For those who think the current MMA rules favor the wrestler

[Hog-train]

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.

Alternatively, if you were in a real fight on the street being on top does jack shit if you do no damage. You don't score "points" in real life. It's whoever does the most damage.

 

[cshireman4]

I dont like the idea of taking money out of the pocket of fighters during the fight. The card penalties are fine but once these dudes are in the fight, taking 10% off... I rather that not be a thing.

I don't mind it as a concept, but could see where the (un)fair implementation of it could get sketchy in a hurry. I'm actually a big fan of Valentina and generally agree with most of the stuff you post on here. Do you think that point-fighting is a problem currently? Assuming that you believe trying to finish fights when possible is something to be encouraged, are there any alternative solutions that don't come with as much or more baggage?

 

[fedoriswar37]

There's a fair amount of rules on the ground that actively prevent wrestlers from causing damage. So no, I'd say it doesn't benefit them.

 

[HHJ]

I don't mind it as a concept, but could see where the (un)fair implementation of it could get sketchy in a hurry. I'm actually a big fan of Valentina and generally agree with most of the stuff you post on here. Do you think that point-fighting is a problem currently? Assuming that you believe trying to finish fights when possible is something to be encouraged, are there any alternative solutions that don't come with as much or more baggage?

I think theres just gonna be an aspect of fighting that not much can be done about. Even if you scored the fight as a whole Valentina woud have won against Grasso. She won the striking and then cemented it with the ground work. Smart and systematic. I cant say theres something wrong with the system that this can happen, fighting cant always be exciting no matter what the rules are.

If people think in that fight they shoulda stood her up she woulda just done the same shit again.


I will say this. You'd have to be the superior fighter anyway to pull off what Valentina did. She dominated all aspects.

 

[Kungpowking]

I wouldn't say it favors wrestling... but I wouldn't argue against it either.

Pro Wrestling
1. They fight in an Octagon instead of a Boxing ring, this means strikers cannot trap people in corners
2. The Octagon has a fence where you can shot or hold a person against.
3. 5 Minute rounds. Wrestling is a greater energy expenditure.
4. Ground control (without striking or sub attempt) can be allowed for >1min (depending on ref)
5. Takedowns CAN count in judging

Pro Striking
1. No knees to down opponents
2. Start/Restart on the feet
3. Fence grabs are all to common and rarely penalized

Neutral
1. Elbows are legal
2. No shoes. While this hurts wrestlers grip, it also saves from from easy submissions

 

[HHJ]

I wouldn't say it favors wrestling... but I wouldn't argue against it either.

Pro Wrestling
1. They fight in an Octagon instead of a Boxing ring, this means strikers cannot trap people in corners
2. The Octagon has a fence where you can shot or hold a person against.
3. 5 Minute rounds. Wrestling is a greater energy expenditure.
4. Ground control (without striking or sub attempt) can be allowed for >1min (depending on ref)
5. Takedowns CAN count in judging

Pro Striking
1. No knees to down opponents
2. Start/Restart on the feet
3. Fence grabs are all to common and rarely penalized

Neutral
1. Elbows are legal
2. No shoes. While this hurts wrestlers grip, it also saves from from easy submissions

Also the cage makes it easier to get back up if you get taken down

A good striking sprawler could use the knees as well as the wrestlers.

 

[NicholasJBasile]

Alternatively, if you were in a real fight on the street being on top does jack shit if you do no damage. You don't score "points" in real life. It's whoever does the most damage.

Very true -- it goes both ways; in the affirmative, you can fuck someone up off your back (ie Mike Pyle VS Rick Story)

 

[GiganticMeat]

I wouldn't say it favors wrestling... but I wouldn't argue against it either.

Pro Wrestling
1. They fight in an Octagon instead of a Boxing ring, this means strikers cannot trap people in corners
2. The Octagon has a fence where you can shot or hold a person against.
3. 5 Minute rounds. Wrestling is a greater energy expenditure.
4. Ground control (without striking or sub attempt) can be allowed for >1min (depending on ref)
5. Takedowns CAN count in judging

Pro Striking
1. No knees to down opponents
2. Start/Restart on the feet
3. Fence grabs are all to common and rarely penalized

Neutral
1. Elbows are legal
2. No shoes. While this hurts wrestlers grip, it also saves from from easy submissions

Kicks with shoes are also brutal. That's why I always walk around barefoot. In case I have to headkick someone in self defense, it's more likely to only hurt rather than kill them. (I kid, I kid... Or do I?)

