My gripe with "inactivity" in regards to grappling in MMA

[HuskySamoan]

I've been making this point for 15 years and I've yet to really see it acknowledged on any major platforms or by fighters. If the guy ontop isn't active enough, he gets punished by the fight being stood up, but if the guy on bottom focuses on nullification and stalling...he's rewarded. People get angry at Merab and he's a recent example so I'm going to use him...when he pinned Aldo against the fence for 15 minutes, Aldo stood there and begged the ref to separate them and whined...I love Aldo but that's not legend behavior, that's some sad shit. Aldo didn't much try to create space or explode into small space strikes, to counter with offensive takedown attempts to create scrambles etc. He was worried he'd gas, he was conserving energy and just trying to tie Merab up so they could get separated by the ref. Here it didn't work, sometimes it does, but we have a system that encourages and rewards stalling from the person against the cage and on their backs as well. It's inherently flawed, if more people were offense oriented off their backs and in the clinch...it would be far less likely for guys on top and imposing to be "inactive". It's a two way street, only Fools should blame the guy who's being effective and winning.


Not to mention this design in the rules over decades along with a biased scoring system of rewarding the guy on top far too much, it's greatly neutered and perhaps mostly ruined the grappling aspect of MMA and stunted it's progression and evolution...perhaps downright regressed it in a lot of ways. Beyond this of course, the UFC doesn't sign wrestlers hardly ever anymore and guys can make it into the top 10 and even to title shots without ever having to face a dominant takedown artist.. that's also by design and has warped the grappling perspective.

Anyways, just wanted to address this. The guy on bottom in most cases could have done a lot more and just resigns themselves to losing or lack the requisite skills almost entirely.

 

[Histalian]

Ever hear of paragraphs?

 

[HuskySamoan]

Ever hear of paragraphs?

No

 

[SuperNerd]

Yeah. I agree.

Stalling from bottom is rewarded and has become a tactic to get back to the feet.

 

[wildchild88]

Sherdoggers / mma fans feel entitled to the best most exciting thing, all the time.

Soccer is the biggest sport in the world, many of the games are stinkers. Same goes for boxing or any other sport. It's part of sports.

Lopes - Ortega, and the Ribovics fights before that were insanely exciting.

Mma fans have been spoiled with exciting fights in recent years. There have been many striker champs as well.

 

[WoozyFailGuy]

I guess the logic is that in a fight, the aggressor or one in control should be doing damage.
The more they reward damage over position, the more we'll see active guard players trying to slice their opponent up with elbows for example.

I think Sean's issue might be a spiritual one. He gave up relatively early, threw less than what, 50 strikes the entire fight?

I think that your thesis is part of a larger issue of a 10 point must system.

 

[Bowel-forged Stool]

Stand and bang.

Sprawl and brawl.

 

[The Siege]

I've been making this point for 15 years and I've yet to really see it acknowledged on any major platforms or by fighters. If the guy ontop isn't active enough, he gets punished by the fight being stood up, but if the guy on bottom focuses on nullification and stalling...he's rewarded.

That's because being on the bottom is an inherently losing position. They continue to be in a losing position and it's very easy for a the fighter on top to "work" with ineffective short strikes, low accuracy sub attempts, and even just attempts to pass. All the while, the fighter on the bottom is second by second losing.

Let's put it this way, if you are a fighter on top and you somehow lose the position by standup due to inactivity, then you were probably napping in the guys guard. Even if you are held down, just attempting to break the bottom fighter's hold is "work", half assed attempts at guard passes are "work", and so on.

Here it didn't work, sometimes it does, but we have a system that encourages and rewards stalling from the person against the cage and on their backs as well.

No, it's absolutely not rewarded at all. Guys lose from the bottom position or with their backs pressed on the fence at a high rate. Even minimal work from the top position or the fence position will score and allow you to keep the position. Hell, Usman has won multiple rounds with putting guys against the fence and just doing minimal damage (i.e foot stomps).

