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

[HHJ]

"waaaaaaaaaaaaah i didnt like this fight so change the rules!"

People should learn how to deal with this rather than change the rules cos they dont wanna learn.

Thats what martial arts is about, bitch

The gracies were beating everyone with their pajamas, but you didnt see Sakuraba be a pussy like you guys and just give up. He hunted the Gracies to extinction.

 

[Vayn Sword]

The problem is that there are fights where neither fighter is really in danger of being finished or sustain damage. They still need somekind of a result.

 

[lagofala]

How is damage fairly judged? For example Wesley Cabbage could take 20 punches to the head to seemingly no effect but Brock flinches taking one.

 

[Captain Herb]

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.

Everything takes effort, getting back up takes effort but the rules only favor the wrestler

 

[Cartiac]

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?

---

Haha yea, that makes a lot of sense. The first think I think of that makes a real fight is a referee, especially the need for a referee to stop the fight and help someone up when their opponent has complete control over them.
If one fighter can just ragdoll the other back down then obviously that fighter must be disqualified because the other guy worked so hard he really deserves it and it is not his fault

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.

My apologies. Those people were definitely wrong for telling you to go watch boxing. You are clearly too dumb for that as well. Go watch SLAP.

 

[sdpdude9]

Wanting a “real” fight and advocating for more rules is hilarious.

 

[188912345]

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

This is ridiculous, of course there was damage.

If you get hit 500+ times, you're going to feel it, even if most of them were light.

In round 3 there were some strong elbows and harder ground and pound, hence why all judges had it 10-8.

Also, even in some of the stalling positions, Khamzat landed knees to Dricus legs and back that gave visible reactions.

It should also be on the losing fighter to risk it more to get out of bad positions, not just focus on survival or hoping the ref will help him up.

 

[sdpdude9]

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.

They actually don’t get points for takedowns by the rules. Control is just favored over being controlled, which it should be. It doesn’t take much to overcome it, a couple good strikes will do it, why is the disdain not aimed to the fighter doing nothing but being thrown on their ass and laying on their back? Why not levy harsher punishments for that?

But let’s pretend takedowns in and of themselves are rewarded. It’s easy to understand. Doing something is worth more than preventing something from happening. It actually incentivizes action, your thoughts actually promote preventing stuff from happening ironically. Prevention is a reward in and of itself as it allows a fighter to stay a neutral position instead of going to a disadvantage one.

It is hilarious to think ruleset that allows for stand ups, resets the fight on the feet every round, and has a damaged based scoring system (I.e. only rewarding strikes) favors anybody but strikers.

 

[Rubios]

Plz, let’s not start calling each other dumb.

For me it’s clear: Dricus deserved to lose, obviously. He literally did nothing. I was just using that fight as a “blueprint.”

I know at least a bit about this sport, and I do get how nasty a crucifix can be. That’s why I find it kinda twisted that in a combat sport, a guy can hold such a potential offensive position for over 21 minutes and still do so little damage, with barely any submission attempts.
And yeah, emphasis on “little”: of course DDP did take some damage, but not much.

I’m terrible with analogies, but it’s like in European football: you don’t get rewarded for 80% possession and controlling the tempo. Only goals matter.

I know, if the ref sees no activity, he resets the fight on the feet. But what if one fighter can just take it down again whenever he wants?

And just to be clear: like another sherdogger said, this is NOT a martial arts competition. I fully respect martial arts. Hell, I even consider myself a martial artist, an awful one, but still.
This is a combat sport.

 

[Rubios]

How is damage fairly judged? For example Wesley Cabbage could take 20 punches to the head to seemingly no effect but Brock flinches taking one.

Oh, I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel here.
When there’s no deliberate robbery going on, boxing usually gets it right.

Judges can pick up on signs (wobbly legs, dizziness, backing up behind a high guard), and of course not every significant strike lands with the same clarity or power. They take that into account.

But they can’t just “see” a fighter’s health bar like it’s a video game character. So they assume the guy who’s eaten 20 clean shots has taken more damage than the one who’s only eaten five.

 

[JBJ was here]

The problem is that there are fights where neither fighter is really in danger of being finished or sustain damage. They still need somekind of a result.

That's why god invented lions.

 

[CasualBot]

... TLDR ?

 

[mjoln]

Mma simulate real fight like sprinting simulate transportation.

 

[KavkazDominance]

The thing is:

If that was a real fight, Khamzat would kill DDP, not only by slamming him on the ground but also by kneeing the fuck out of him once in side control

This is why grappling is annoying. Because in a real fight grappling is brutal. But you're not allowed to do that in the octagon.

 

[Rubios]

The thing is:

If that was a real fight, Khamzat would kill DDP, not only by slamming him on the ground but also by kneeing the fuck out of him once in side control

This is why grappling is annoying. Because in a real fight grappling is brutal. But you're not allowed to do that in the octagon.

