppage. Don't believe me? Check out the rematch when Tank showed who the better fighter was. Should we start to ban knees as well?

 

If you wanna make it as close to real fighting as possible, than your argument lies not in getting rid of the elbows, which is a valid technique, but rather the stoppage of cuts in determining who is the real fighter. In that case, we might as well bring strikes to the spine and back of the head while we're at it

[Lei Tong 0]

So you took 2 matches that happened *this year* and compared them to matches that have happened in the past 3 years (while calling Tanner/Sinosic an "older" match)? One, Tanner/Baroni ended with the fans booing, two Kos/Sanford ended with a punch from the guard, three Loiseau/Tanner is a perfect example of what I was talking about with a guy dominating yet the opponent winning due to a technicality and the fans didn't seem to enjoy that finish either, St. Pierres vs. Sherk was entertaining so you have one, Trigg/Charuto wasn't entertaining because of the elbows and neither was Riggs/Doerkson.

Florian/Leben is a good example of the cheapness of elbows.

 

- Tanner/Sinosic: 4 years, 20+ UFC events since. Yes, "older."

- Tanner/Baorni ended with fans booing because they thought Tanner caught a lucky break and early stoppage.

- Loiseau/Tanner is an example of a guy not having the BJJ game to punish Loiseau for his weak bottom game, and then getting completely smashed by a barrage of elbows and punches. had the fight conitnued, Evan would've likely gotten the rest of his face torn off followed by a KO. Tanner was fucking DONE by the end of that match. You're REALLY reaching here.

- Trigg/ Charuto & Riggs/Doerkson, even if not entertaining to you, were matches in which one fighter used elbows a good deal to help defeat their opponent, which hardly seemed to "buzzkill the fans."

 

-I used those two matches because I went back through Zuffa-era UFC history and those seemed to be amongst the only matches (along with Sinosic/Tanner) that people seemed to have a problem with.

 

- What was cheap about Florian elbowing Leben's face open? It's not like Leben had Florian on queer street when it happened (or even hurt enough to keep him from trying a leaping uppercut on him), and seemed at a loss as to how to KO a guy who wasn't actively swinging and leaving himself open to a blind southpaw bomb.

 

How do you train to avoid lucky elbow strikes? This is completely unreasonable. And yes, it does suck. Matches would be more enjoyable without the elbows, as PRIDE has shown.

 

So it's basically a PRIDE vs. UFC issue, huh?

 

And what was lucky about these elbows strikes? Because they actually caused cuts? So is a punch or a knee or a kick or a whatever that incidentally causes a cut lucky? Intended high kicks landing as knees (Gomi/Ralph, Fickett/Koscheck) are a hell of a lot "luckier" than Florian landing elbows like usual.

 

 

It's hard to say it was fair because there hasn't been many fights that have gone on when there was a cut. Who is to say what would happen? It's all speculation.

 

Fighters who've been allowed to go on with vision impairing or massively huge cuts have a win percentage roughly similar to those who've continued to fight after having limbs broken or ligament damage incurred on them during the course of a fight.

 

 

Those are pretty big "could ofs" especially when there isn't a lot of proof of blindness and shock in MMA due to cuts, yet the broken arm was still a broken arm.

 

Off the top of my head:

 

"I can't see." -Frank Mir

 

Kazuyuki Fujita also happened to pass out from blood loss after his first match with Mirko Filipovic.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Rudo either hasn't watch Tanner/Loiseau recently or is deluding himself about the finish. I don't recall there being a large number of boo's or negative crowd reaction towards Loiseau winning. In fact, after the first elbow was thrown I think the crowd got behind Loiseau moreso then Tanner.