Should knee kicks be legal in mma?

[n.diazismylife1999]

getting hit in the head (apples) is different than breaking a joint (oranges). The point of MT or Kickboxing is to KO the opponent. MMA is to KO/Tapout. BJJ moves allow a tapout option before limb snapping. Strikes to joints do not. Getting kicked and punched are part of the game, thats what makes it fighting. But theres got to be a certain cut off point, such as why soccer kicks to the head are illegal for example. Ill use a different analogy this time.

How many "joints have been snapped" by oblique kicks, again? And yes, exactly, you said it: getting kicked and punched are part of the game, that's why oblique kicks/"knee kicks" are legal and there's no reason to ban them. They're a strike like any other and don't cause any more injuries than other strikes. On the contrary, they cause both less AND lesser injuries than strikes to the head.

So why not have eye gouges? Its a fight right, a fight is a fight, so let them fight and let them eye gouge as its a legitimate technique. If they didnt want to risk getting their eyes gouged out, they shouldnt be fighting.

Because blindness is one of the worst things that can happen and there's no recovering from it. And it's already banned. And it'd cause far more injuries (injuries that are far more serious) than oblique kicks due to how easy it is to attack the eyes from many positions. The analogy is horrible in every aspect.

How about you try to argue that it should be banned based on facts, rather than trying to equate it to already banned moves with weird, ineffective analogies that don't even make sense, since you think eye gouges should be banned? Like, you do understand that it makes zero sense for you to use the analogies because of that, right? Again, try providing arguments for why it should be banned by showing how it's worse than the moves allowed rather than going "lol but u can defend eye gouges too so they should be allowed xD", an argument you don't even believe yourself.

 

[AndyMaBobs]

I've seen more examples of knee kicks being successfully defended than I have fighters who's careers have been ended by them.

 

[spacetime]

The UFC is not real fighting anyway. Most people can't throw low kicks worth a shit either so they might as well be banned too. Does nothing but drain the fighters and hurt the entertainment value

 

[shincheckin]

How many "joints have been snapped" by oblique kicks, again? And yes, exactly, you said it: getting kicked and punched are part of the game, that's why oblique kicks/"knee kicks" are legal and there's no reason to ban them. They're a strike like any other and don't cause any more injuries than other strikes. On the contrary, they cause both less AND lesser injuries than strikes to the head.


Because blindness is one of the worst things that can happen and there's no recovering from it. And it's already banned. And it'd cause far more injuries (injuries that are far more serious) than oblique kicks due to how easy it is to attack the eyes from many positions. The analogy is horrible in every aspect.

How about you try to argue that it should be banned based on facts, rather than trying to equate it to already banned moves with weird, ineffective analogies that don't even make sense, since you think eye gouges should be banned? Like, you do understand that it makes zero sense for you to use the analogies because of that, right? Again, try providing arguments for why it should be banned by showing how it's worse than the moves allowed rather than going "lol but u can defend eye gouges too so they should be allowed xD", an argument you don't even believe yourself.

sarcasm

your missing the point entirely, thats why I used the analogy, because it makes no sense. It wasnt an argument I dont believe myself, it was an analogy to show how stupid the points being argued to keep it legal are. All I did was take the same points everyone says to keep them legal, and applied it to eye gauging, as an analogy. You CAN defend eye gauges, just like you CAN defend this oblique kick. So hooray lets make them legal!

Oblique kicks CAN cause serious injury although there havent been many. Just like the eye gauge CAN cause serious injury, but there hasnt been any!!! therefore making eye gauges safer than knee stomps because there have been no injuries from it!!!! Look how many times jon jones used it. Were any eyes gauged out? nope. So as you can see, the technique has been used extensively in MMA but hasnt created any serious injuries. Therefore its a safe, can easily be defended against, and is a legitimate strike just as any other and should be allowed in MMA because im a tuff guy with a tuff guy mindset and its a fight, a fight is a fight bro, if they dont want their eyes poked out, they shouldnt be fighting! (man i sound tuff)

Blindness is a serious injury. So is a hyperextended knee. Neither of these can be compared to hitting the head. Its ridiculous to bring in getting hit into the head into the argument. Or people saying if we were really worried about the fighters we would remove hits to the head. This is ridiculous to say because you can just keep going and apply that to anything. If we were really worried about the fighters..........they wouldnt be fighting and instead should be replace the hits to the head with kisses. If we were really worried about TKD fighters we should remove kicks! If were really worried about boxers, lets remove punching! Hey maybe boxers should be allowed to try and punch each others knee caps!