Not to mention this design in the rules over decades along with a biased scoring system of rewarding the guy on top far too much, it's greatly neutered and perhaps mostly ruined the grappling aspect of MMA and stunted it's progression and evolution...perhaps downright regressed it in a lot of ways. Beyond this of course, the UFC doesn't sign wrestlers hardly ever anymore and guys can make it into the top 10 and even to title shots without ever having to face a dominant takedown artist.. that's also by design and has warped the grappling perspective.

Anyways, just wanted to address this. The guy on bottom in most cases could have done a lot more and just resigns themselves to losing or lack the requisite skills almost entirely.

I agree with your closing thoughts.

 

[TempleoftheDog]

No

Obviously.

 

[HuskySamoan]

I guess the logic is that in a fight, the aggressor or one in control should be doing damage.
The more they reward damage over position, the more we'll see active guard players trying to slice their opponent up with elbows for example.

I think Sean's issue might be a spiritual one. He gave up relatively early, threw less than what, 50 strikes the entire fight?

I think that your thesis is part of a larger issue of a 10 point must system.

I don't think people know what they are talking about in terms of "scoring damage" and that's a different thread. What the fuck is damage? A busted lip with a little blood? An entirely superficial thing that's simply visual that often has no baring on whos winning a fight in and of itself. But then there's a body punch that goes unnoticed that completely zapped the fuck out of wind in a fighters sails? When a takedown tears some rib cartilage or fucks up a guys back...but if the foot is slapping hard on guys thigh leaving a red mark due to him being pale and a big sound people think that's "damage"...even though the slapping of the foot while loud typically results is way less damage and efficacy.

I can go and on...I've never heard this idea of scoring damage explained well, it's only ever made me worry EVEN more about how people score fights. Is taking someone's back and making them fend for their lives immediately worthless due to it not being "damaging" but a grazing punch that causes a small laceration significant? Does cumulative strikes cease to matter compared to a single significant one? Is damage simply a visual thing? Either in causing a reaction...rocking, dropping, cutting, swelling or is there more nuance to it than that?

MMA scoring is terrible, it didn't get better when they tried to emphasize damage however.

 

[AldoStillGoat]

Let's be real, if this was any other fighter other than Sean Suga Tits O'Malley, no one would give a shit about stalling. But since it's their golden boy, everyone is up in arms ready to crucify the grapplers.

 

[AldoStillGoat]

No

This goes without saying.

 

[StrikerKing]

One thing about being on bottom is that a good guard player protects himself by not letting his opponent posture up and rain down punches. Because the fighter on bottom will always be seen as losing , the fighter in top control has all the cards when it comes to attacking, working, and improving position. As is often the case, a fighter in top control will often be content with maintaining position, not create any distance to strike, not take any risks and simply rides out the round.

 

[AldoStillGoat]

@SuperNerd where did your post go sir. I was about to respond something gnarly.

 

[SuperNerd]

@SuperNerd where did your post go sir. I was about to respond something gnarly.

Meh, didnt want to drag the thread off topic anymore.

 

[WoozyFailGuy]

I don't think people know what they are talking about in terms of "scoring damage" and that's a different thread. What the fuck is damage? A busted lip with a little blood? An entirely superficial thing that's simply visual that often has no baring on whos winning a fight in and of itself. But then there's a body punch that goes unnoticed that completely zapped the fuck out of wind in a fighters sails? When a takedown tears some rib cartilage or fucks up a guys back...but if the foot is slapping hard on guys thigh leaving a red mark due to him being pale and a big sound people think that's "damage"...even though the slapping of the foot while loud typically results is way less damage and efficacy.

I can go and on...I've never heard this idea of scoring damage explained well, it's only ever made me worry EVEN more about how people score fights. Is taking someone's back and making them fend for their lives immediately worthless due to it not being "damaging" but a grazing punch that causes a small laceration significant? Does cumulative strikes cease to matter compared to a single significant one? Is damage simply a visual thing? Either in causing a reaction...rocking, dropping, cutting, swelling or is there more nuance to it than that?

