For those who think the current MMA rules favor the wrestler

[Doctor Grudge]

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.

If a fighter rocks someone on the feet and the bell rings, then that fighter is saved also. That is how rounds work, that isn't a bias against ground fighting.

And my example affects the outcome of the fight a lot more.

 

[BowserJr]

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.

People are paying to see action. A takedown and holding with no real offense is a stalemate at best and actually a defensive tactic at best.

If the guy on bottom is throwing more strikes and submission attempts he's the aggressor, compared to a top guy that's barely doing anything other than passing guard and getting put back in guard

 

[Dr. Rose]

Very rarely see stand ups nowadays though sir.

True, but it is still there, potentially.

 

[AmonTobin]

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.

The simple answer is do something about that. Don't let someone "blanket hump" you for 4:57. You've weighed in the same and you've got 2 arms and legs just like the other guy.

 

[deviake]

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.

You could invert that argument and say okay, but if there were no time limits...

But anyway, allowing all strikes (except to the back of the head) would help shore things up and give wrestlers an advantage too.

The issue isn't grappling, it's stalling and running the clock. It's legal, it is what it is and the person on bottom has to be able to deal with it and fast enough to win points, it's just not fun to watch. Stalling is different from the competitors canceling each other out, which, although it can be boring is understandable and forgivable when they're both trying to win.

Strikers have adapted well to wrestling but there will always be matches when someone has good enough grappling to hold someone else down. GSP held down D1 wrestlers. That's fine as long as they're trying to win, but people will always be unhappy if they think someone is stalling.

Control I think should be scored as with takedowns. If nothing happens in the round but one person controls the other, that person wins. A prize fight will never be perfect, it has to have rules and a time limit.

 

[AmonTobin]

If a fighter rocks someone on the feet and the bell rings, then that fighter is saved also. That is how rounds work, that isn't a bias against ground fighting.

And my example affects the outcome of the fight a lot more.

Not quite. From the POV of a striker who was trapped on the ground, it's a free out. From the POV of the striker who was almost KO'd it's a free out.
From the POV of the grappler who had him trapped, it's a complete reset. From the POV of the striker lighting someone up, id argue they’re the closest to resuming their position at the start of the next round, and picking up where they left off.

There could be a solution to being saved by the bell. If a fighter is in the middle of a fight-ending sequence (submission or TKO) at the end of the round, the sequence could be allowed to play out before the fighters are separated and can return to their corner. This might be a problem for another day though.

 

[AmonTobin]

You could invert that argument and say okay, but if there were no time limits...

But anyway, allowing all strikes (except to the back of the head) would help shore things up and give wrestlers an advantage too.

The issue isn't grappling, it's stalling and running the clock. It's legal, it is what it is and the person on bottom has to be able to deal with it and fast enough to win points, it's just not fun to watch. Stalling is different from the competitors canceling each other out, which, although it can be boring is understandable and forgivable when they're both trying to win.

Strikers have adapted well to wrestling but there will always be matches when someone has good enough grappling to hold someone else down. GSP held down D1 wrestlers. That's fine as long as they're trying to win, but people will always be unhappy if they think someone is stalling.

Control I think should be scored as with takedowns. If nothing happens in the round but one person controls the other, that person wins. A prize fight will never be perfect, it has to have rules and a time limit.

Right, cancelling each other out or "stalemate" is something that happens and you can't fault anyone for that. But stalling is something that should be addressed in real time by the ref, following specific criteria.
I disagree that takedowns should be scored. They shouldn't score takedowns and they shouldn't score someone getting back up. It's up to you where you take the fight and what brings you the advantage. A takedown should be a means to an end. The fruits of your successful takedown are what score.

 

[Thepaintbucket]

I've always hated lnp game plans regardless of who's doing it. The response is always for X fighter to learn how to get out of the bottom position or get better takedown defense. Yeah dude, all you got to do is channel your inner Gordon Ryan and then maybe you can escape from a high caliber grappling expert on top of you whose probably not going to overextend but to maintain top position and do as little as possible to keep it from being stood up

Control in the context of scoring should always be a supplement addon to damage and attempted finishes. If you maintain control throughout the fight and do nothing with it you might as well just call it a stalemate

In the case of merab vs o'malley, Merab did plenty so I wouldn't call that LnP

 

[omawho402]

Very rarely see stand ups nowadays though sir.