If were really worries about MMA fighters, we should remove soccer kicks to the head. Wait a minute, that has been done already, but why? Its a fight right, getting kicked in the head is part of the game. If he didnt wanna get soccer kicked in the head he shouldnt be fighting.

How many "joints have been snapped" by oblique kicks, again? And yes, exactly, you said it: getting kicked and punched are part of the game, that's why eye gauges are legal and there's no reason to ban them. They're a strike like any other and don't cause any more injuries than other strikes. On the contrary, they cause both less AND lesser injuries than strikes to the head. As you can clearly see via Jon Jones, check the statistics, they dont lie! He regularly used the eye poke with no serious injuries, there have been more serious injuries by hits to the head.


we should also allow hair pulling because getting hit in the head is worse than getting your hair pulled. would you rather loose some hair or get brain damage?


The goal behind this oblique kick knee stomp move, is to break the opponents knee. Thats why it should be illegal. It has the potential to cause way to serious of an injury, a career ending injury. Much in the same manner soccer kicks to the head have been removed. Because it can cause too much damage. But hey its a fight right, and kicks/punches to the head are part of the game, so soccer kicks to the head should be legal.

Sure maybe there have been very little to no serious injuries from this move, yet. But that doesnt change the fact that the move is designed to break knees. No a kid that goes and has his first MMA or MT fight, should not potentially get his knee broken and career ended his first fight. Just like he shouldnt get soccer kicked in the head and get brain damage, or get a eye poked out and be blind.

Any strike that is designed to break a limb/joint should be removed. Any strike with the potential to cause serious injury should be removed. Such as brain damaging soccer kicks to the head, and joint breaking knee stomps.

My personal exp, is that most the guys that are for this move are not fighters, and most guys that want it banned are fighters.


if you want some facts heres a fact: Jon Jones used the eye poke in MMA. There have been no serious injuries from it. No eyes have been poked out from it. It can be defended against. There have been more injuries by hits to the head than pokes to the eye.

 

[shincheckin]

I've seen more examples of knee kicks being successfully defended than I have fighters who's careers have been ended by them.

Is the goal of the knee stomp to break the knee? My understanding is yes. Thats why it should be illegal. It CAN be defended against. It may not have caused many injuries, but it can. The potential is there. The move has the possibility of causing a serious injury, thats what its designed to do. Just like the soccer kick can cause a serious injury. Or the eye poke can cause a serious injury. Every single point used to defend the knee stomp, can be used to defend the "eye gauge" or any other technique for that matter. I can see your points of it being defended, it not causing many serious injuries, etc. But you gotta see my point as well dude. The bottom line is its a self defense move that shouldnt be in sport IMO.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

sarcasm

your missing the point entirely, thats why I used the analogy, because it makes no sense. It wasnt an argument I dont believe myself, it was an analogy to show how stupid the points being argued to keep it legal are. All I did was take the same points everyone says to keep them legal, and applied it to eye gauging, as an analogy. You CAN defend eye gauges, just like you CAN defend this oblique kick. So hooray lets make them legal!

Except you didn't use a single point of mine to argue for eye gouges.

Oblique kicks CAN cause serious injury although there havent been many.

Yes, so can strikes to the head.

Just like the eye gauge CAN cause serious injury, but there hasnt been any!! therefore making eye gauges safer than knee stomps because there have been no injuries from it!!!!

Are you really this dense? Eye gouges are not allowed. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but there is a massive difference between someone's eyes getting POKED half-intentionally by Jones extending his hands and making it LEGAL TO GOUGE SOMEONE'S EYES FULL ON. Jones can get away with light pokes, and light pokes are unlikely to cause damage, but there is no fighter in the UFC who does full on eye gouges, so your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.

Blindness is a serious injury. So is a hyperextended knee.

Are you really comparing BLINDNESS to a hyperextended knee? Facepalm.

Its ridiculous to bring in getting hit into the head into the argument.

No, it isn't. It's extremely relevant to compare strikes you don't want to ban with strikes you want to ban.

we should also allow hair pulling because getting hit in the head is worse than getting your hair pulled. would you rather loose some hair or get brain damage?

