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

[Only Here for Attachments]

You wanted Khamzat to oil check Dricus?

Pretty sure that's haram

 

[Khaosan]

Whoever hurts the other person more wins. One punch should negate 4:59 of ground control with no damage.

When in doubt, ask yourself which fighter you would rather have been if it were you in the fight.

Don’t @ me.

 

[jeff7b9]

What happened to fiction?

Yall can't just be reclassìfying shit with no respect for the Dewey decimal system like that

The fuck is wrong with you?

 

[Rubios]

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.

Ok. My favorite fighters are JJ, GSP, DJ, Khabib, Islam… just so you know.
Don’t assume things I haven’t said, because despite my broken English I’ve tried to be pretty clear about my stance.

Forcing offensive activity* works both ways, of course. DDP would also be penalized for not trying to reverse the position.
Rules that required DDP to try to turn the situation around would create openings for Khamzat, and forcing Khamzat into greater offensive activity would open opportunities for DDP to scramble or stand up. By himself.

Many sports require constantly attacking. Handball, basketball, American football.
I know those are team sports. The analogy is still valid. European football, for example, allows passivity and stalling, and that’s why, although at times it can be the most incredible sport in the world, it’s often a snoozefest.

That forcing the attack, by simple cause-and-effect, also prevents defensive passivity is something obvious you would have figured out in 10 seconds if you hadn’t decided beforehand that I’m a 'tard.

We can disagree. That doesn’t make me nor my opinion stupid.


*Forcing to attack—my stance—means treating passivity as an infraction. Preventing passivity, as it happens now, is just resetting the fight on the feet. A backcourt violation or a shot clock expiration in the NBA isn’t called as a neutral jump ball. It’s penalized as a foul and possession goes to the other team.

 

[Rubios]

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

"I'm fine with the boxing-like scoring of every round."

So more damage than Borz inflicted to him in at least 3 rounds.

 

[Lee Danger]

 

[orca]

in a real fight you get taken down and controlled
inevitably you will get exhausted and tire

just like an anaconda the more you resist the more you get crushed

 

[Rubios]

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.

Say you're never been elbowed without saying...

And that comes from someone that has never tasted elbows without wearing full protection.
As you can land a combo of several elbow trajectories in the blink of an eye makes them the most brutal -legal- strike IMHO.

 

[TheGreenMachine]

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.

Grappling can be very exciting, but the rules have to reinforce certain positions you want that are more likely to keep the action going or result in a finish. Think about this...no one ever complains about clinches in boxing. Its because its in the rules that refs have to seperate boxers after a few seconds for stalling. If they allowed longer clinches, boxing would be an entirely different sport.

I'm a BJJ and Judo brown belt, and get into these arguments all the time with the BJJ community because they wonder why BJJ doesn't have a higher viewership/following from spectators. Meanwhile, Judo and wrestling have much bigger global followings (they're bigger sports worldwide, Judo just isn''t as popular in the U.S.) because their ruleset encourages devastating or dominant finishes like slams, pins, and submissions quickly.

The biggest fix MMA could do is get rid of the stupid grounded opponent, 1 hand on the ground no knee rule, and also allow knees to the head of a downed opponent. I'm not as in favor of more stalling calls in MMA because people need time to work. But allowing an opponent to get kneed in the head would completely change MMA. You can't sit in turtle anymore, and North South would be one of the most dominant ground positions. You'd see a lot more scrambles and people either jockeying for a dominant ground position or having to stand immediately. That means more energy expended too, so when someone gets tired, they'll be easier to finish on the ground.

I'd draw the line at soccer kicks or stomps though just because they're harder to sell to an audience (brutality reasons).

 

[fzoid4454]

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.’”

---

Who says it's supposed to be a simulation of a real fight? People say that, because you aren't constrained by one fighting style or technique, but it isn't. In a "real fight" cranking and breaking fingers, eye gouges, kicking a downed opponent, kick to the knee, low blows, head butts.... all things you'd immediately go to if you were worried about life and limb, are illegal. The very best martial artists are the ones who are most also versed in lethal and disfiguring techniques - stuff they'd never be allowed to use in a sport.

It's designed to be a SPORT that allows matchups between individual and combined disciplines to compete with each other. It's not supposed to be like a real fight. To take your main example - The main reason why a "real fight" isn't recommended to go to the ground is because the losing guy's bros can step in the soccer kick your head while you're engaged. Not applicable.

 

[Flower2dPeople]

- 20 mins fight
- fights can only end by stoppage
- after 20 mins and they're both standing or conscious, there will be no winner and no win bonus

 

[Squarechoke]

Grappling can be very exciting, but the rules have to reinforce certain positions you want that are more likely to keep the action going or result in a finish. Think about this...no one ever complains about clinches in boxing. Its because its in the rules that refs have to seperate boxers after a few seconds for stalling. If they allowed longer clinches, boxing would be an entirely different sport.

I'm a BJJ and Judo brown belt, and get into these arguments all the time with the BJJ community because they wonder why BJJ doesn't have a higher viewership/following from spectators. Meanwhile, Judo and wrestling have much bigger global followings (they're bigger sports worldwide, Judo just isn''t as popular in the U.S.) because their ruleset encourages devastating or dominant finishes like slams, pins, and submissions quickly.

