Is there a way to make wrestling exciting without taking tools away from the wrestler?

[Ah Man]

I see what you are getting at but I think it is diningenous to suggest that a guy on top isnt at an advantage and that grappling should always be considered neutral positioning.

A guy on top, damage or not, is clearly in a more dominant position and that should count for something

I don't know that being in somebody's guard is particularly dominant if that person is Fabricio Werdum. But what makes a position dominant? And why should that count for something?

To me the answer is that it puts you in a better position to finish the fight by strikes or submission. And that should absolutely count for something, because you should be using the position to threaten in one of those two ways. If you're not, I can't see any reason that it should count for anything.

To make a similar analogy to the striking one you did in the OP, if you have superior footwork than your opponent, and constantly put yourself in position to land undefended strikes, you should get points for that. And generally, you do, by throwing and landing the strike. If, for whatever reason, you don't throw the strike, you don't get the points. Why should takedowns be any different?

 

[Hardcore MMA]

what rule change recently? elaborate please.

From what I heard others on here saying, the recent change to the rules doesn't automatically reward a round in a fighters favor if they hold their opponent down most of the round without doing any damage or making any advancements. As you can see in the Northcutt/Gouti fight this past Sunday, Gouti was able to take sage down and hold him down for a good portion of the fight, but when the fight was standing, Sage outstruck Gouti 4-1. Since Gouti didn't do anything on the ground other than just hold Sage in place, the judges scored the striking portion of the fight higher. In the old days, ground control would have won Gouti that fight, but the new rules no longer reward a fighter solely for holding their opponent down without doing anything to them on the ground.

 

[acannxr]

I don't know that being in somebody's guard is particularly dominant if that person is Fabricio Werdum. But what makes a position dominant? And why should that count for something?

To me the answer is that it puts you in a better position to finish the fight by strikes or submission. And that should absolutely count for something, because you should be using the position to threaten in one of those two ways. If you're not, I can't see any reason that it should count for anything.

To make a similar analogy to the striking one you did in the OP, if you have superior footwork than your opponent, and constantly put yourself in position to land undefended strikes, you should get points for that. And generally, you do, by throwing and landing the strike. If, for whatever reason, you don't throw the strike, you don't get the points. Why should takedowns be any different?

ONE Championship's Judging Criteria:

In the event that a bout goes the distance, it will go to a judges’ decision. The three judges will score the bout in its entirety, not round-by-round. Judges will utilize the following ONE judging criteria in descending order of importance to determine the winner of the bout:

1. Near KO or Submission
2. Damage (Internal, Accumulated, Superficial)
3. Striking combinations and cage generalship (Ground control, Superior positioning)
4. Earned takedowns or takedown defense
5. Aggression

I don't think it's any surprise given that Matt Hume (who was the rule director and official trainer to both PRIDE Fighting Championships and Dream) had been appointed as the Vice President of Operations and Competition.

 

[ArtemV]

Fighters should learn how to wrestle, maybe getting held down and beaten up wouldn't happen..

 

[12ga.]

Guard is superior no matter who you are. The guy on top has to hold himself up with one hand at least while guard has two to work with. You can throw 12/6s he cant. He has no power from top because you control hips. Then if you know BJJ tons of subs come from guard by comparison.

 

[wompuscatwilly]

How does knees on the ground favor the non wrestler? It will favor the wrestler because he will always be in the dominant position.

Currently a wrestler can sloppily and relentlessly shoot in for TDs. If he stood the risk of getting his face kneed off in the sprawl, then there would be less TD attempts.

So the rules favor the guy who without risk is rewarded constantly shooting in.

 

[Outsider524]

Fighters should learn how to wrestle, maybe getting held down and beaten up wouldn't happen..

You've apparently never seen a fight where dominant wrestler does nothing on top. Be cause they don't know how to do anything else or care to throw many strikes because they winning just off control.

 

[eiyuu]

Guard is superior no matter who you are. The guy on top has to hold himself up with one hand at least while guard has two to work with. You can throw 12/6s he cant. He has no power from top because you control hips. Then if you know BJJ tons of subs come from guard by comparison.

