How to make MMA a more convincing "simulation" of a real fight (damage > everything else) ?

[Rubios]

First things first: I’m not that dumb to not recognize and admit that Khamzat obviously and clearly won the fight against DDP.
But there’s something…

Luke Thomas and/or Brian Campbell usually have pretty dumb takes, to put it nicely.
But the other day I actually heard something that made a lot of sense, IMHO. It went something like this:
‘If you take the fight to the ground, it’s because you want it to happen there. Taking your opponent down shouldn’t have absolute value per se.
And if on the ground you get a dominant position, it’s to use it offensively. That position by itself doesn’t have inherent value either.’

Sure, it’s debatable, but overall I agree.
And I’m not anti-wrestling or grappling: I loved Khabib, i.e.
Even Rogan’s goofy idea that if a round ends on the ground the next one should restart in the same position—while super hard to implement—doesn’t sound completely crazy to me.

I think MMA should aim to emulate a “real fight” with reasonable safety rules and some concessions that make it more entertaining. Rounds, for example, improve fight quality.
And yeah, standing fighters up when the ref determines inactivity on the ground looks like a solution on paper.
But… what happens if one fighter can just ragdoll the other back down at will?

To me, it feels like a perversion of the sport that Khamzat wins by overwhelming domination in what’s supposed to be the closest simulation (within civilized limits) to a real fight—because outside the cage, that’s basically what it would’ve looked like:

(DDP walks into the gym):
‘Sorry I’m late… I got into a fight and got completely dominated for 21 minutes straight.’
– ‘But are you okay?’
– ‘Well… my whole body’s gonna hurt for a couple days, but otherwise I can train, no problem. Let’s just keep it light today, please.’”

---

 

[Get To Da Choppa]

I think MMA should aim to emulate a “real fight” with reasonable safety rules and some concessions that make it more entertaining. Rounds, for example, improve fight quality.
And yeah, standing fighters up when the ref determines inactivity on the ground looks like a solution on paper.
But… what happens if one fighter can just ragdoll the other back down at will?

---

I see you are a fan of the old school

Also what you are proposing is akin to Pride judging, where damage >>> control

 

[Kung Fu Kowboy]

To The Death Georges

 

[Tito Tapped]

Nah I'd rather it be about the display of martial arts effectiveness than who's got the bloodier nose or flinched harder after getting punched.

 

[Rubios]

I see you are a fan of the old school

Also what you are proposing is akin to Pride judging, where damage >>> control

N...no, because I'm fine with the boxing-like scoring of every round. So if fighter A wins 4 but gets a beating in the 5th, he wins unless he's getting finished.

But a huge discrepancy in the scorecards in a fight where no one gets hurt feels odd to me.

 

[Rubios]

Nah I'd rather it be about the display of martial arts effectiveness than who's got the bloodier nose or flinched harder after getting punched.

Not dying on my hill, I could be totally wrong.

To keep it straight: European soccer is about scoring more goals than the other team. Basketball is about scoring more buckets.

I think MMA should be about inflicting more damage, BUT scored round by round as if each round was a match. Does it make sense?

 

[laleggenda27]

1. Not sure where the Luke Thomas hate is coming from. The guy is clearly one of the most intelligent mma analysts out there, both in an absolute sense and in terms of mma breakdowns.
2. It seems to me that the emphasis in mma should be on damage and action that potentially leads to fight-ending sequences. In theory, that's what the judging criteria already prioritizes. In practice, where it falls short is the refereeing. People often refer to "Pride rules" generally, but it was the refereeing that made it work. Pride's referees didn't play around; they forced the action to progress.

 

[Caio]

Damage can also be subjective. White guys like Fedor and GSP get bruised and cut more easily. Or a fighter can have no sign of injury and be fucked up internally.

The current rules are fine. I would like to see zero tolerance to eyepokes, instant point deduction. Tough luck if it wasn't intentional.

Maybe also 3 min rounds instead of 5. Guys would have more instructions from their teams and more gas. It could improve the fights.

And there should be more draws.

 

[Rubios]

Damage can also be subjective. White guys like Fedor and GSP get bruised and cut more easily. Or a fighter can have no sign of injury and be fucked up internally.

The current rules are fine. I would like to see zero tolerance to eyepokes, instant point deduction. Tough luck if it wasn't intentional.

Maybe also 3 min rounds instead of 5. Guys would have more instructions from their teams and more gas. It could improve the fights.

And there should be more draws.

Boxing, when not... well, almost "scripted", usually gets it right.
It's not about cuts, bruises or blood, but volume of total and significant strikes.

