Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AikaImmortal
A good point, but NOT having something to be pinned against can have the same argument but in a reverse way. Say you and I, god forbid, have too many beers one night and step outside into the alleyway. Not much room between this bar and another building, as we decided to fight in an alleyway. You hit me, knocking me against the wall. I am stuck against that wall until I find some way to evade you, leaving you with the advantage. Unless there is a large area to fight in, we would eventually end up against something or another. The old addage 'if a fighter wants the game to go to the ground, it will go to the ground' should also hold true to 'if a fighter wants the game to go against the wall/fence, it will go against the wall/fence'
Why handicap these fighters who ARE skilled in clinch and pound and or ground and pound by taking away one of the key elements of thier style.. would you ban knee strikes in a Muay Thai match?
|
Again, it all depends on how you look at it. I can understand your opinion and where your coming from, but I don't compare streetfighting to MMA. To me they are two very different things.
To me your not handicapping fighters who are skilled at ground and pound. They can still use ground and pound very effectively in a ring. The question to me is why handicap all the other fighters by giving the ground and pound guy something to aid in his style. To me, by this logic, then we should have a sword hanging in the octagon to make sure not to handicap the fighters who are skilled with the sword. Obviously a ludicrous example, but I think it gets my point across.
Would I ban knee strikes in a Muay Thai match? Of course not. Using knee strikes in a Muay Thai match is not using any outside agent to aid you in the fight.
We can agree to disagree here, but to me a ring is just a more suitable arena.