Actual question: why didn't he do it, then?
He could not knee Dricus on the head, but could have destroyed his ribs, spleen, liver.

 

[KavkazDominance]

Actual question: why didn't he do it, then?
He could not knee Dricus on the head, but could have destroyed his ribs, spleen, liver.

There is many things that Chimaev could have done in a real fight but is not allowed in the octagon like striking the back of his head or kneeing his head

And what you forget is that being grounded on concrete is way more brutal than in the UFC

The UFC rules protect strikers so that it do not turn into a bloodbath or a murder

 

[NicholasJBasile]

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.’”

---

As it stands, there are a few rules that make MMA very anti-wrestling. Rounds ending and being restarted on the feet, fights being stood up when there is not enough activity, and allowing upkicks to the face on the ground of a standing opponent but not allowing soccer kicks to the head from the standing fighter to a grounded opponent are some that come to mind -- these are factors that would not apply if a real fight were to unfold.

If I fought someone where no one was around and there were no rules, no one is going to make me stand up because I'm not doing enough damage. Also, after a subjective amount of time, no one is going to make me stand up and give the other person a fresh start. However, in a real fight, damage will reign supreme over positional control, which is what the current ruleset reflects.

The ugly truth that no one wants to admit is that if a real fight were to occur between 2 trained professionals and they avoided groin shots, eye pokes, punches to the back of the head, etc, it may simiply not be that entertaining -- grappling is just that prevalent in fighting and folks don't want to accept it. I get it -- watching someone lay on top of someone else is very boring. However, so is watching 2 counter strikers dance around each other. It goes both ways imo.

Thankfully, for those that don't like wrestling in fights, there is kickboxing, bare knuckle boxing, powerslap, etc to keep them entertained. MMA doesn't have to be a sport for everyone.

 

[jeff7b9]

If they allowed knees on the ground, soccer kicks and stomps

- Several positions would immediately change from a stall position to a lethal position.
- North South is the most obvious, as there is very little offense from there with current rules (a few subs, nearly zero damaging striking) but knee would be lethal from there.
- Crucifix is largely boring and stall oriented now but knees make it dangerous ... and could help the bottom fighter escape.

Stomps and soccer kicks not just provide a path to finish but also create natural scramble opportunities.

Elbows create mostly CUTS which are more annoying than anything, they also provide a perfect tool for stalling and holding position, where punches by nature require distance and facilitate scrambles.

 

[Rubios]

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want the UFC to turn into some psycho freakshow like King of the Streets.
Again, IMHO the whole point is to emulate a real fight…

1. While keeping a reasonable level of safety.
2. And making the spectacle entertaining (that’s why we have rounds, for example).

But that safety standard also applies to striking. You can’t hit the trachea or throw headbutts like in Lethwei. They wear mouthguards and small gloves instead of just wraps.

 

[sdpdude9]

As it stands, there are a few rules that make MMA very anti-wrestling. Rounds ending and being restarted on the feet, fights being stood up when there is not enough activity, and allowing upkicks to the face on the ground of a standing opponent but not allowing soccer kicks to the head from the standing fighter to a grounded opponent are some that come to mind -- these are factors that would not apply if a real fight were to unfold.

If I fought someone where no one was around and there were no rules, no one is going to make me stand up because I'm not doing enough damage. Also, after a subjective amount of time, no one is going to make me stand up and give the other person a fresh start. However, in a real fight, damage will reign supreme over positional control, which is what the current ruleset reflects.

The ugly truth that no one wants to admit is that if a real fight were to occur between 2 trained professionals and they avoided groin shots, eye pokes, punches to the back of the head, etc, it may simiply not be that entertaining -- grappling is just that prevalent in fighting and folks don't want to accept it. I get it -- watching someone lay on top of someone else is very boring. However, so is watching 2 counter strikers dance around each other. It goes both ways imo.

Thankfully, for those that don't like wrestling in fights, there is kickboxing, bare knuckle boxing, powerslap, etc to keep them entertained. MMA doesn't have to be a sport for everyone.

Fantastic response. There’s much said about “real” fights without acknowledgement that grappling is very much a part of “real” fights. In the sport there is already anti wrestling rules in place for entertainment purposes.

We don’t need to add even more rules to effectively completely negate grappling. That drives it further away from a “real” fight and further away from what sets it apart from other combat sports which is a blending of all martial arts. We don’t need to neuter the mixed part of mixed martial arts, that’s what makes it what it is.

Yes, grappling can be boring. Striking can be boring too. Sometimes fights are boring. Sometimes you get two skilled guys that largely negate each other and have a dull competition. It is what it is. If you dislike that aspect there are plenty of other options for combat sports.