Sure, hair pulling could be made legal. It'd just make for a lot of bald fighters and it doesn't look good on TV. Hair pulling isn't illegal because of the damage it causes. Irrelevant analogy, as always.

The goal behind this oblique kick knee stomp move, is to break the opponents knee.

No, it isn't.

Thats why it should be illegal. It has the potential to cause way to serious of an injury, a career ending injury.

The goal behind strikes to the head is to cause brain damage. They have the potential to cause way too serious of an injury, a LIFE ending injury.

Any strike with the potential to cause serious injury should be removed.

Then you should be in favor of banning strikes to the head, but your arguments are all over the place and have no internal consistency whatsoever.

 

[rmongler]

Literally just lift your leg to check it.

>but what if he shoots in and takes me down because my weight was on my back foot instead of being front heavy?

And that's why wrestling is the best martial art.

 

[shincheckin]

Except you didn't use a single point of mine to argue for eye gouges.


Yes, so can strikes to the head.


Are you really this dense? Eye gouges are not allowed. I can't believe I have to explain this to you, but there is a massive difference between someone's eyes getting POKED half-intentionally by Jones extending his hands and making it LEGAL TO GOUGE SOMEONE'S EYES FULL ON. Jones can get away with light pokes, and light pokes are unlikely to cause damage, but there is no fighter in the UFC who does full on eye gouges, so your comparison makes no sense whatsoever.



Are you really comparing BLINDNESS to a hyperextended knee? Facepalm.


No, it isn't. It's extremely relevant to compare strikes you don't want to ban with strikes you want to ban.



Sure, hair pulling could be made legal. It'd just make for a lot of bald fighters and it doesn't look good on TV. Hair pulling isn't illegal because of the damage it causes. Irrelevant analogy, as always.



No, it isn't.


The goal behind strikes to the head is to cause brain damage. They have the potential to cause way too serious of an injury, a LIFE ending injury.


Then you should be in favor of banning strikes to the head, but your arguments are all over the place and have no internal consistency whatsoever.

the only point you have used in your argument, is to say that any hit to the head can cause serious injury. So ill use your point demonstrated below.

you cant keep using hits to the head as a comparison. apples/oranges

knee stomps can cause serious injury, so can hits to the head

eye pokes can cause serious injury, so can hits to the head

biting can cause serious injury, so can hits to the head

groin shots can cause serious injury, so can hits to the head.

getting sliced with a razor can cause serious injury, so can hits to the head

getting ran over by a car cause serious injury, so can hits to the head.

falling on a spike can cause serious injury, so can hits to the head.

any hit to the head can cause serious injury, your right about that, but some hits to the head are more dangerous than others. Just as some hits to the knee are more dangerous than others.



groin shots should be legal. brain damage is worse then all of those, therefore groin shots should be legal. If we were really worried about the fighters safety we should remove shots to the head and stop worrying about groin shots.

how much sense does this make. None. Just like your argument.


any strike with the potential to cause serious injury should be removed. This is why the soccer kick to the head is illegal. This is why the eye poke is illegal. This is why knee stomp should be illegal. You yourself agreed the move can cause serious injury.

any strike with the potential to cause serious injury should be removed. taking this statement out of context and saying we should remove hits to the head is stupid. Why dont we just remove all strikes than because any strike can cause a injury. The difference is whether its a serious injury or not, and again is why moves like the soccer kick to the head have been banned rather than entirely banning all kicks with your logic.

Banning strikes to the head is the stupidest argument ever. Obviously banning strikes to the head is not going to happen in a fighting sport. Banning strikes to the head is the equivalent of banning punching in boxing.

Now banning a strike to the head such as the soccer kick with potential for a serious injury makes sense, which is exactly why they did it.

Just like banning strikes to the knee, such as the knee stomp with potential for serious injury makes sense. and you yourself agreed the knee stomp can cause serious injury.

The goal of a fight is to win by KO/tapout or points. Not cause brain damage.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

you cant keep using hits to the head as a comparison. apples/oranges.

You keep repeating this. Repeating something doesn't make it true.

how much sense does this make. None. Just like your argument.

It makes plenty of sense, you're just completely unable to understand any kind of nuance or probability.

Banning strikes to the head is the stupidest argument ever. Obviously banning strikes to the head is not going to happen in a fighting sport. Banning strikes to the head is the equivalent of banning punching in boxing.

