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

[Rubios]

About grappling and wrestling: beyond GnP, there are takedowns and submission attempts that hurt badly even if they don’t end the fight.
Even if the other dude doesn't tap or not perfectly locked, an omoplata or a kimura hurt, a face crank hurts, a heel hook hurts, a slam-style takedown hurts.

Other moves don’t. Even if they’re great displays of technique and control.
Again: in football you don’t get anything for trying a bicycle kick from outside the box.
And in MMA you don’t get anything for throwing a spinning elbow or a flying kick that doesn’t land.

 

[Captain Herb]

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.

Well whatever the rules actually allow how many times have you heard "He might have stolen the round with that takedown", or " He's losing the fight, he needs a takedown". The judges prefer wrestling criteria over standing criteria and it's hurting the popularity of the sport. Dana doesn't get it and neither do the old school fans and the wrestling enthusiasts but the sport has to evolve to maintain attention.

 

[Vayn Sword]

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.

Suppose Drickus broke Khamzats nose with a strike in the beginning of the 4th round, with the fight otherwise playing out as it did. Would DDP then win based on damage? I don't think so.

 

[sdpdude9]

Well whatever the rules actually allow how many times have you heard "He might have stolen the round with that takedown", or " He's losing the fight, he needs a takedown". The judges prefer wrestling criteria over standing criteria and it's hurting the popularity of the sport. Dana doesn't get it and neither do the old school fans and the wrestling enthusiasts but the sport has to evolve to maintain attention.

It’s funny you say that because those statements are relics of previous rules and do not reflect what actually is scored now because the sport has evolved. You don’t hear that nearly as much now, and you don’t see it reflected in scoring either. A takedown in and of itself only will be the difference maker in an otherwise too close to call round.

 

[Rubios]

Suppose Drickus broke Khamzats nose with a strike in the beginning of the 4th round, with the fight otherwise playing out as it did. Would DDP then win based on damage? I don't think so.

Neither do I.

"(...) 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."

 

[AmonTobin]

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.’”

---

I guarantee you Dricus had a sore head at the end of all that. It might not have looked like much but those blows (big and small) added up. I think the cumulative damage Khamzat inflicted, is being criminally overlooked.

 

[Rubios]

I guarantee you Dricus had a sore head at the end of all that. It might not have looked like much but those blows (big and small) added up. I think the cumulative damage Khamzat inflicted, is being criminally overlooked.

Yes, you’re right, of course. I was exaggerating for the sake of an argument that, IMHO, still makes sense. Or not. For me, at least, it does.
And I think maybe we’ve arrived at something.

As several of you have pointed out, I also believe it’s irrefutable that wrestling/grappling are the superior disciplines in a fight.
And it would be a perversion to “nerf” that aspect of mixed martial arts.

However, in several sports, not only is passivity prevented, it is actually PENALIZED. It’s a foul.
In handball, for example. Or in basketball: you have 8 seconds to cross half court, you can’t go back, and 24 to attempt a shot. Or 4 downs to advance 10 yards.
The rules themselves force you to be offensive, not to stall.

And the penalty is not to reset the fight standing, which would be the equivalent of a neutral jump ball in basketball. It’s a foul and/or possession for the other team.

The analogue in MMA would be deducting points from the fighter for passivity.
And, of course, the same would apply in striking stinkers like Francis - Lewis, Adesanya - Romero, or Rose - Carla.

 

[2004 account]

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.’”

---

I propose you update fiction with rendition in your title. Makes more sense

 

[Rubios]

I propose you update fiction with rendition in your title. Makes more sense

English is not my native tongue (obviously), so I don't know if my ironic sense should be tingling.

I tried to convey "the closer it gets within a reasonably safe frame". And more entertaining, I'd add.

Could "simulacrum" work?
As far as I know, a rendition is a performance, right?

 

[Cartiac]

Well whatever the rules actually allow how many times have you heard "He might have stolen the round with that takedown", or " He's losing the fight, he needs a takedown". The judges prefer wrestling criteria over standing criteria and it's hurting the popularity of the sport. Dana doesn't get it and neither do the old school fans and the wrestling enthusiasts but the sport has to evolve to maintain attention.

You hear that in rounds where there has been no clear display of effective striking or grappling from either fighter so executing a takedown, not just a level change, is a very clear display of effective grappling. In reality the rules and judging favor standing, striking because it is much easier to see immediate impact in that case. On the feet it is very easy to see someone's head get rocked backwards, their legs buckle, or fall down when hit with an effective strike, on the ground it is often hard to notice even when someone has been rendered unconscious.
There are many more boring standing fights with people dancing around each other keeping more distance between them and less attempts to touch each other than at a middle school dance than there are boring wrestling matches.

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

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?

Khamzat did inflict more damage so what in the fuck are you babbling about

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

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.

This would make sense if DDP got taken down and did damage from bottom, threatened subs or popped back up quickly. He did none of this so what in the fuck would your assertion be specifically about DDP vs Khamzat in this regard? you simpleton casual moron retard and even worse?

 

[Rubios]

(...)
There are many more boring standing fights with people dancing around each other keeping more distance between them and less attempts to touch each other than at a middle school dance than there are boring wrestling matches.

Probably. When I talk about penalizing (not just trying to prevent) passivity and forcing offense (“activity” is too vague), as happens in other sports, I’m referring to all the scenarios where a fight takes place: standing, on the ground, against the cage.

And in the case of a very, very close round, yes: a takedown, as a proactive and offensive action, can tip the balance.

 

[Rubios]

Khamzat did inflict more damage so what in the fuck are you babbling about

Thanks for the kind words.
I’ve made it more than clear that I’m using that fight to illustrate an argument.
Of course, there’s no universe where Khamzat didn’t win, and of course he inflicted much more damage, even if not "much" in absolute terms.

 

[Cartiac]

The analogue in MMA would be deducting points from the fighter for passivity.
And, of course, the same would apply in striking stinkers like Francis - Lewis, Adesanya - Romero, or Rose - Carla.

There is a penalty in MMA for grappling passivity, but only against the fighter in the top position, which creates a reward for passivity by the fighter in the bottom position. The problem with that was made extremely obvious in the Khamzat vs DDP fight. Khamzat was extremely active but under these current rules DDP has nothing to gain from trying to fight back at all, it is in his best interest to not fight and be as inactive as possible in hopes the ref will be his takedown defense.
I also don't think deducting points would make much difference, DDP knew he was losing the rounds badly so taking points means nothing. As I have suggested before, I think implementing Pride red cards would be the best strategy against passivity. DDP would likely have tried a lot harder to get up and fight back if lying there was costing him 10% of his pay each round.

 

[chinarice]

If you can't get out of a position and just stall, it should be an automatic loss for the person on the bottom. There, problem solved for sll you crybabies that want to watch kickboxing.

 

[Vayn Sword]

Neither do I.

"(...) 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."

What kind of damage, in your opinion, would DDP have had to inflict to win the fight?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Legalize all banned moves/fouls. Bam, done!

 

[HHJ]

Legalize all banned moves/fouls. Bam, done!

You wanted Khamzat to oil check Dricus?

 

[2004 account]

English is not my native tongue (obviously), so I don't know if my ironic sense should be tingling.

I tried to convey "the closer it gets within a reasonably safe frame". And more entertaining, I'd add.

Could "simulacrum" work?
As far as I know, a rendition is a performance, right?

It's cool, I see you edited it and used the best word out of all, simulation. Although rendition kinda worked better than fiction, simulation is the best word for this conext. Cheers from this English teacher teaching in South America, you're doing fine buddy.