 

[jx820]

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.

You've described exactly how the scoring already works. Octagon control is only factored in if there is no clear advantage in damage (striking numbers, knockdowns, broken bones, blood, etc...).

Merab had more total strikes and more significant strikes in all of the first 4 rounds. The score cards generally reflected that. The positional dominance was icing on the cake.

 

[GiganticMeat]

You've described exactly how the scoring already works. Octagon control is only factored in if there is no clear advantage in damage (striking numbers, knockdowns, broken bones, blood, etc...).

Merab had more total strikes and more significant strikes in all of the first 4 rounds. The score cards generally reflected that. The positional dominance was icing on the cake.

I don't mean to comment on the Merab fight because it was okay, but just that if you prevent your opponent from doing anything else, it does essentially default to control time. They're (theoretically, according to my interpretation of reading the rules recently at least) supposed to resort to standups in that case, so there is a workaround

I would assume they recognize or at least think that holding someone down/against the cage is pretty low effort and shouldn't be a dominant/rewarded tactic

Added only August 2023, oddly enough

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Unifed-MMA-Rules-2023-FINAL.pdf

Wonder if they will rewrite/amend any of this in November.

 

[michi972]

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.

But not being able to get up, being heldndown and not going for submissions, sweeps should score? It's mma, wrestling and pins are part of it whether you like it or not

 

[Megatronlee]

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.

It favors striking

 

[Alpha_T83]

But not being able to get up, being heldndown and not going for submissions, sweeps should score? It's mma, wrestling and pins are part of it whether you like it or not

This is the thing that people don't understand: The ground game is like chess. To stand up you need to make a move, take a risk. If someone secures a takedown and just holds you down, and they aren't forced to make a move and be active themselves, then they are at a massive advantage if you are forced to try and stand up. That gives them an opportunity to take your back, or lock in a submission while you stand up.

This is why holding & controlling should score zero points. Because if both fighters just lock themselves into the position, nothing happens. It's stupid and asinine to score points just becomes someone is holding someone else down.

 

[mmsfc2010]

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

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

If a fighters aren' t doing anything in the feet just avoiding takedowns he don't score points if the fighters don't do anything in the ground just holding someone he score points

 

[michi972]

This is the thing that people don't understand: The ground game is like chess. To stand up you need to make a move, take a risk. If someone secures a takedown and just holds you down, and they aren't forced to make a move and be active themselves, then they are at a massive advantage if you are forced to try and stand up. That gives them an opportunity to take your back, or lock in a submission while you stand up.

This is why holding & controlling should score zero points. Because if both fighters just lock themselves into the position, nothing happens. It's stupid and asinine to score points just becomes someone is holding someone else down.

Nonetheless with takedown, you dicate where the fight takes place. It's a control. As much as it's the fight it's a sport and pinning is a huge part of it. It's better than landing nothing

 

[dc007]

It would be more exciting if they allowed knees to the head then the wrestlers could really finish from that position

 

[bambammccoy]

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.

How many years late do u think this is?

 

[Alpha_T83]

Nonetheless with takedown, you dicate where the fight takes place. It's a control. As much as it's the fight it's a sport and pinning is a huge part of it. It's better than landing nothing

Sure, it's better than nothing if nothing else happens. But you are doing nothing if you just hold them down.

As I said, if a fighter is able to hold their opponent down for the whole round and nothing else happens, yes they win the round based on nothing else to score on. But if their opponent is able to stand up and land 3-4 good punches, the person landing actual damage wins the round. That's how modern MMA is being scored and that trend will continue. You saw it in Merab vs O'Malley round 3. O'Malley won that round because Merab's control scored no points on 2 of the judges scorecards.

Anyone that believes Merab won round 3 is an uneducated idiot living in the past, and yes that includes any MMA fighter that thought Merab won round 3.