Banning kicks to the knee is the stupidest argument ever. Obviously banning kicks to the knee is not going to happen in a fighting sport. Banning kicks to the knee is the equivalent of banning punches in boxing.

any strike with the potential to cause serious injury should be removed. This is why the soccer kick to the head is illegal. This is why the eye poke is illegal. This is why knee stomp should be illegal. You yourself agreed the move can cause serious injury.

Just like banning strikes to the knee, such as the knee stomp with potential for serious injury makes sense. and you yourself agreed the knee stomp can cause serious injury.

Jesus Christ.

1) Any strike to the head can cause serious injury. This is an objective fact. This fact alone makes your entire line of reasoning null and void, considering you're not in favor of banning all strikes to the head.
2) I never said "knee stomps can cause serious injury", but let's say I said that. Everything in MMA can cause "serious injury." Whether a move should be banned is a matter of probability and the type of injury it could cause. A knee injury is nowhere near as likely, OR as serious, as the injuries other banned strikes could cause. That's why it isn't banned, and that's why those things are banned.
3) Oblique kicks have been legal forever and have caused what, one confirmed short term injury? That alone proves there's no reason to ban them.

I know you're not going to understand what I mean by probability or seriousness of injury, and how there's a scale of seriousness, but....

 

[AndyMaBobs]

Is the goal of the knee stomp to break the knee? My understanding is yes. Thats why it should be illegal. It CAN be defended against. It may not have caused many injuries, but it can. The potential is there. The move has the possibility of causing a serious injury, thats what its designed to do. Just like the soccer kick can cause a serious injury. Or the eye poke can cause a serious injury. Every single point used to defend the knee stomp, can be used to defend the "eye gauge" or any other technique for that matter. I can see your points of it being defended, it not causing many serious injuries, etc. But you gotta see my point as well dude. The bottom line is its a self defense move that shouldnt be in sport IMO.

Your understanding is incorrect. The purpose is to keep the opponent from advancing while remaining as on balance as possible, it's more effective than a jab - it's not meant to break the knee, and if it were it would be very ineffective at doing so.

I like you but I feel like you move the goal posts a lot whenever we've discussed this

 

[shincheckin]

You keep repeating this. Repeating something doesn't make it true.



It makes plenty of sense, you're just completely unable to understand any kind of nuance or probability.


Banning kicks to the knee is the stupidest argument ever. Obviously banning kicks to the knee is not going to happen in a fighting sport. Banning kicks to the knee is the equivalent of banning punches in boxing.


Jesus Christ.

1) Any strike to the head can cause serious injury. This is an objective fact. This fact alone makes your entire line of reasoning null and void, considering you're not in favor of banning all strikes to the head.
2) I never said "knee stomps can cause serious injury", but let's say I said that. Everything in MMA can cause "serious injury." Whether a move should be banned is a matter of probability and the type of injury it could cause. A knee injury is nowhere near as likely, OR as serious, as the injuries other banned strikes could cause. That's why it isn't banned, and that's why those things are banned.
3) Oblique kicks have been legal forever and have caused what, one confirmed short term injury? That alone proves there's no reason to ban them.

I know you're not going to understand what I mean by probability or seriousness of injury, and how there's a scale of seriousness, but....

you did say it/agree with me right here

"Oblique kicks CAN cause serious injury although there havent been many."
Yes, so can strikes to the head.

nice attempted insults.

do you fight?

arguing with someone named NateDiaz is my life is going to go far im sure.

banning kicks to the knee is not the same as banning punching in boxing. If 2 boxers cant punch there is no fight. If you cant kick the knee, you can still fight.

Whether a move should be banned is a matter of probability and the type of injury it could cause. A knee injury is nowhere near as likely, OR as serious, as the injuries other banned strikes could cause. That's why it isn't banned, and that's why those things are banned.

I agree with you here. This is exactly why the soccer kick to the head has been banned for example and exactly why the knee stomp should be banned as well. It doesnt matter what damage other moves can do. Dont compare the knee stomp to anything else, such as hits to the head, just look at the knee stomp itself. The knee stomp can cause a serious injury, and should be removed. But wait a second, so can hits to the head, so lets remove hits to the head, wait a second, so can any strike, so lets just remove all strikes, wait a second that makes no sense. Lets just remove the strikes that can cause serious injury such as soccer kicks, knee stomps, eye pokes, etc.

Do you at least agree that soccer kicks to the head should be banned?

