# Stand ups: Yes or no?



## Andrew Green (Mar 13, 2006)

Stand ups have become common place in MMA events.  If fighters become innactive on the ground they are stood back up and restarted.  Is this a good thing or not?

 Stalling, IMO, should not be allowed, this is afterall a spectator sport and no one wants to watch fights that resemble the 2nd Royce vs Ken match.  But are stand ups the right solution?

 Sometimes it seems to have become part of a fighters strategy, if on the ground just hold on and stall till the ref seperates you and puts you back on your feet.  So by bringing in the standup rule the ground action becomes less interesting as it is easier to stall then push against someone that is stalling.

 Another solution could be in the points, as it is in wrestling.  Instead of standing up fighters if one fighter is stalling he / she is penalized points for doing so, but they are not stood back up.

 So what's everyone's take on stand ups in MMA fights?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Mar 13, 2006)

Personally I do not like it.  Why should someone be given an
advantage by just holding on while on the ground and then
stood up where they are more comfortable.  Really, I just 
think the referee should deduct a point after a couple of warnings
to anyone stalling.  Stall and pay the price.  

However, since people want to see knockouts more than
anything else the new rules are not going away.  

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Shogun (Mar 13, 2006)

I am usually in favor of stand-ups (esp. in fights like Daiju Takase vs. Chris Brennan: Pride FC Bushido v.2)
but honestly refs have made some horrible calls when to stand-up, and not stand up. for the most part, they guy on the bottom (guard) should be seeking sweeps and submissions. the guy on top should be seeking to pass, striking "effectively" (not that palming crap). if side control or mount, the botom guy should be making wise decisions to escape, but honestly he ends up layin there and getting exhausted as the top guy takes his time. seems as if the top guy is usually favored by the judges.

Take Matt Hughes vs. Renato Verissimo:

Verrissimo dominated the first round from the bottom. almost sub. matt twice. with the same move. second round....matt laying in verrissimo's guard and getting tired. verissimo constanly shifting his hips from side to side, looking for an armbar. thirs round? Matt dominates with ground and pound and great sub. defense. 

the winner?
Hughes by UNANIMOUS decision. I give verrissimo the split.

If they would of stood them up, verissimo has better stan-up (due to his 6'1" frame) but matt would of just taken him down over and over. so in many cases, even if stand ups occur, we're just going to see the same crap. I think judges need to respect the ground action a little more. 

sorry if that sounded like rambling.

but honestly, in some cases standing up the fighters might be a waste of time. in others, it may be detrimental to the fighter called for stalling.
 I think the stalling fighter should not be given "advantage" points (matt hughes, tito ortiz etc) they should have points taken away.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 13, 2006)

I think that brings another issue out, and that is should near submissions count for points?  Strikes that don't cause a KO do, why not submissions that don't get a tap?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 13, 2006)

_near submissions count for points?  Strikes that don't cause a KO do, why not submissions that don't get a tap? _

Strikes that don't KO are still successfully applied techniques.  A 'near submission' is just like a strike that missed the target.  What you would need for a submissionto still get credit if you didn't get a tap would be either a) you broke the guys arm but the guy didn't tap...ok successfuly applied technique that didn't happen to end the match. b) refs opinion that the submission is 'good' in that it controls the opponent and keeps him from fighting back, even if he doesn't tap

"'Almost' only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades"


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 13, 2006)

not entirely true, look at the ground work.  Half the strikes thrown do nothing, and fighting out of a submission is hard work and takes energy away.  

Consider being caught in a choke and ripping out of it at the last second before you pass out, that's gonna take something out of you.


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 13, 2006)

It's a tough call on the standups.  I agree with them if neither fighter is doing anything to try and advance or improve their position.  But, sometimes I think they have been stood up prematurely.

Also, it is a sport that is supported by a paying fan base.  Fans want action (I'm talking about fans who like to just watch it but don't understand the finer points of a ground game) and if they don't get the action they want they aren't going to buy the PPV's or go to the events.


----------



## Rook (Apr 13, 2006)

Well, ideally we would have matches without time limits.  As long as there are time limits, it gets hard to get around stand-ups IMO.  

We all remember the Shamrock-Gracie "Superfight" correct?  The problem is that if there is a time limit and there is no standup there is nothing to prevent one or both fighters from choosing to take the fight to the ground, and then stall for time until it either becomes a draw or goes to the judges.  To a certain extent this works standing up, but we really don't see (at least in the recent PRIDE and UFC fights anyway) and stalling I would call serious in the standup - something is ussually happening.


----------



## Hand Sword (Apr 14, 2006)

Sure. I'm a fan of the MMA matches, but, sometimes it's excrutiating to watch. A good grappling chess game is fine, but, these wrestlers that get into the MMA's, takedown and pin for all the rounds, doing nothing, kills me! Stand those situations up. It's Ultimate FIGHTING, not ultimate wrestling.


----------



## rutherford (Apr 14, 2006)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Strikes that don't KO are still successfully applied techniques. A 'near submission' is just like a strike that missed the target. What you would need for a submissionto still get credit if you didn't get a tap would be either a) you broke the guys arm but the guy didn't tap...ok successfuly applied technique that didn't happen to end the match. b) refs opinion that the submission is 'good' in that it controls the opponent and keeps him from fighting back, even if he doesn't tap
> 
> "'Almost' only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades"


 
Reference Joe Stevenson in the Ultimate Fight Night.  That knee bar was on, and he could have held it and continued to keep Josh Neer's knee hyperextended.  Josh just didn't tap and was able to continue the fight.

Personally, I'm against most stand-ups.  But I agree that they're here to stay and I hope to see judges get more experience in when it's appropriate.


----------

