Is forcibly holding someone against a fence “dominating” them?

i think its called smeshing, or sometimes depending on fighter, its complete and total domination.
 
I think it speaks more to the dude who cannot stop it from happening then anything.
 
MikeyB said:
I think you're a bit naive. These guys aren't going to risk losing the position to attempt a submission and are happy to grind to victory. I guarentee they are BJJ savvy enough to do those things.

There's a flipside too. It takes two and if the guy on the bottom or against the fence is happy to stalemate, the top guy doesn't have a lot of choice. It's chess, you don't smash your queen out against smart players you finesse it.
Click to expand...
You're probably right.
 
The Don said:
Hmm. This is a really interesting take.
In a professional, sanctioned fight I'd love for this to be implemented but might be challenging and might give even more incompetent scoring and discrepancies in judging. How would you define "effective striking" in a grappling situation. Would you have to posture up and land bombs for it to be considered "effective striking" ? Do arm punches that may not do a lot of initial damage at first but opened up a cut or broke the nose or opened up a submission from accumulative strikes count as ineffective strikes? The fear of a draw really is interesting nonetheless.

As for the sentence highlighted in red, does controlling another trained professional fighter against their will for the majority of the bout thus neutralizing their offense really not considered winning? Is implementing your own game plan so well that it has resulted in a lull in the action because you've pinned your opponent to the ground that he is unable to do anything, no matter how boring it maybe, considered not dominating?
Click to expand...
If you're game plan is to prevent your opponent from doing anything while you yourself also not doing damage or trying to finish the fight I'm just not impressed. Again, that's a neutralization. If two guys are neutralized without a threat of damage or submission that's the epitome of a draw to me.
 
Sad Dad said:
No wall n stall and lay n pray should be yellow carded and frowned upon. This is coming from someone who loves grappling.
Click to expand...
This is a good point too to go along with my 'more draws' stance. If a fight is heading toward a boring stalemate give them reason to press the action. The ref reminding them that stalling will cost them directly from the bank account is the best way.
 
That falls under controlling/grinding. Yeah super boring even when done well ala vintage Couture.
 
Skimming through the thread it seems I'm in the minority. Domination implies complete control. For example, do you think Usman was in complete control of Masvidal? If he was, how come he wasn't able to inflict any significant damage during 25 minutes? That's not domination. Usman was barely holding on to Masvidal to stifle his offense, in the process, he is stifling his own offense. If you have to sacrifice your own offense for 25 minutes to neutralize your opponent (as opposed to displaying sound defensive skills) to win, you are not dominating.

That's not to say pushing people against the cage is not a viable strategy or that everyone that pushes people against the cage is a "wall and staller". This is what domination (against the cage) looks like (gif heavy):

Jon-Jones-vs-Glover-Teixeira-Shoulder-Crank-GIF.gif



tenor.gif



Lkzp.gif


ezgif.com-resize-88.gif
 
No judges in a street fight to give you ten points for doing Daniel Cormier dirty boxing
 
Depends on how much you like or hate the one dominating or being dominated.
 
mma sharingan said:
No it's a pussies way of fighting, same as lay n pray, it shouldnt even be aloud, it's literally going into a fight to not fight... biitch mindset and I laugh any time these treehuggers n crotch sniffers think they're remotely badass, I've seen 5 year olds fight with better killer instinct than em. If rawdogging was legal then maybe tings would be different.
Click to expand...

I am with you on this one. As much as mma has evolved as a sport and there is a element of skill no doubt for certain fighters that fight the way you described. MMA is still a fight and when one guy wants to throw down and do damage and the other wants to hold and lay, it is cowardly no doubt.
 
delbosque said:
I'll take your example:

If you got into a street fight and were held against a wall for 25 minutes, your friends would say, " Dude, what the hell were you doing? Why'd you let him hold you against the wall like that?"
Click to expand...
if you had a friend there then the guy holding you against the wall would be screwed. Real fights aren't fair or 1 on 1.
 
JKS said:
I am with you on this one. As much as mma has evolved as a sport and there is a element of skill no doubt for certain fighters that fight the way you described. MMA is still a fight and when one guy wants to throw down and do damage and the other wants to hold and lay, it is cowardly no doubt.
Click to expand...
Thanks for understanding Haha, someone finally got my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JKS
NO.. IF IT HAPPENED IN THE STREET IT WOULD GET SPLIT UP AND RESET--JUST FACTS---FENCE HOLDING ISNT FIGHTING..ITS LIKE A TECHNICALITY IN A LAWSUIT. IT WILL WORK BUT ITS NOT A LEGIT WIN
 
This is not a yes or no question.

It can be, because you want to do that.

Sometimes its your route to survival.
 
They are professional fighters
If one guy can take money from you (win bonus, career advancement etc) against you will and you can’t do anything about it it’s pretty dominant
 
Agree with sherbros that says...as long as you are active with strikes but inactivity and just holding someone against the fence should not be allowed more than 20 sec.
Break it off and begin again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,982
Messages
55,459,293
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top