 

[shincheckin]

Your understanding is incorrect. The purpose is to keep the opponent from advancing while remaining as on balance as possible, it's more effective than a jab - it's not meant to break the knee, and if it were it would be very ineffective at doing so.

I like you but I feel like you move the goal posts a lot whenever we've discussed this

haha yeah dude, this thread is going all over the place.

I can see everyone elses points in their argument, and they are valid points. I just dont know if they see mine?

I was always under the impression the intention of this move was to break the knee. Which is why the target is the knee rather than the thigh.

If the target is the thigh, and the goal is disruption, than its much like the teep to the thigh.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

. But wait a second, so can hits to the head, so lets remove hits to the head, wait a second, so can any strike, so lets just remove all strikes, wait a second that makes no sense. Lets just remove the strikes that can cause serious injury such as soccer kicks, knee stomps, eye pokes, etc.

Just like I said, you're unable of comprehending probability, nuance, or degree of injury.

 

[shincheckin]

Just like I said, you're unable of comprehending probability, nuance, or degree of injury.

cool story bro

soccer kicks to the head should be legal because any strike is dangerous and can cause serious injury. So if they want to ban soccer kicks to the head they should ban all kicks to the head.

you're unable of comprehending probability, nuance, or degree of injury of the knee stomp.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

you're unable of comprehending probability, nuance, or degree of injury of the knee stomp.

Provide some statistics of injuries caused by knee stomps in the UFC. You can't. I'm not even going to touch the issue of you comparing injured knees to head and eye injuries.

 

[shincheckin]

all im trying to say is a move with the potential of breaking your knee and seriously inuring you should be illegal.

 

[shincheckin]

Provide some statistics of injuries caused by knee stomps in the UFC. You can't. I'm not even going to touch the issue of you comparing injured knees to head and eye injuries.

I cant provide any statistics on it. You got me there. It doesnt change the fact that the move has the potential to ruin someones knee.

Just like I cant provide statistics on the eye poke but it doesnt change the fact that it can cause serious injury as well.

The knee stomp is not a very common move, and its hard to land clean, almost every clip I have ever seen of it is a glancing blow with unintentional defenses. So the statistics are going to be low because of its little use, and difficulty to land cleanly. We all know that if it does land clean, and at the wrong angle, the guy on the recieving end will get his knee destroyed. Yes it can be defended etc, but that doesnt change the fact that if it lands clean, its quite capable serious injury.

Statistics on eye pokes are not possible to provide because its an illegal move, that being said, we all know jon jones used it. We also have not seen any serious injury from it. Just like we havent seen serious injury from the knee stomp. That doesnt change the fact that the potential for serious injury is there with both moves.

lastly i hope you know I am not advocating to seriously have eye pokes in mma, but am just using it for a reference.

the statistics dont matter whether its eye poke or knee stomp, the potential for serious injury is there.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

I cant provide any statistics on it. You got me there. It doesnt change the fact that the move has the potential to ruin someones knee.

the statistics dont matter whether its eye poke or knee stomp, the potential for serious injury is there.

Yikes.

 

[shincheckin]

Yikes.

I personally know someone that got their ACL torn by this move. The potential for serious injury is there.

If you really want statistics and we were to compare hits to the head vs injuries from the knee stomp. I think the statistics for knee stomp injury may be higher. If you take into consideration how uncommon the knee stomp is vs how common any "strike" to the head is, there are probably 100 "strikes" to the head for every 1 knee stomp.

if you can provide some statistics that would be awesome

since the eye poke has been used in MMA by Jon Jones, theres got to be some statistics on that as well. For all the eye pokes in MMA history, there has been zero lost eyeballs, therefore making the statistics for eye poke injury very low

you see dude, anyone can quote whatever bullshit they want to prove their point.

I can see everyone elses points regarding this move.

I would like to at least get you guys to agree with me that the knee stomp can seriously injure somones knee, like it did to my friends ACL.

 

[n.diazismylife1999]

I personally know someone that got their ACL torn by this move. The potential for serious injury is there.

So you think punches to the head sould be banned because people have gotten permanent brain damage/died. Gotcha.

since the eye poke has been used in MMA by Jon Jones, theres got to be some statistics on that as well. For all the eye pokes in MMA history, there has been zero lost eyeballs, therefore making the statistics for eye poke injury very low

I already explained why comparing eye pokes to an allowed technique is stupid, dumbass.