For those who think the current MMA rules favor the wrestler

[AmonTobin]

They don’t. The rules favour cardio. But they always have.

We can debate about how control time is scored or not scored, but keep in mind:

The fight has a mandatory stand up to start each round. Not only that, but if the wrestler still has his opponent pinned or grounded at the end of the round, he doesn't get to keep that position and that momentum, going into the next round.

The bottom line is MMA fighters need to learn how to deal with a wrestling/grappling threat, just like the successful wrestlers learned how to deal with the striking and the submission grappling. It goes both ways.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Disagree.

Control should score zero points. You should need to open up for strikes and submission attempts. Rabbit punches while holding don't count.

You should have to take risks on the ground to score points. But guys like Merab aren't interested in risks, because then you can lose control.

 

[Nobru]

well I am in between the two above

yeah, fighters should learn to better defend tds and also work on their ground game, its mma after all

but sitting on someone should score no points. hitting your opponent with those meaningless strikes while sitting on him shouldnt count for much either

we want blood and the intention to finish your opponent. not ugly fights fought by the book

 

[AmonTobin]

Disagree.

Control should score zero points. You should need to open up for strikes and submission attempts. Rabbit punches while holding don't count.

You should have to take risks on the ground to score points. But guys like Merab aren't interested in risks, because then you can lose control.

well I am in between the two above

yeah, fighters should learn to better defend tds and also work on their ground game, its mma after all

but sitting on someone should score no points. hitting your opponent with those meaningless strikes while sitting on him shouldnt count for much either

we want blood and the intention to finish your opponent. not ugly fights fought by the book

I happen to agree as I see it as a means to an end. But if there is nothing else to score in a round, then I think control time has to be considered.

 

[humdizzle]

rules do favor wrestlers. downed opponents are protected from knees and kicks. just look at how aljo fights. failed or stuffed TD and you just sit down so you can't get kneed.

for a wrestler if would only be an advantage if you are in half gaurd and throwing knees at the guy under you.

alexa could have kicked val in the face from guard.

 

[AmonTobin]

rules do favor wrestlers. downed opponents are protected from knees and kicks. just look at how aljo fights. failed or stuffed TD and you just sit down so you can't get kneed.

for a wrestler if would only be an advantage if you are in half gaurd and throwing knees at the guy under you.

alexa could have kicked val in the face from guard.

I would like to see the rule change but I disagree. The current no knees rule limits everybody not just strikers. It protects everybody on the ground not just wrestlers. I would love to see how things play out with knees being allowed. It will make fights more exciting that's for sure.

 

[CombatCyborg]

I would like to see the rule change but I disagree. The current no knees rule limits everybody not just strikers. It protects everybody on the ground not just wrestlers. I would love to see how things play out with knees being allowed. It will make fights more exciting that's for sure.

Yeah even if grounded knees to the head help wrestlers more, they should still change that rule because it would create more opportunities for action in the fight which is what people are complaining about. Legalizing upkicks and knees from any position would be the best change they can make to reduce wrestlefucking.

 

[Dr. Rose]

If the MMA ruleset favored wrestling, there would be no stand ups, period. Tough shit if someone can hold you down... learn to get back up.

 

[AmonTobin]

Yeah even if grounded knees to the head help wrestlers more, they should still change that rule because it would create more opportunities for action in the fight which is what people are complaining about. Legalizing upkicks and knees from any position would be the best change they can make to reduce wrestlefucking.

Agree. It's crazy that you can't upkick from your back if someone is on you. Bullshit rule.
That being said there's probably very specific concerns about it, such as someone in a north-south sort of position getting a heel slammed in the back of their head.

 

[StonedLemur]

Growing up wrestling "ride time" accumulated, and points were rewarded.
And for wrestling that's fine, but in MMA control time should only define a round if there's nothing else to score.

Like @Nobru said, damage/meaningful strikes and or subs should be attempted since stand ups are so rare for inactivity nowadays.

What Merab does is play with his food, much like Colby.
They know they have the cardio advantage so they fuckin drown you...yet never go for the kill, even after they've broken you.

I also believe you need to have the skills to get the fuck up, or attempt a sweep.
Sean did fuck all, nor did he look like he had a clue as to what to do in that situation.
He looked like he had never wrestled before.

I would say stand ups for inactivity could fix the issue, but all that's doing is rewarding the guy on bottom for lacking the skills to get the fuck out of there.

Im a huge fan of GNP so guys who are good at wrestling and are shit at it fuckin kill me.
That's MMA though I suppose.
I do wish knees to a grounded opponent would be a thing again, I guess I'll cross my fingers sir.

 

[StonedLemur]

If the MMA ruleset favored wrestling, there would be no stand ups, period. Tough shit if someone can hold you down... learn to get back up.

