Submissions has killed MMA

[Knarfan]

Just go throw the list of rules and think about what range those are gonna help the most... The majority are tactics that would be used in close, when grappling.

I think I understand what you are saying , but I'v seen many cases when a grappler misses a shot & a striker has to back off because he can't knee or kick to the head . Don't you think that is a very important weapon taken away from the striker ? Phil Baroni vs A russian fighter Sulueve ? comes to mind . Also in some of the pride events they aloud knees to the head of a downed opponant & it totally changed the complextion of the fights . Think about it a striker learns to sprawl what is the next logical move ? esspecially if the grappler is tired . I can't argue with you because as usual you make good points , but although I see your point I still think that the rules that don't favour the strikers affect them alittle more . Just alittle .

One more point . The rules that you are talking about are going to happen at a equal distance . Meaning if it is close quarters both competeters are going to be able to do almost the exact same thing to each other at about the same time the only differance would be top or bottom . If standing against the fench it would almost be equal positioning , most of the time . If you were a grappler would you want to be chest to chest with a striker if they could head butt , eye gouge , grion strike , grab hair ? Now on the other hand if a grappler shoots & misses which happens alot more nowadays when he has fallen that is a major positional advantage for the striker . Why are so many weapons taken away at that point of advantage ? Thats like telling a submission guy , hey you can't use a rear naked choke . LE dosn't use it because of accidental deaths . I think that you probably are talking about differant types of submissions that aren't aloud also . Of coure in that case it would help the grappler more . I don't know the hole rule book so I can't really argue that point , but I think they have a pretty good arsonal to work with .

 

[FearlessFreep]

I think the rules favor grapplers over strikers in the way scoring is done, moreso than just a list of rules (although the rule about unsportsmanlike conduct that causes injury would probably mean stuff like trying to break limbs...not that I think intentionally breaking limbs is a good idea for sport, but if you are thinking in terms of 'street fighting', then a lot what a striker would do is not really allowed, to say nothing of SJM, if that's your art)

Anyway, the scoring, other than tap out or knock out, basically comes down to winning rounds. For a striker to win, he would want to hit more than he is hit, and do so more destructively. For a grappler to win, he puts his opponent in a certain position, and keeps him there. Now look at a five minute round. over a two minute time period, a striker may strike any numbers of times, and risk getting hit himself in the process. A grappler can execute one technique, and if successful, can eat up a lot of clock time just maintaining that position. Mot successful techniques executed by a striker require that the striker get within range of the opponent, which is vulnerable. The submissions I've seen keep the 'victim'in a position that it's not easy to strike back; I think that's basically what they are designed to do.

So anyway, a grappler can eat up a lot of clock time and win the round bo dominating the round with fewer executed successul techniques.

Look at it this way, if the rules were different. Taken from Tae Kwon Do, say that each competitor was awarded points based on successful technique execution. Scale the points to reflect a certain degree of risk, difficulty. Say a hand strike to the head is a point. A low kick is a point. A body kick is two points, a head kick three. A takedown could be 1 or more points based on if it was done with a leg sweep, or shoot in, etc..etc...a submission held for 5 seconds would be five points, etc..etc... whatever way you want to rank it and weight it. I think this scoring approach would favor strikers because if you are down 5 five points with 20 seconds left in a round, then you know it's been a close round, but you can make up that difference with some fast hand strikes and a few kicks. Making up that difference with a shoot in for takedown and then submission would be harder because they are slower to execute...you may not get it done in time. Even if you kept all the same rules as far as what's illegal to do, just changing the scoring system could swing things in favor of fast striking.

That's just an exampe, of course. I'm not saying UFC should do this. I'm just saying that the current scoring seems to favor grapplers because they can get in a dominate position and hold it there and tie up an awful lot of clock time and that seems to get them the win, from the matches I've seen.

