Hello gang,
I was just thinking about the lack of uniformity in criteria when it comes to stopping fights, and that in order to really become mainstream, fights should be stopped earlier.
Take these two examples, for instance. In my opinion, the Almeida stoppage was spot on, maybe even a tad late - I guess giving an opinion on the Magny stoppage is utterly pointless:
Ex. 1:
Ex. 2:
In nearly every other sport, referees have specific guidelines to go by: e.g. in football (or soccer for you 'Muricans out there), any tackle from behind will result in a yellow card, in basketball, any form of contact when driving for the basket will result in a foul. Clearly in MMA, there is no established rule, seeing how soon and/or late fights are stopped, even by the same referees.
However, what I am insinuating is that, in order for MMA to evolve globally and to be seen as a SPORT, stopages need to come quicker: the Almeida-Jabouin bout was a FIGHT; while the Magny-Lombard bout was a MAULING (assault, beatdown, sadism, call it what you will).
Often, when fighters are hurt, referees will let them take beatings for another 10 to 15 seconds before stopping fights, with basically nothing really happening apart from the beaten fighters having their faces smashed even harder.
I feel that in order for MMA to rise in popularity, beatdowns such as Magny's over Lombard must be avoided at all cost. Stopping fights earlier instead of letting fighters get destroyed would improve the face of the sport, making it more appealing to the masses.
Heck, as far as I'm concerned, I would be fine even with boxing eight-counts and rope-escapes from submissions, similar to how Pancrase used to work back in the day.
I would love to hear your input on the matter.
I was just thinking about the lack of uniformity in criteria when it comes to stopping fights, and that in order to really become mainstream, fights should be stopped earlier.
Take these two examples, for instance. In my opinion, the Almeida stoppage was spot on, maybe even a tad late - I guess giving an opinion on the Magny stoppage is utterly pointless:
Ex. 1:
Ex. 2:
In nearly every other sport, referees have specific guidelines to go by: e.g. in football (or soccer for you 'Muricans out there), any tackle from behind will result in a yellow card, in basketball, any form of contact when driving for the basket will result in a foul. Clearly in MMA, there is no established rule, seeing how soon and/or late fights are stopped, even by the same referees.
However, what I am insinuating is that, in order for MMA to evolve globally and to be seen as a SPORT, stopages need to come quicker: the Almeida-Jabouin bout was a FIGHT; while the Magny-Lombard bout was a MAULING (assault, beatdown, sadism, call it what you will).
Often, when fighters are hurt, referees will let them take beatings for another 10 to 15 seconds before stopping fights, with basically nothing really happening apart from the beaten fighters having their faces smashed even harder.
I feel that in order for MMA to rise in popularity, beatdowns such as Magny's over Lombard must be avoided at all cost. Stopping fights earlier instead of letting fighters get destroyed would improve the face of the sport, making it more appealing to the masses.
Heck, as far as I'm concerned, I would be fine even with boxing eight-counts and rope-escapes from submissions, similar to how Pancrase used to work back in the day.
I would love to hear your input on the matter.
