fighters being stood up/separated for “inactivity” a

Stand ups happen for inactivity in judo and bjj competition as well.
And in higher levels of wrestling, particularly collegiate wrestling, stalling is called quickly and often if you aren't doing anything. But in MMA you can have an underhook against the cage for 4 minutes and that somehow isn't stalling lol
 
Oldschool Dutch mma had a 30 second ground timer.

But that was as at a time basically no one here had any idea what all those Russians, Americans and Brazillians were doing on the ground... at all.

Thing is.. we had LOOOOOOOONG fights in the 90's when there were no rounds yet. Gracie had a one hour battle iirc, that shit was boring as fuck.
Ya there's really nothing wrong with the happy medium of reasonable stand ups
 
If you can't get up or mount some offense you are losing the fight why should you be rewarded with a stand up? I actually side with rogan on this one

~DaViD~
 
it’s suppose to be mma n closest thing to a real fight

Grappling n clinching are parts of mma n are legal techiniques n within the rules

So why separate fighters when in those position for “inactivity”?

If issue is “it’s not fan friendly”

Then perhaps there should be some type of timer everytime the fight goes on the ground/against the cage n fight is rest after timer runs out
Some standups or separations are warranted. Some fighters hold on for dare life when in a offensive position. When you don't try to land strikes or advance your position, you're just stalling and wasting time.
 
It's supposed to be that you're never stood up unless you're trying to simply hold a dominant position to stall or rest.

I understand the argument that a guy should be allowed to blanket you for a whole round and win it, and it's up to the other fighter not to let him. I actually used to argue that. But I've changed my mind on that. I think if you establish a position and just hold it, the ref should separate you if you're just stalling (but obviously you still showed that grappling effectiveness to the judges.) The reason I've changed my mind is that I don't think it's effective enough to be a legitimate fighting strategy. If you're so good at holding a position that you can just smother a guy round after round, you should be able to do enough damage to make it effective. If you're just a backpack, and the other guy comes out of the fight no worse for the wear, than all you really did was deprive the fans of a fight. You made a fight not happen. That shouldn't be encouraged.


I also used to argue, and I think this is still a legit concern, that standups encourage the bottom fighter to just hold on praying for a standup and not to try to use sweeps or take risks to get up. So the ref needs to know when it's the dominant fighter just holding and stalling time, and when it's the bottom fighter just holding because he can't do anything else.
 
Because there is a time limit and rounds. None of those are realistic either.
 
How often do stand ups happen? I probably see it once in every ten fights.
 
Some standups or separations are warranted. Some fighters hold on for dare life when in a offensive position. When you don't try to land strikes or advance your position, you're just stalling and wasting time.

What do you do in this situation where a fighter in a defensive position holds on for dear life?

33n9l48.jpg.gif

img]
 
What do you do in this situation where a fighter in a defensive position holds on for dear life?

33n9l48.jpg.gif

img]
In this position I wouldn't stand them up because Sonnen is clearly striking Silva. If Sonnen was just staying there while being held, then I would of stood them up.
 
In this position I wouldn't stand them up because Sonnen is clearly striking Silva. If Sonnen was just staying there while being held, then I would of stood them up.

Right but what if Sonnen laid there while not having much of a choice because the guy on bottom is literally holding on for dear life?
 
Back
Top