Being on the mat doesn't hurt, unless you're getting G'n'Pounded or submitted.
Attempting a sub should reward a fighter if i.e. an armbar or a kimura doesn't make his opponent tap, because his elbow or shoulder are fooked to some extent.
Or a facecrank. Because it hurts.
Attempting a D'Arce, unless the judges see the opponent feeling dizzy on his way to the stool, is like attempting a flying knee that doesn't land.
Looks great, but does no harm.

 

[mmacrisis]

This goes along with a 10 point round. Fighters should start with zero point they need to be earned. Taken down, 1 point. Reverse position 1 point, striking dominance in a round, points. Submission attempt points....Wouldn't be hard to do and with all the instant videos they have easy to manage as well.

 

[Tweak896]

I think some cases the takedown should score more than others. Mainly for fights where the question of who the better wrestler is, like DC/Jones or Khamzat/Usman. That can never be a special rule, so I appreciate the current criteria. But sometimes the whole point of a fight is who can take down who.

 

[Dr. Rose]

1. Not sure where the Luke Thomas hate is coming from. The guy is clearly one of the most intelligent mma analysts out there, both in an absolute sense and in terms of mma breakdowns.
2. It seems to me that the emphasis in mma should be on damage and action that potentially leads to fight-ending sequences. In theory, that's what the judging criteria already prioritizes. In practice, where it falls short is the refereeing. People often refer to "Pride rules" generally, but it was the refereeing that made it work. Pride's referees didn't play around; they forced the action to progress.

I think part of the Thomas issue is that he comes across as arrogant and elitist.

 

[laleggenda27]

I think part of the Thomas issue is that he comes across as arrogant and elitist.

I'm not sure where the "elitist" accusation come from, but he's definitely arrogant.

 

[Black Blood]

DDP didn't do anything whatsoever to negate the top control. He was trying too, but just had nothing for Khamzat. If nothing happens whatsoever, but one guy gets a takedown and the other guy flounders on the ground...

 

[Captain Herb]

‘If you take the fight to the ground, it’s because you want it to happen there. Taking your opponent down shouldn’t have absolute value per se.
And if on the ground you get a dominant position, it’s to use it offensively. That position by itself doesn’t have inherent value either.’

---

I made a thread on the exact same idea the next day and I was called a simpleton, a casual, a moron, a retard, and even worse. I was told to watch boxing instead because I was too dumb to appreciate the details of techniques I didn't even know the names of. But no one ever explained why a grappler gets points for taking the fight to the ground but a striker doesn't get points for keeping it standing, or why a grappler gets points for stalling on the ground but a striker doesn't get points for clinching on the fence. The rules that shamelessly favor wrestlers and grapplers over strikers need to be revisited to produce an exciting product that most people want to watch.

 

[italiamusica]

If a fighter can get taken down and never get back up, then they're a shitty fighter. MMA is about all aspects of fighting. Maybe the UFC could be less greedy assholes and have more bonuses for KO's or submissions, then there would be more incentive.

 

[italiamusica]

I made a thread on the exact same idea the next day and I was called a simpleton, a casual, a moron, a retard, and even worse. I was told to watch boxing instead because I was too dumb to appreciate the details of techniques I didn't even know the names of. But no one ever explained why a grappler gets points for taking the fight to the ground but a striker doesn't get points for keeping it standing, or why a grappler gets points for stalling on the ground but a striker doesn't get points for clinching on the fence. The rules that shamelessly favor wrestlers and grapplers over strikers need to be revisited to produce an exciting product that most people want to watch.

To me it's because every fight starts standing, it's a neutral position, and taking someone down takes actual effort. Especially to keep them down, so it should be rewarded points.

 

[Dr. Rose]

I'm not sure where the "elitist" accusation come from, but he's definitely arrogant.

They kind of go hand in hand, but I get your point. Elitist to some because it seems like he thinks his opinions are the only that matters. That still might just covered under though.

 

[Bowel-forged Stool]

Stand and bang. It’s that simple.

If a dagastani comes along, you’ve got to get a better sprawl so you can catch that jaw

 

[djason1988]

I think we need some sort of impetus for the person in control to actually deal damage. In the end, it's a fight, not a game. At the least, we try to market it as such, and that's what people pay to see.

As it stands, UFC is hurting because guys are winning positionally without ever really trying to do damage or finish the fight. They've figured out how to stay just busy enough to avoid a stand up. That completely goes against the spirit of mma, imo.

I was horribly disappointed in khamzat. Not in his skills, as he put on an incredibly dominant performance, but in his out-of-character refusal to pursue any meaningful offense. The man won no fans that night.