MMA scoring is terrible, it didn't get better when they tried to emphasize damage however.

Who says the body shots shouldn't count? Or sub attempts? Those are all damaging. "High amplitude" takedowns already count as damage and are scored as such.

If the single strike rocked the other guy who's 30 cumulative strikes did nothing to the other fighter, yes the single strike would win out. If you were kicking the guys ass for 4 minutes standing, hurting him and clearly winning then he drops you in the last ten seconds? You still win that round. Based on damage.

Scoring will always be subjective, whether it's sherbros, judges, casuals, fighters, dana, or anyone else looking at a fight, and that is incapable of being changed.

Several things could change with judging. First thing I would do is add two more for a total of 5 per fight, which I believe would dramatically reduce the number of "incorrect" decisions.
Former fighters as judges. Revamping the 10 point scoring system. Clarifying the rules and judging criteria further.

I believe damage is more a nuanced thing that educated judges such as actual former fighters would better judge rather than the pure visual of blood or swelling, although that holds a smaller amount of weight. Was the cut Aldana just had at 306 not damaging?

I agree judging is terrible and have long wanted changes made.

 

[World eater]

You usually make good points, but in this case it is very simple. There are people who are so good at grappling they can just hold and wait for time to pass. Usually, this is enough for them to win. In their inability to properly address the issue, the UFC chooses not to sign them anymore. It is a bad, band-aid solution, but they care about entertainment more than sport. Frankly, so do most of us. Fighters who can’t get signed to the UFC are bums anyway in the eyes of the average fan. Is it a good solution? Of course not, but it will force them to actually do damage or be relegated to secondary orgs or have the deck stacked against them when it comes to matchmaking.
Of course, as you point it out, the blame should also be put on the fighter unable to deal with this strategy.

 

[mister piscadinha]

I don't think people know what they are talking about in terms of "scoring damage" and that's a different thread. What the fuck is damage? A busted lip with a little blood? An entirely superficial thing that's simply visual that often has no baring on whos winning a fight in and of itself. But then there's a body punch that goes unnoticed that completely zapped the fuck out of wind in a fighters sails? When a takedown tears some rib cartilage or fucks up a guys back...but if the foot is slapping hard on guys thigh leaving a red mark due to him being pale and a big sound people think that's "damage"...even though the slapping of the foot while loud typically results is way less damage and efficacy.

I can go and on...I've never heard this idea of scoring damage explained well, it's only ever made me worry EVEN more about how people score fights. Is taking someone's back and making them fend for their lives immediately worthless due to it not being "damaging" but a grazing punch that causes a small laceration significant? Does cumulative strikes cease to matter compared to a single significant one? Is damage simply a visual thing? Either in causing a reaction...rocking, dropping, cutting, swelling or is there more nuance to it than that?

MMA scoring is terrible, it didn't get better when they tried to emphasize damage however.

it's not that complicated, dude
if you take a guy down, but dont punch him, dont try to advance position nor try to sub him, ur takedown is useless and should not award points by itself
either do damage or the referee should stand you up
be active or lose position, is simple

 

[mangokush]

All the more reason that the UFC should become a mixed striking combat organisation only and ban grappling/wrestling since casuals who pay for PPVs and tickets find grappling/wrestling boring and only want striking

The FOTN at UFC 306 was just a striking match only between Ribovics & Zellhuber for example

Striking only matches in the UFC excite the casual crowd, when the crowd shows the same excitement for grappling/wrestling matches like they do striking then it might change but all you hear is booing and jeers at live events whenever grappling/wrestling is involved

 

[laleggenda27]

I generally agree. In every other position, fighters get punished for stalling. If they're inactive on top, they get stood up. If they're stalling on the feet, they get admonished by the ref. But they get rewarded for stalling from the bottom, which incentivizes the lack of action.