Very rarely see stand ups nowadays though sir.

 

[Pitier of Fools]

If fighters aren't doing anything on the feet, will the ref put them on the ground?

The rules slightly favor strikers, and I don't even think it's debatable.

 

[Nobru]

I happen to agree as I see it as a means to an end. But if there is nothing else to score in a round, then I think control time has to be considered.

well im not against control at all, its mma. What I dont like is fighters comfortable into just sitting on someone throwing meaningless strikes and, even worse, these being somehow scored as 'significant strikes'

if really nothing else happens in a said round, yeah give it to the control guy, theres no option left and at least he had some sort of advantage over his opponent

my problem is 'significant strikes' x 'real damage'. I have witnessed too many decisions in which the winner has his face destroyed and the loser doesnt have a scratch, but was 'controlled'

 

[Gratis]

The fight has a mandatory stand up to start each round. Not only that, but if the wrestler still has his opponent pinned or grounded at the end of the round, he doesn't get to keep that position and that momentum, going into the next round.

1. It isn't "mandatory stand up". It's the natural position for human beings. We walk and stand upright.

2. Restarting the next round in the same position as when the previous round ended completely defeats the purpose of dividing a fight into rounds. If a fighter is getting their ass kicked in striking when the round ends, should they have to restart the next round in that position too? Plenty of fighters have been "saved by the bell" in that regard. It's a ridiculous excuse.

 

[Safton]

Everyone likes to say that the current crop of sticky wrestlers "exploit the Unified Rules" but they never manage to explain how or why.

Methinks it's probably because they don't understand how the Unified Rules actually work.

 

[-Sideways-]

TS argument is that rounds start on the feet. A decent wrestler can change that in about 3 seconds, followed by 4:57 of blanket humping.

 

[Doctor Grudge]

We can debate about how control time is scored or not scored, but keep in mind:

The fight has a mandatory stand up to start each round. Not only that, but if the wrestler still has his opponent pinned or grounded at the end of the round, he doesn't get to keep that position and that momentum, going into the next round.

The bottom line is MMA fighters need to learn how to deal with a wrestling/grappling threat, just like the successful wrestlers learned how to deal with the striking and the submission grappling. It goes both ways.

Fights start standing in real life also, how else would they start? Even if both fighters started crouched, one guy could just stand up.


The argument about the round thing makes no sense, as that applies to stand up fighters too. That isn't a bias toward wrestling that everything is reset.


There are a lot of rules that allow wrestlers to hang around an opponents leg knowing their opponent cant strike them with legal blows.

If you could punch to the back of the head, knee to a grounded opponent, or kick a downed opponent, a lot of the stalling type of tactics that wrestlers use wouldn't be viable anymore. A wrestler can press someone against the cage, put their knees on the ground, and hang around down low until he gets the takedown with no striking oriented repercussion.

I'm not saying you should be able to strike to the back of the head, but trying to make it seem like the rules favor strikers because they start on the feet is ridiculous. Wrestling matches start with both wrestlers on their feet also.

 

[Doctor Grudge]

While we're on the topic of rounds, the reason why "wrestling" (the type where you simply pin someone and don't strike or submit) is not really fighting isn't because control is a bad thing.

It's because wrestlers are exploiting the fact that MMA is time based. They are essentially stalling so time can run out, and they win by default due to their opponent not being able to do that much. They're making it a different game based on the rules, and the only reason why time limits exist is for commercial reasons, not balance.

You can certainly argue it goes against the spirit that MMA is trying to be a fight. Lay and Pray is gamifying and is a meta tactic.

 

[GiganticMeat]

I happen to agree as I see it as a means to an end. But if there is nothing else to score in a round, then I think control time has to be considered.

There is nothing else to consider if someone stalls the entire round out with control though.

They're preventing action as much as someone who is fast enough to avoid being touched on the feet the entire time. They don't score points for being untouchable.

Yeah that is approaching ridiculous. You could argue it favors wrestlers because fights aren't in a wide open field for the "striker" to run the entire time.

Being held down is tiring huh... Chasing after someone is tiring too. Default win?

 

[AmonTobin]

1. It isn't "mandatory stand up". It's the natural position for human beings. We walk and stand upright.

2. Restarting the next round in the same position as when the previous round ended completely defeats the purpose of dividing a fight into rounds. If a fighter is getting their ass kicked in striking when the round ends, should they have to restart the next round in that position too? Plenty of fighters have been "saved by the bell" in that regard. It's a ridiculous excuse.

It's a mandatory stand up because they were grounded at the end of the round.
My point is someone who wasn't able to escape by their own means gets the free escape anyway at the start of each round.
I'm not suggesting I want the round to return to the same position as the previous round ended, I'm merely stating how it is.