Right, I was just about to say there aren't enough stand-ups.

 

[StonedLemur]

Right, I was just about to say there aren't enough stand-ups.

Unfortunately all that does is reward the guy that couldn't get up though sir.

 

[omawho402]

Unfortunately all that does is reward the guy that couldn't get up though sir.

I agree, but in reality this isn't just fighting. This is entertainment also. If you hold somebody down for more than a couple minutes and can't do any meaningful damage or lock a close submission then stand the fight up. I see grapplers that hold guys down and not do damage as timidity, which if you are on the feet is against the rules. It should be against the rules on the ground also.

 

[deviake]

Right, cancelling each other out or "stalemate" is something that happens and you can't fault anyone for that. But stalling is something that should be addressed in real time by the ref, following specific criteria.
I disagree that takedowns should be scored. They shouldn't score takedowns and they shouldn't score someone getting back up. It's up to you where you take the fight and what brings you the advantage. A takedown should be a means to an end. The fruits of your successful takedown are what score.

Good point about takedowns, I agree.

The refs work to address stalling it's just not perfect and varies by the ref. Up-kicks and knees when both people are down would help a bit.

 

[ticho123]

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.

Round start favors strikers but the cage favors grapplers - it takes a lot less to push someone up against the cage than it does to avoid it for the entire round. And the way the current scoring works even if you fail the takedown you're still winning the round as long as you're the one holding onto your opponent - even if it's your opponent throwing the rabbit punches.

Lack of grounded knees is sometimes said to be another rule that favors wrestlers since it's a tool to punish failed takwdown attempts from a sprawl. However, knees on the ground is a strong tool for grapplers as well so I don't think that's necessarily true. However I'm all for adding them since it overall would make the game more offensive, and since it's not a tool you can use from closed guard or the wall n stall then it would give the grapplers more incentive to actually pass the guard.

 

[blaseblase]

The scoring system already deals with lay n prayers. Just holding top position doesn't win rounds anymore. If the fighter on bottom is locking up subs or landing strikes and the fighter on top isn't doing anything the fighter on bottom is winning. Sean and Grasso just didn't have any offense off of their back. They are just not well rounded enough and their opponents were doing more.

 

[NicholasJBasile]

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.

I'm glad you make this thread because I agree 100% and it drives me insane that this point isn't made more often. If you were in a real fight outside of competition, there would be no 5 minute marker to restart the fight on the feet much less some referee to stand the fight up. These are great luxories for strikers that are taken for granted. This is made even more apparent in amateur fights where there are 2-3 minute rounds and grapplers may take 2-3 minutes to actually get a takedown. Strikers have always had a major advantage in the rules once the sport got sanctioned and even before then.

 

[nonoob]

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.

"Wrestlers are exploiting the fact that MMA is time based".​

Warrior fighters eliminate opponents ASAP with No Regard for time.

Fight starts - if a REAL fighter doesn't see a KO shot available but sees a chance for a take down, BAM, then jumps on savage GnP to end it, the Just Bleed Gods smile as Lay and Pray is reserved for only weaker opponents!

Plus, Phukk "gamma" and Phukk "meta" descriptions. If they truly need new-age terminology to make a point, point was already made.

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.

Legalizing upkicks and knees from any position would be the best change they can make to reduce wrestlefucking

Agree.

 

[AMAZINGUFC]

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.

Completely favor when opponent is sleeping on top. Upkicks from guard must be allowed.

 

[RockyLockridge]

The rules favor strikers if anything IMO

 

[SuperAlly]

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.

Still crying about poodle hair

Time is the real healer, don’t worry, you’ll get there

 

[SuperAlly]

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.

It’s borderline retarded to argue otherwise

I can argue up is down, doesn’t make me fucking right