Think of the three point line in baseketball. It changed the risk/reward for scoring, and changed the strategy of the game. Also, the inventor of football initially had touchdowns worth just three points and field goals were worth six or seven, because he thought kicking a field goal would be a lot harder than scoring a touchdown. Now, think of how the stragegy and execution of football would be today if *every* rule was the same, but they used that original scoring. Tae Kwon Do point sparring and olympic sparring are completely different even though the mostly allow the same techniques; they just score differently, and as a result, point sparring uses a lot of hands but not as much high kicking and olympic sparring has little hard work and a lot of high kicks.

I'm not even trying to say that (UFC scoring) is bad That's simply the rules. How you win a match influences how you play the match and it simply is what it is.

 

[FearlessFreep]

I don't know the hole rule book so I can't really argue that point

From http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp, I think these are the rules

Fouls:

1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

----

Now, 17 is allowed in the sparring I do. 9 we can do to the head but not the spine (I think) Most of them are fairly generic. In self-defense training we practice 8,9,10, and 11, at least. I'm fairly certain that tryng to break an arm or leg would fall under 22. I don't really think any of them fall under the realm of prohibiting either a striker or a grappler from executing a basic set of traditional techniques from their art in a safe manner

 

[Knarfan]

I agree to much credit is given for ground control . A college wrestler should be able to control a karate guy on the ground , but what did the wrestler do when he had the better position . The submission guy gets alot of credit for going for the submission the whole fight , but he didn't get the submission ! The bottom line is that the striker dosen't get as much credit for an agressive standup attack as the wrestler or submission specialist gets for ground control or submission attempts . It's really no differant then scoreing in other contact sports , but when you take major weapons away from one style it tilts the scale . I think even the grapplers would admit that .

 

[Knarfan]

I don't know the hole rule book so I can't really argue that point

From http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp, I think these are the rules

Fouls:

1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

----

Now, 17 is allowed in the sparring I do. 9 we can do to the head but not the spine (I think) Most of them are fairly generic. In self-defense training we practice 8,9,10, and 11, at least. I'm fairly certain that tryng to break an arm or leg would fall under 22. I don't really think any of them fall under the realm of prohibiting either a striker or a grappler from executing a basic set of traditional techniques from their art in a safe manner

Thank you Jay ,
I can see why Andrew didn't list these rules . :flame: How exactly would these rules favour the grappler over the strikers ? Are you kidding me ? Whats going to stop the strikers from returning the favour with more effect ! They are the strikers ! Now I understand why you wouldn't give to many details :uhyeah: . Just kidding .

 

[Marginal]

I think a lot of the action is lost on people who really haven't seen two things...

1) Bad MMA
2) Good MMA

Just pick up one of those King of the Cage 100 hours of fights for $10 DVD sets. (There are a few sets like these out there, and from different promotions, but the overall quality tends to be about the same.)

You'll see people trying jump kicks, people lying on top of someone else for 15 minutes straight, a few good matches mismatches and so on.

Then get something like Pride Cold Fury (even better since it can be found relatively cheap even new in the store). If I remember correctly, Heath Herring, and Enson Inoue put on a very entertiaining match. That's the kind of stuff that demonstrates that submission fighting doesn't have to look boring. Silva also demonstrates that striking's not dead.

 

[Knarfan]

I have the pride cold fury DVD good one ! Also the heavyweight elimination grand prix events are good to .

 

[MJS]

I agree to much credit is given for ground control . A college wrestler should be able to control a karate guy on the ground , but what did the wrestler do when he had the better position . The submission guy gets alot of credit for going for the submission the whole fight , but he didn't get the submission ! The bottom line is that the striker dosen't get as much credit for an agressive standup attack as the wrestler or submission specialist gets for ground control or submission attempts . It's really no differant then scoreing in other contact sports , but when you take major weapons away from one style it tilts the scale . I think even the grapplers would admit that .

Good point! IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground. :idunno: Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding? Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down.

Mike

 

[Knarfan]

Good point! IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground.

Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding? Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down.

Mike

That is exactly what I mean . I'm not saying the grappler should be penalized for being a great ground man . I just think they give just a little to much credit for that type of control . I have also seen top control work against the bjj guy when he fights a wrestler . somtimes the wrestler will be awarded the decition based on top control , but the whole time he was fighting off submission attempts , but he wins because of top control . I don't think that the advantages are major in most cases , but they definatly exist . Even the fighters have said this . I just watched the UFC were Tito Ortize fought Vitor Belfore . Before the fight they ask Chuck Lidell for a prediction & he said somthing like Tito will probably win because he'll do what he always does take the guy down & lay on him . I'm sure he is not the only fighter that feels that way . For the most part I think the decitions are fair , but they could improve at least alittle . Maybe do somthing like K1 events where they go an extra round if there is no clear cut winner . Again I don't want to see any fighters get injured , but I think knees to the head of a downed oponant should be aloud . I know a grappler could do it to , but I think it helps the striker more . It would stop alot those happ hazard shot attempts that the grapplers make esspecially after they get rocked . To add an element of safty to the rule the ref would just have to make sure that after two or three uncontested strikes he either stops the fight or stands the fighters back up . All that being said this will probable never happen because of politics & safty issues .

 

[FearlessFreep]

How exactly would these rules favour the grappler over the strikers ?

I was just assuming that Andrew was thinking along the lines of things like fishhooking and eye gouging. Since those are close in techniques, they are more likely to be used by someone used to fighting in close, and therefore to disallow them takes away a weapon from the one used to fighting in close.

1) Bad MMA
2) Good MMA

Well, I was very careful to make a disinction between "MMA" and "UFC".

To explain, (and I *don't* consider myself a MMA practioner), when we train for self-defense, we look at it in terms of distances, there are several distances away from you that the opponent can be, and you use different techniques. There is foot dictance (ie...futher out where you can strike with a foot), arm distance (striking with hands), elbow/knee distance, stand up grappling/wrestling and ground grappling wrestling. That's kinda basic but you get the idea. We train mostly for the foot distance through the knee/elbow range, but we do some with the stand up wrestling, and also have takedowns from those reanges to get the person down in control. (Our instructor has said that ground grappling will come as we go forward).

Anyway, my thought of a MMArtist, at least one who does it for self-defense/fighting, is simply someone who employs various arts to work over all those ranges. Kicking, hand strikes, SJM, takedowns and submissions, ground fighting, etc..etc...

Since I have *not* seen Pride, K-1, etc... I don't want to lump them all together and think that what I see in UFC is how all MMA competitions go, and how all MMArtists train, anymore than I want anyone to watch the TKD competition in the Olympics and think that that's how all TKD competition is and that's all the TKD does.

What I see in UFC* is simply a very small sample of techniques; but I don't equate "UFC = MMA" so....



*I've probably seen about a dozen or so total UFC matches, ranging from some of the stuff on that reality show a few months ago, to what was on the UFC: Revolution DVD I rented from Netflix. I think it's fairly representative of UFC today, but I could be wrong.

IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground. Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding? Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down

Well, I think part of the problem, if you will, is that different arts have different ideas for success. Holding someone is not as good as a submission, but it's not bad if you can maintain it. So it's hard to really want to penalize someone for doing something that they would want to do anyway as a natural part of their art. Unfortunately, with striking and SJM arts, a lot of what they would want to do is dangerous, so for a good, safe competition, you really don't want broken wrists and broken arms as a natural part of the competition

If the judges did not give as much credit just for holding someone, or if the judges gave more credit for someone being held but resisting going into a submission, that would certainly help, I think

 

[Marginal]

On the other side of the coin, why should the guy who couldn't avoid a takedown come out ahead on points just because the guy's lying on top of him? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"Let's see... This guy controlled the tempo of the entire fight. Getting takedowns at will. But the other guy threw ineffective rabbit punches while he was on his back, so that's gotta be worth at least a zillion points...."

