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

[MikeMcMann]

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

That is just false.

You and i simply are at zero advantage in taking down Maia or Werdum. NONE.

So you cannot make those statements as absolutes.

So if they are not absolutes then it depends. It depends on the two people and what happens in those spots once it hits the ground. There is a reason why many do not take down top BJJ guys DESPITE what you say about the weight and potential of the strikes and that is because they know they would likely lose from that position.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying a striker has advantage over a grappler whenever a fight is standing because they are better at landing strikes and KO's and therefore even if they do nothing they should be gaining points for that advantageous position. NO.

it is not about the POTENTIAL of what a grappler can do or striker but rather about scoring what they ACTUALLY do.

 

[revoltub]

That is just false.

You and i simply are at zero advantage in taking down Maia or Werdum. NONE.

So you cannot make those statements as absolutes.

So if they are not absolutes then it depends. It depends on the two people and what happens in those spots once it hits the ground. There is a reason why many do not take down top BJJ guys DESPITE what you say about the weight and potential of the strikes and that is because they know they would likely lose from that position.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying a striker has advantage over a grappler whenever a fight is standing because they are better at landing strikes and KO's and therefore even if they do nothing they should be gaining points for that advantageous position. NO.

it is not about the POTENTIAL of what a grappler can do or striker but rather about scoring what they ACTUALLY do.

Okay but the threat of a submission isnt the same as the active motion of a takedown.

And most guys arent werdum. So saying allowing yourself to be taken down is the same as getting a takedown...I just cant agree.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

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.

i believe this is what you refer to.

The revised language underscores the fact that effective striking and grappling is the very first tier when scoring a round. Only if those are 100 percent equal do you then look at aggression and then cage control. Previously, those four things have been presented by promotions as being all lumped together, but they never have been. There has always been a tiered structure and the new language makes that more distinct.​

and top position would be considered 2nd and 4th criteria, 'grappling' and 'cage control'.

the more liberal 10-8 rounds got the most attention in these rule changes. this one you are referring to (if it is indeed the one you were referring to) is a lot more subtle.

and hey, if judges really do this, i'm happy thanks.

 

[srdrgz11]

Seems pretty simple to me .

Allowed knees to downed opponents.

Allow 12-6 elbows .

Allow head butts.

A lot of people will argue that these techniques should not be allowed because there's little skill involved but the skill is in getting the takedown and the ability to maintain a dominant position.

I don't see any of these rules that already hamstring wrestlers / grapplers because most of mma's fanbase, casuals and hardcore, would rather see a stand-up war.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

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

so in your opinion, getting into a position that could lead to more damaging blows - but then choosing to keep position instead of actually landing any damaging blows (because, you know, throwing blows risks losing said position) - should be heavily weighted by the judges?

 

[Lint]

Yep, we teach casuals to appreciate all of mma, not just knockouts.

Are you aware of your join date?

 

[El Fernas]

GnP....

 

[revoltub]

so in your opinion, getting into a position that could lead to more damaging blows - but then choosing to keep position instead of actually landing any damaging blows (because, you know, throwing blows risks losing said position) - should be heavily weighted by the judges?

I'm,saying strikes from the top should be weighed more than strikes from the bottom

 

[lifelessheap]

Yes give them head butts, 12/6 elbows and knees to head and GSP would have 100% KO ratio probably inside the first round. Only reason guard is superior position and lay and pray happens you cant really fight when on the ground.

GSP + knees on the ground = serial killer

He would have caved everyone's head in.

 

[Lint]

Keep your enemy close enough so nobody can do anything besides your silly rib punches -> LNP win.

Keep your enemy not that close so that you can deliver punishment -> risk being swept, submitted or even punched, but exciting GNP win.

Until we solve that paradigm, wrestlers will always choose the lame, safe way to an UD. Thanks post-MS GSP, you ruined UFC.

 

[alaskamma]

Are you aware of your join date?

That’s not when I started watching lol. just decided to join at that point to correct Conor fanboys.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

I'm,saying strikes from the top should be weighed more than strikes from the bottom

ok. that's very different than "top control should count for more". which is how i read it when you said (and i quote) "A guy on top, damage or not, is clearly in a more dominant position and that should count for something".

