Trading Shots: On injuring to win, and the rules within the MMA rules

Jon Jones

In this week’s Trading Shots, retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes joins MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes to talk about the rules within the rules when two people lock themselves in a cage together.

* * * *

Downes: Ben, earlier this week I was reading your latest Twitter Mailbag (a concept as original as your Han Solo Halloween costume), and the headline read, “Is there such thing as a ‘code’ inside the cage?”

The question refers to Quinton Jackson’s complaint that Jon Jones injures people in the cage. Since you had emailed me earlier with that very same question, I decided to check it out. Turns out, you didn’t even answer the question. You simply deflected onto fighters and gave a small sampling of the various answers. So do you actually have an opinion on the matter, or do I have to create more content for you?

Fowlkes: You know what I like about you, Danny? You always know just how to ease into a nice, civil conversation. But I will concede that you have a point. I didn’t answer that question, mainly because I got curious about how fighters saw the issue, and then I was surprised that there was no real consensus on it (other than everyone agreeing that “Rampage” was being a whiner).

Granted, I’m not a fighter, but I’m not too sympathetic to the idea of a code. If I were fighting someone in a cage for money, I think I would go in there assuming that all legal moves were on the table. The notion that there would be some stuff that we were both allowed to do, yet mutually chose not to do, that seems weird to me.

Because for one thing, who’s to say we both have the same idea about what that code consists of? What if you think kicks to the kneecap are out of bounds, whereas I think that foot-stomps are ungentlemanly? What, are we going to have a conversation in the locker room beforehand to agree on the rules within the rules?

Which brings me to the other reason why the code thing seems fraught to me. We’re already in a damn cage fight. If one of us violates the code, what’s the consequence? You’re already trying to beat me up. What are you going to do, try harder?

I was surprised to see you come down on the side of the code during our previous email correspondence. So go ahead, explain why I’m wrong. And by all means, do it in the gentile fashion I’ve come to expect from you.

Downes: People have different motivations for becoming a fighter. On one end of the spectrum, there’s the guy who thinks of himself as some type of ronin. He’ll fight anyone, anywhere. He lives for combat. On the other end, you have the professional. This fighter only cares about the money and how much he can make. Bob Sapp is an extreme example of this.

Most fighters exist somewhere in between Bob Sapp and Conan the Barbarian. “Rampage” is probably closer to the Sapp end of the spectrum. He’s trying to make a living, and anything that interferes with that is dangerous. Yes, every move in a fight has the potential to hurt someone, but we recognize that certain moves are more dangerous than others.

Rousimar Palhares and Jon Fitch

Take Rousimar Palhares. Would people be as outraged if he held onto a guillotine a little bit longer instead of a leg lock or kimura? Of course not. Holding onto a submission past the tapout is in poor taste no matter what, but we view some fouls as worse than others.

Also, I don’t buy the argument that if something is legal it’s automatically OK. Whether it’s the American justice system or MMA, there are plenty of legal things we don’t like or support. Perhaps we should advocate for rule changes. Look at the NFL. From horse-collar tackles to helmet-to-helmet contact, the rulebook has adapted and outlawed moves that were once legal. Were all those people working to change that whiners?

“Rampage” may be an imperfect spokesman, but that doesn’t mean that he’s completely off base. Beneath his “whining” there might be something worth examining.

Fowlkes: There might be. And I agree that we need to take the cue from the NFL when it comes to the MMA rulebook, which too many people treat like it was written on a stone tablet handed down from the heavens. We shouldn’t be afraid to reevaluate and change our own rules – or just clarify some of the murky language that sometimes leads to confusion.

And, hey, if the Association of Boxing Commissions tells us that kicks straight on the kneecap are now outlawed, I wouldn’t complain. I could understand the reasoning behind that. But right now they’re legal. If a guy uses them against someone who’s trying to break his face, how can we get mad at him?

Let’s also not pretend like this conversation wouldn’t be much different if we were talking about someone other than “Bones” Jones. It’s funny how the same guy who gets lauded for his creativity and unorthodox attacks also gets criticized for basically the same thing. Kicking someone’s knee or wrenching their shoulder from an overhook position aren’t magic bullets. If they were, everyone would use them. This is Jones finding new ways of beating people up. That’s his job. That’s what he’s paid to do, and he does it well.

If our complaint about the best fighter in the world is that he hurts people while winning one cage fight after another, what are we really saying?

Downes: I’ll concede that part of this controversy can be attributed to people’s dislike of Jones. What we have to realize, though, is that most fighters don’t consider their prime directive to be “hurt the other person.” The purpose is to win the fight. Physical harm may be a byproduct of that, but it’s not the main motivator.

We can’t have it both ways. When people call MMA “barbaric” or lob similar critiques, fans rise up to scream, “It’s a sport!” Yet when we want to modify or question some of the practices we have, those same people say, “Don’t be a baby. It’s a cage fight.” Well, which is it? Are we cage fighters or professional athletes? Don’t act like they’re the same thing.

Fowlkes: Maybe hurting the other guy isn’t the goal, but it’s a pretty good way to achieve the goal of winning the fight. I’m not going to criticize anyone who uses every legal move at his disposal to get the job done. Don’t like it? Change the rule. Put it down on paper rather than relying on some imaginary code of etiquette. Spell the code out for all to see.

But if you’re going to ban moves like Jones’ knee-wrecker, I just have one request: Give the man the respect he deserves and call it the Jon Jones Rule. Let the record reflect that they changed the whole rulebook just to keep this man from hurting people.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.