 

[FearlessFreep]

Well, I think you are going to a silly extreme, Marginal

Let's say Fred and Bob are in a match together. Fred throws ten good shots that land well, and then Bob shots in and takes him down. So for the next 3 minutes, they sorta squirm on the ground, with Bob holding Fred but never submitting him, but Fred never really gets loose either. So Fred executes ten good techniques and managed to avoid being submitted, but Bob wins the round because he 'controlled' more of the round...even though he only executed one really successful technique and never quite got the submission on. He *did* manage to 'control' the round, but only because he couldnt finish it. Fred should get credit because he kept Bob from getting the submission, even though he(Fred) was held for three minutes. Fred executed more successful techniques and blocked more of Bob's techniques from really being successful, but Bob wins...

That's just sorta an example but..I've seen similar things happen.

 

[Knarfan]

On the other side of the coin, why should the guy who couldn't avoid a takedown come out ahead on points just because the guy's lying on top of him? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"Let's see... This guy controlled the tempo of the entire fight. Getting takedowns at will. But the other guy threw ineffective rabbit punches while he was on his back, so that's gotta be worth at least a zillion points...."

A big part of the reason that alot not all of the takedowns can't be avoided is because the way some of the rules are the striker is having alot of his weapons taken away . The grappler really dosn't have to much to worry about if he misses his shot & he is on both knees he is protected by the rules . Let him have to worry about a world class striker driving knees into his skull after he falls . Mark Kerr who is one of the best all around grapplers in the world got distroyed by Igor Vovchanchyn in pride using these technics . If you watch enough MMA you'll see grapplers actually crawl after guys to get a takdown because they really don't have much to worry about while they are on their knees . Usually the stand up guy will back up when he could be finishing the fight . I am basically a grappler first . I'v been involved in it my whole life . Thrust me in these instances the grappler has a hugh advantage .

 

[MJS]

IMO, the rule for the ground control needs to be looked at. If there is no or little activity on the ground, the fighters get stood back up, but yet the grappler can win the match due to the fact that he "controlled" on the ground. Why should he win if he was doing nothing more than holding? Instead, he should be striking, looking for a submission, rather than laying there like a dead fish, holding someone down

Well, I think part of the problem, if you will, is that different arts have different ideas for success. Holding someone is not as good as a submission, but it's not bad if you can maintain it. So it's hard to really want to penalize someone for doing something that they would want to do anyway as a natural part of their art. Unfortunately, with striking and SJM arts, a lot of what they would want to do is dangerous, so for a good, safe competition, you really don't want broken wrists and broken arms as a natural part of the competition

If the judges did not give as much credit just for holding someone, or if the judges gave more credit for someone being held but resisting going into a submission, that would certainly help, I think

True, but when fighters enter these events, they should have a clear understanding of the rules. When the UFC first started, you had no time limits. A fight could go on for 30+ minutes. Examples of this are UFC4- Severn vs. Gracie and the Superfight between Shamrock and Gracie. 2 boring fights IMHO. I love the UFC and the other MMA events, but I hate spending money to see 2 people lay on top of each other when they should be fighting.

Dont get me wrong...I'm not against controlling the person, but at least be active while doing it.

Mike

 

[Marginal]

Well, I think you are going to a silly extreme, Marginal

That's the whole point of extremes.

Let's say Fred and Bob are in a match together. Fred throws ten good shots that land well, and then Bob shots in and takes him down. So for the next 3 minutes, they sorta squirm on the ground, with Bob holding Fred but never submitting him, but Fred never really gets loose either. So Fred executes ten good techniques and managed to avoid being submitted, but Bob wins the round because he 'controlled' more of the round...even though he only executed one really successful technique and never quite got the submission on.

Yes, but there's still the question, why didn't the guy on the bottom get out/get up. He's not really doing anything either in that case. Kinda gives you a null set which leaves you back at square one with the issue of who had initiative.