 

[revoltub]

ok. that's very different than "top control should count for more". which is how i read it when you said (and i quote) "A guy on top, damage or not, is clearly in a more dominant position and that should count for something".

Well being on top imo is the more dominant position.

Just because you can get subbed from the bottom doesnt mean you arent in the better position.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Okay but the threat of a submission isnt the same as the active motion of a takedown.

And most guys arent werdum. So saying allowing yourself to be taken down is the same as getting a takedown...I just cant agree.

Giving someone who scores a TD based on the 'most guys are not Werdum' belief is really dumb.

Suddenly you have to have judges who know in ADVANCE.whether a guy is great off his back or not. They score the TD but then see 'talk this guy is like Werdum' and the guy who took him down has been in nothing but trouble so I guess I should take those points back.

Look, your entire premise is based on what you believe the guy who scored the TD should be able to do with that position and giving him the points on that potential. Mine is based on watching and seeing and ONLY scoring what he does with that position.

If a striker blocks every TD attempt bu a bjj guy with poor striking he theoretically has a big advantage striking. But I would not give him points for that theoretical advantage if he was not able to pull the trigger. He needs to actually do something with that advantage to gain points in my view and that is where we differ.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm,saying strikes from the top should be weighed more than strikes from the bottom

Because again you want to score the POTENTIAL you see of more damage from a strike from the top as opposed to letting the judge SEE what ACTUALLY does more damage and scoring that.

I agree that the potential for more damage is there but in reality we've seen many guys do more damage from the bottom so I can't fathom why you would blanket give the guy on top more points rather than judging what actually happens.

 

[revoltub]

Giving someone who scores a TD based on the 'most guys are not Werdum' belief is really dumb.

Suddenly you have to have judges who know in ADVANCE.whether a guy is great off his back or not. They score the TD but then see 'talk this guy is like Werdum' and the guy who took him down has been in nothing but trouble so I guess I should take those points back.

Look, your entire premise is based on what you believe the guy who scored the TD should be able to do with that position and giving him the points on that potential. Mine is based on watching and seeing and ONLY scoring what he does with that position.

If a striker blocks every TD attempt bu a bjj guy with poor striking he theoretically has a big advantage striking. But I would not give him points for that theoretical advantage if he was not able to pull the trigger. He needs to actually do something with that advantage to gain points in my view and that is where we differ.

A takedown is a takedown. It should be scored based on its own merit. Not scoring takedowns is simply asinine

 

[revoltub]

Because again you want to score the POTENTIAL you see of more damage from a strike from the top as opposed to letting the judge SEE what ACTUALLY does more damage and scoring that.

I agree that the potential for more damage is there but in reality we've seen many guys do more damage from the bottom so I can't fathom why you would blanket give the guy on top more points rather than judging what actually happens.

I never said to give them more points for doing nothing on top. I'm just saying that all things being equal, the guy on top is in a dominant position.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

Well being on top imo is the more dominant position.

now you're going full circle. so let me ask again:

so in your opinion, getting into a position that could lead to more damaging blows - but then choosing to keep position instead of actually landing any damaging blows (because, you know, throwing blows risks losing said position) - should be heavily weighted by the judges?​

it sounds to me like you've changed your answer to "YES".

do you actually have a concrete opinion? or are you just winging it from response to response? if you don't, that's fine, just let me know and i'll move on.

 

[PEDS Help me Post]

Allow knees to downed opponents....

Also, allow soccer kicks.... that way if you get a takedown stuffed, you can get kicked in the face.


This will benefit the wrestlers in that they can finish more when they get the takedown.... it will also allow fighters to punish wrestlers more when they can't get the takedown, especially the guys who just spam sloppy takedowns with no setups (which is like half the UFC).


And it benefits the fans cause... more violence.



Also, electrify the cage after every 30 seconds of cage stalling. For shits n giggles.

 

[MMAFanatic86]

I don't know man. I think DC and Khabib's style of wrestling is fun to watch. Blame the idiots who hold the double legs against the cage for ridiculous amounts of time or turn into blankets because they're too scared to exchange.