The biggest fix MMA could do is get rid of the stupid grounded opponent, 1 hand on the ground no knee rule, and also allow knees to the head of a downed opponent. I'm not as in favor of more stalling calls in MMA because people need time to work. But allowing an opponent to get kneed in the head would completely change MMA. You can't sit in turtle anymore, and North South would be one of the most dominant ground positions. You'd see a lot more scrambles and people either jockeying for a dominant ground position or having to stand immediately. That means more energy expended too, so when someone gets tired, they'll be easier to finish on the ground.

I'd draw the line at soccer kicks or stomps though just because they're harder to sell to an audience (brutality reasons).

People certainly complain about clinches in boxing. I'm inclined to agree with that group as the strategy of being quick on the attack and then just clinch to stop your opponent from attacking back is not a good thing to watch. Such behavior should result in warnings after a few times if they don't want to allow grappling.

 

[DagOban**]

Thinking you can evaluate damage just by looking is a fallacy.

Bruises is just not a measure for damage. Some fighters insta-bruise with a mere touch, others you just never see. It is not a proper indication of damage.

The only way to properly evaluate damage would be a medical evaluation.

Are you willing to wait a day for the fight result ?

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

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.

Its not the worst idea. Like a wrestling pin. If you are in bottom position for say 2 straight minutes? fuck you you suck bye bye end of fight.

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

Thinking you can evaluate damage just by looking is a fallacy.

Bruises is just not a measure for damage. Some fighters insta-bruise with a mere touch, others you just never see. It is not a proper indication of damage.

The only way to properly evaluate damage would be a medical evaluation.

Are you willing to wait a day for the fight result ?

We can at least reasonably deduce damage judging the impact and immediate aftermath of a strike.

 

[jeff7b9]

Say you're never been elbowed without saying...

And that comes from someone that has never tasted elbows without wearing full protection.
As you can land a combo of several elbow trajectories in the blink of an eye makes them the most brutal -legal- strike IMHO.

Who gives a fuck if I have "tasted elbows" ?

Retard take because you can't formulate an intelligent argument on the topic your stupid ass brought up.

You are as dumb as I thought you were. Got it.

 

[TheGreenMachine]

Its not the worst idea. Like a wrestling pin. If you are in bottom position for say 2 straight minutes? fuck you you suck bye bye end of fight.

Agreed, and this is literally how every other grappling art works, EXCEPT for BJJ. Get pinned in wrestling, judo, or sambo for "X" amount of time? Instant loss. Its why the pure/mostly BJJ fighters have been getting destroyed by all the Dagastani/Caucaus fighters who haven't done much BJJ, but have done wrestling, judo, and sambo their entire lives.

 

[MotorCityCobra]

lets start with eliminating weight classes, removal of gloves, add in shoes, clothes on (no getting warmed up, oiled down), no mouthpieces (increases ability to take punches, helps you keep your teeth), and also fight can start anytime once they enter octagon (the more unsuspecting the better). and definitely bring back headbutting and stomps.

j/k to all of this. MMA is a sport, it isnt and never will be an actual fight. agree with general consensus though, maybe just judge the fight as overall damage done and control time. 10 point must and 5 rounds im still struggling to understand why they adopted it.

 

[Rubios]

Who gives a fuck if I have "tasted elbows" ?

Retard take because you can't formulate an intelligent argument on the topic your stupid ass brought up.

You are as dumb as I thought you were. Got it.

First of all: apologies if my reply upset you.

I get it. I’m a lower belt. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m an idiot, only that I’ve posted less.
Just to be clear, and since I already watch boxing and KB, the MMA fighters I’ve enjoyed the most are JJ, Fedor, Khabib, GSP, and Islam. So no, I don’t have anything against wrestling/grappling.

I just think the UFC has absolute control over its rules: not over the referees and judges, but definitely over its criteria. And personally, and I don’t think I’m the only one, I’d like them to enforce an offensive obligation.
Of course, as I’ve already explained, this applies to all fight scenarios: a stinker between two point-fighting strikers would also be penalized.

The fighter being dominated in the clinch or on the ground should also be constantly trying to reverse the situation and/or inflict damage from his position.
That offense and defense are interconnected is obvious: if the fighter on his back has to look for offense, he creates openings for the GnP or finish of the fighter in top control.
And if the fighter in control has to look for the finish or GnP, he creates opportunities for scrambles or escapes for the fighter being dominated.

Currently, the rules try to prevent passivity. Resetting the fight on the feet is one example, and Khamzat/DDP is in turn an example of how this measure doesn’t work if one of the fighters can return the fight to the ground at will.
Other sports (basketball, handball, football...) not only prevent passivity, they don’t allow it and penalize it as a foul. They force constant offense.
I know they’re team sports, but for this particular case the analogy holds.

Wouldn’t we prefer a UFC where offense (the pursuit of causing damage) was an imperative?

 

[fries in the bag]

1. allow back of the head and spine attacks
2. allow eye gouging
3. strikes to the neck, groin
4. soccer kicks
5. front choking