Edit: I'm not really arguing for or against the UFC having rules that favor or don't favor grapplers. I beleive there are factors at work there that make things shake out the way they do for a reason though.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Yes, but there's still the question, why didn't the guy on the bottom get out/get up. He's not really doing anything either in that case. Kinda gives you a null set which leaves you back at square one with the issue of who had initiative.


Well not really. If the goal of the grappler is to get a submission,as the goal of the striker is to strike, then keeping your opponent from accomplishing your goal is a good thing in it's own right.

Look at sports that score points. A good defense can help to bolster the offense. In baseball or TKD sparring, you only need to score once to win, if your defense is strong enough to stand up.

In the above situation, Fred had good offense (he landed several strikes well) and moderate defense (he fought back well enough to keep the submission from happening, but not well enough to escape. His defense was good enough to stymie Bob's goal, but not good enough to stop it completely). Bob's defense was poor (Fred landed the attacks) and his offense was moderate (he was good enough to hold Fred, but not good enough to submit Fred). The only really successul thing Bob did was a single takedown, but he wins the round

but I hate spending money to see 2 people lay on top of each other when they should be fighting.

Well, one simple way to change the rules is to make the 'stalemate' position, that if neither fighter is really advancing position, not just trying to, more loose. If you can't get from hold to submission in 10 or 20 seconds or whatever, then stand them back up again.

The only problem with that is that a submission is like a knockout, it's the fighters way of forcing the opponent to be unable to fight any more. To force a situation that the grappler must get a submission to win, or else the hold is stopped is like telling a striker that if they don't get a knockout, they have to stop punching.

 

[Marginal]

Well not really. If the goal of the grappler is to get a submission,as the goal of the striker is to strike, then keeping your opponent from accomplishing your goal is a good thing in it's own right.

On the other hand, the grappler's keeping the striker from doing anything but reacting to his sub attempts and whatever strikes the grappler attempts to throw. (Guess it depends on how you prefer to spin it.)

I can't see how the guy dictating the fight should be penalized. Pretty much any sport, the folks that are put on the reactionary side are the ones that will at the very least, be perceived as losing.

In baseball or TKD sparring, you only need to score once to win, if your defense is strong enough to stand up.

Initiative goes a long way towards determining who nets a win in a TKD sparring situation.

In the above situation, Fred had good offense (he landed several strikes well) and moderate defense (he fought back well enough to keep the submission from happening, but not well enough to escape. His defense was good enough to stymie Bob's goal, but not good enough to stop it completely). Bob's defense was poor (Fred landed the attacks) and his offense was moderate (he was good enough to hold Fred, but not good enough to submit Fred). The only really successul thing Bob did was a single takedown, but he wins the round

And he successfully prevented Fred from throwing any more strikes.

The only problem with that is that a submission is like a knockout, it's the fighters way of forcing the opponent to be unable to fight any more. To force a situation that the grappler must get a submission to win, or else the hold is stopped is like telling a striker that if they don't get a knockout, they have to stop punching.

Kinda like when a cut happens.

 

[FearlessFreep]

On the other hand, the grappler's keeping the striker from doing anything but reacting to his sub attempts and whatever strikes the grappler attempts to throw.

Within the time of the hold, yeah. But if Fred was the one doing the striking before the takedown...

(Guess it depends on how you prefer to spin it.)

Well, I think it depends on how you view that hold I tend to view it as if one person is fighting to get from a hold to either a submission or a superior position that he can pound from, but can't and the other person is fighting to get free, but can't, then you are at a point of effective stalemate, because each is good enough to keep their position but not good enough to effectively advance it. In which case you go back to the fact that Fred landed 10 good shots and Bob landed 1 good takedown, so Fred was overall more successful in executing techniques.