Tell that to Scott Jorgenson when he KO'd Ken Stone from Stone's guard.

http://www.ufc.com/media/KOTW-Jorgensen-KOs-Stone-V2

 

[Outsider524]

My thought would be. Takedowns with no damage done don't get scored. Including those last minute tds to try and steal a round.

Or make round 2 a stand up only round. It's mma mix it up.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Ive been thinking, a lot of people point to yellow cards in pride, but in a way that takes away the wrestlers ability to "grind" which is something that happens in a real fight.

Now im not saying mma is a real fight, but I'm just saying that taking away someones ability to wrestle (just because you yourself can't) is too much of a rule manipulation.

Imagine if nobody knew how to jab and one guy learned. Now this jab isnt going to finish the fight, but it keeps him in control. He suffocates the other fighters offense with a jab and the fight drags on with no finish in sight. Now imagine if he got a yellow card for stalling. He wouldnt right? Because the long use of the jab eventually sets up a right hand, finishing the fight.

Just like how a long wrestling sequence can lead to a gnp or submission finish. This is my main problem with yellowcarding.

Another issue is using knees on the ground. I think,this would make it easier for wrestlers to finish fights, but the ufc will never allow it.

Ive heard taking away elbows would allow guys to get subs because of throwing punches and exposing arms.


In the end it seems we just have to deal with it.

Any thoughts or suggestions on a good way to increase action on the ground?

this point by you is the key point...

"Another issue is using knees on the ground. I think,this would make it easier for wrestlers to finish fights, but the ufc will never allow it."

There is an old video of GSP finishing, I think it was Thomas Denny, with knees to the head after he had passed to North/South. Denying a wrestler that tool, and a striker the corresponding soccer kicks or kicks to a grounded opponent really hurt the grappling offense and defense part of the game and left it without those significant tools to finish the fights.

 

[revoltub]

I don't know that being in somebody's guard is particularly dominant if that person is Fabricio Werdum. But what makes a position dominant? And why should that count for something?

To me the answer is that it puts you in a better position to finish the fight by strikes or submission. And that should absolutely count for something, because you should be using the position to threaten in one of those two ways. If you're not, I can't see any reason that it should count for anything.

To make a similar analogy to the striking one you did in the OP, if you have superior footwork than your opponent, and constantly put yourself in position to land undefended strikes, you should get points for that. And generally, you do, by throwing and landing the strike. If, for whatever reason, you don't throw the strike, you don't get the points. Why should takedowns be any different?

Good post and i think people underestimate the damage of the takedown. Imo a takedown does do some damage and isn't the same as just moving to a more dominant position.

 

[tequilaboy]

The best solution is to only score takedowns if guard is passed. So either you land directly in side control or you pass guard after the takedown. This avoids scoring for takedowns that do no damage and where the fighter just pops back up after 3 seconds

 

[MikeMcMann]

I see what you are getting at but I think it is diningenous to suggest that a guy on top isnt at an advantage and that grappling should always be considered neutral positioning.

A guy on top, damage or not, is clearly in a more dominant position and that should count for something

I don't think so.

If you and I get into a fight outside a bar and all you can do is get a TD but you cannot do anything else. I am so good on bottom that you cannot land a single strike or risk a trasition attempt to get a better position and therefore you just Fitch me, that should be a stalemate position or draw. We are BOTH stalemated as you cannot do anything different either. And that is why ref's stand them up.

If we were in that fight where you did nothing but get the TD and we finally got up and you tried to trash talk about how you held me down, as if that was some type of win I would laugh at you. We both were stalemated just as if we had both clinched against the cage and neither of us could advance.

Also stopping a TD should score equally to landing one, or not at all. They are both equally controlling where the fight takes place.

 

[revoltub]

I don't think so.

If you and I get into a fight outside a bar and all you can do is get a TD but you cannot do anything else. I am so good on bottom that you cannot land a single strike or risk a trasition attempt to get a better position and therefore you just Fitch me, that should be a stalemate position or draw. We are BOTH stalemated as you cannot do anything different either. And that is why ref's stand them up.

If we were in that fight where you did nothing but get the TD and we finally got up and you tried to trash talk about how you held me down, as if that was some type of win I would laugh at you. We both were stalemated just as if we had both clinched against the cage and neither of us could advance.