The reason I go that way is because I keep thinking back to the street fighting scenario. I don't really like the idea of extended holding because I think it's dangerous because of the possibility of a third party involvement against you. If dealing with mulitple opponents, a guy and his friends, a group, etc... you really want to even the odds by taking one guy out quickly That will often take the fight out of the group, at best and at worse you have one less opponent. A prolonged stalemate will allow others to attack, and the longer a fight goes on,the more possibility of accident or chance or bad luck, even with one opponent. In grappling, you go from takedown to submission, and the submission is a control position where the opponent cannot fight back because otherwise you can choke them out or break something. In striking, you use strikes to subdue, but if that doesn't work, or in the multiple attacker situation, you use strikes to disable. Again, maybe if you are facing multiple attackers, that arm bar becomes a break simply because you don't have time to mess around. And maybe

Now in a wrestling match, you have specifc rules, like in boxing or TKD sparring....it's not trying to emulate a street fight...it's just taking a few techniques from an art and giving it a scoring mechanism and going on from there.

But if UFC wants to call itself a fighting style that is close to street fighting as safely possible, I don't really like those extended holds that don't lead to a tapout because I don't think that's a good idea.

I can't see how the guy dictating the fight should be penalized

Because I don't see that he's really dictating it. If he was really dictating it, he would be advancing his position, not just holding steady. Fred is really 'dictating' as much as Bob because his keeping Fred from advancing. Bob is keeping Fred from getting up and hitting him, but Fred is keeping Bob from submitting him.

Think of soccer. TeamA scores a goal or two quickly, so TeamB just passes the ball amongst themselves passing it up and down the field. They are not quite good enough to score a goal, but they are good enough to keep TeamA from getting the ball back. At the end, do they give the win to TeamB because they 'dictated' the game?

Initiative goes a long way towards determining who nets a win in a TKD sparring situation.

Well, yes and no, I've seen matches where one person got a few point score and then played defense the rest of the way, and effectively. (That's a different tangent, though, I think)

And he successfully prevented Fred from throwing any more strikes.

"Any more" is the key. Fred had already landed a few strikes when Bob took him down. I was careful in wording it like that because I've seen something similar happen. Noe, back to the soccer situation...if TeamA had not scored and TeamB scored a point or two and then TeamB just passed the ball around, then that's different. TeamB is controlling the game from a position of having already scored more times. If Fred had not successfully struck Bob before he took him down, then yeah, Bob wins because he did the takedown and Fred did not defend against it so Bob and Fred just holding steady is from a position of Bob already having done at least one more succssful technique. So I have no problem with Bob winning that one

 

[FearlessFreep]

I don't really like those extended holds that don't lead to a tapout because I don't think that's a good idea.

Well, ok, personally, I think they are boring to watch, too So I guess it's a matter of personal preference....

 

[MJS]

Yes, but there's still the question, why didn't the guy on the bottom get out/get up. He's not really doing anything either in that case. Kinda gives you a null set which leaves you back at square one with the issue of who had initiative.


Well not really. If the goal of the grappler is to get a submission,as the goal of the striker is to strike, then keeping your opponent from accomplishing your goal is a good thing in it's own right.

True, and I agree with the thought of taking the person out of their fight game. But, if the grappler is not doing anything more than just laying on the person, with little to no attempts to strike or submit, they should not be awarded points. I remember when the Ultimate Fighter show was on TV. The fight with Chris Leban and Josh Koscheck. Josh had some good takedowns, but what did he do to Chris on the ground? Even after the match was over, Chris, as well as some others, commented on how Josh didn't deserve the win due to him not doing anything on the ground.

but I hate spending money to see 2 people lay on top of each other when they should be fighting.

Well, one simple way to change the rules is to make the 'stalemate' position, that if neither fighter is really advancing position, not just trying to, more loose. If you can't get from hold to submission in 10 or 20 seconds or whatever, then stand them back up again.

Yes, they're already doing something along those lines now. In the above quote, I was referring to early UFCs. I want to see some action, not end up paying to see a bunch of boring fights.

Mike