If you are on top you have less weight to deal with and your strikes are also going to be more damaging.

Being on top is simply the better position. Just becauase you could submit from the bottom doesnt change that. If i have you in a rear naked choke and you fall back and land on me effectively knocking me out that doesnt make the rnc a neutral position

 

[MikeMcMann]

Currently a wrestler can sloppily and relentlessly shoot in for TDs. If he stood the risk of getting his face kneed off in the sprawl, then there would be less TD attempts.

So the rules favor the guy who without risk is rewarded constantly shooting in.

That is exactly what Cain did to JDS in there 3rd fight (?).

He dived for ankle pick after ankle pick and was not able to get JDS down easily but clung to that ankle like a dog with a bone while dragging his hand on the ground to ensure he was a downed fighter and could not get soccer kicked. He kept his head down so JDS could not punch him easily without hitting the back of his head and kept pulling and pulling and dragging JDS until he finally got his TD's.

I could not help but think that in a real fight JDS would have KO'd Cain easily by simply kicking him while down or punching him in the back of the back of the head and how Cain exploited the rules to the max.

And Cain is one of my favorite HW's btw.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Good post and i think people underestimate the damage of the takedown. Imo a takedown does do some damage and isn't the same as just moving to a more dominant position.

A takedown CAN do some damage but many times it does none. that is fact.

So why would you give blanket scoring to something like that. If and WHEN it does do damage give the judges the discretion to score it. When it does nothing then it should score nothing.

One of the absurdities we have seen over and over based on TD's always scoring is that a wrestler fighting a dangerous submission artist will use his wrestling to stay standing every round until the last 10 seconds and then and only then shoot for a TD to score the points knowing that a submission cannot be grabbed in most cases in 10 seconds or less.

So the wrestler willingly puts himself in a worse position (one he would never do with more time) to gain points because of the flaw in the rules.

 

[quantiqus]

If the wrestler does not manage to submit the opponent in X seconds, then the referee stops the fight and the opponents get to punch him on time, as hard as he can.

cut them all and send em all back to the minor leagues until they learn how to finish opponents.

only way to make them boring wrasslers exciting.

Or we could watch kickboxing and muay thai instead.

Or one 15-minute round for non-title fights and one 25-minute round for title fights.

So we can see more Dada vs Kimbo...

If a round ends on the ground, the next round should continue on the ground.

And if it ends with continuous punches like RDA vs Lawler?

 

[revoltub]

A takedown CAN do some damage but many times it does none. that is fact.

So why would you give blanket scoring to something like that. If and WHEN it does do damage give the judges the discretion to score it. When it does nothing then it should score nothing.

One of the absurdities we have seen over and over based on TD's always scoring is that a wrestler fighting a dangerous submission artist will use his wrestling to stay standing every round until the last 10 seconds and then and only then shoot for a TD to score the points knowing that a submission cannot be grabbed in most cases in 10 seconds or less.

So the wrestler willingly puts himself in a worse position (one he would never do with more time) to gain points because of the flaw in the rules.

A takedown is physically grabbing your opponent and manipulating his weight.

I cant see any scenario where a takedown isnt an offensive manuever that shouldn't be scored.

 

[TheRassler]

If the wrestler does not manage to submit the opponent in X seconds, then the referee stops the fight and the opponents get to punch him on time, as hard as he can.



Or we could watch kickboxing and muay thai instead.



So we can see more Dada vs Kimbo...



And if it ends with continuous punches like RDA vs Lawler?

or you could watch amateur wrestling or WWE if you into that hugging shit.

or gay porn, up to you.

 

[quantiqus]

or you could watch amateur wrestling or WWE if you into that hugging shit.

or gay porn, up to you.

MMA is about both, stand up and ground. It was supposed to be the contact sport with no rules (or very few rules).

If you don't like wrestling, you can easily trade MMA for kickbox/muay thai and get rid of fighters like GSP, Khabib, Askren, Fitch, Shields, Maia and so on....

If I wouldn't like boxing/kickboxing, I would watch amateur wrestling. I would leave the gay porn to you, of course, since you know about it. And the WWE to the people who watch fake fights.

But I like the boxing/kickboxing part. And I am not crazy about wrestling/bjj, but I understand the efficacy in a fight.