The rules contain a provision against stalling (?)

[GiganticMeat]

So just now I was perusing some of the upcoming rule changes, when I saw this lumped in with them, and realized it was from last year. Then it all started coming back to me...

Now the wording was initially confusing as to whether this actually passed or was instated, but, unless I'm being hoaxed, it seems to be written right here

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Unifed-MMA-Rules-2023-FINAL.pdf

I'll copy paste it too, in case anyone can't see the image or click the link (bottom of second page btw)

[August 1, 2023]
"Standing up or Breaking Fighters
The Referee shall either stand up or break the fighters when neither fighter is able to or fails to
demonstrate real, significant and/or sustained effort to advance towards finishing the fight by any method. Simply maintaining what may be perceived as a superior position will not be considered effort to advance towards finishing the fight nor grounds for a guaranteed opportunity to maintain that position."

Beautiful. Nice, simple. Could have been written by a sherdogger. They defined stalling in so many words, and provided a solution. Now how can anyone argue that simply having the better position is WINNING? Not only are these people now arguing against the spirit of MMA, but the stated rules! It doesn't matter if the holder prevented them from just doing anything else, winning by default. That is not sufficient under the criteria of trying to finish the fight. In fact the entire rules are biased toward finishing the fight, at every turn. Read them yourselves.

It doesn't matter if Joe Rogan believes a man in lifts always wins without referee intervention on the ground. It doesn't matter if Cormier gets a revenge boner every time wrestling "works." It doesn't matter if just holding someone down "wins" you the fight in your high school wrestling locker room. It doesn't matter if you don't think Merab, Big Nog or King Kong-Godzilla was stalling. A timer scam is NOT fighting.

Prove I've been hoaxed

 

[Paolo Delutis]

This kinda sounds like a shit show rule...

How exactly will a ref enforce this ... And are we really going to see a fight stopped with a fighter on someones back or mount and go back to standing ...thats a recipe for a disaster, as this will encourage fighters who have no ground game or way of escaping to just try and do nothing and hope for a stand up...just turtle up into a ball until the ref saves u lol ...


Strange flex if true...


Also stalling only works if your opponent lets you ...if your accepting the bad position then your technically losing the fight...are you not? Nobody can force a stall ...

For example ...Grasso kept body triangling Shev from guard instead of trying to get up or out or sweep...thus kept Shev in her guard where she do less damage or submit... So who is stifling who and who is the staller there? Could be argued Grasso is stopping the fight from progressing to the finish so does that mean Shevchenko gets a free mount ? ....


Sounds like an all around foolish rule
..

Also what happens if someone just throws leg taps and jabs...do they start the round on the ground next time... because their not trying to finish om the feet?

Anyway...just let the guys fight...ur favorite fighter lost ...move on etc etc etc

 

[goOb]

“Listen, I’m going to need your to get you toes out of the cage and get to work.”

 

[GiganticMeat]

This kinda sounds like a shit show rule...

How exactly will a ref enforce this ... And are we really going to see a fight stopped with a fighter on someones back or mount and go back to standing ...thats a recipe for a disaster, as this will encourage fighters who have no ground game or way of escaping to just try and do nothing and hope for a stand up...just turtle up into a ball until the ref saves u lol ...


Strange flex if true...


Also stalling only works if your opponent lets you ...if your accepting the bad position then your technically losing the fight...are you not? Nobody can force a stall ...

For example ...Grasso kept body triangling Shev from guard instead of trying to get up or out or sweep...thus kept Shev in her guard where she do less damage or submit... So who is stifling who and who is the staller there? Could be argued Grasso is stopping the fight from progressing to the finish so does that mean Shevchenko gets a free mount ? ....


Sounds like an all around foolish rule
..

Also what happens if someone just throws leg taps and jabs...do they start the round on the ground next time... because their not trying to finish om the feet?

Anyway...just let the guys fight...ur favorite fighter lost ...move on etc etc etc

I mean you have a fair point there. On who is stalling who. I think it becomes fairly philosophical and you can argue into reading fighter intent (looking up at the clock, resting, just sitting, fighting style etc). However I simply interpret this rule as a kind of stopgap until/if they allow more things on the ground. Imo the defender lacks options, as does the attacker, it just depends how far they're willing to allow things.

As for the striker point (lame fighting with weak leg kicks and jabs), until that really becomes an issue (if it does)... Which I think it might not to an extent as it requires a very specialized body type (Adesanya) or style (Strickland)... We'll see I guess. It isn't impossible, but they would essentially have to display timidity (which is accounted for, at least in theory)

Idk. I think if they allow stand-ups they could allow restarting in the same position. The balance is worth considering

 

[don't ask]

I wish they'd force fighters onto the ground when they were stalling in the stand-up.

 

[EndlessCritic]

Closed guard is simply not a neutral position in MMA. You should not be able to force a standup by holding someone in closed guard.

There are absolutely other positions on the ground that amount to stalemates that should warrant standups. Round 2 of Trizano vs Gianetti is the perfect example of this.

 

[The Boomerang]

Rule is very open to interpretation

That being said…fook all them ankle diving stallers

 

[GiganticMeat]

I wish they'd force fighters onto the ground when they were stalling in the stand-up.

That would be a good penalty for timidity.

Essentially, you have the argument of whether point striking/fighting can or should be tolerated as a means toward victory. In the current interpretation of the rules, I see it as a no. I do think you have the risk of it turning into boxing, where someone can get knocked down or practically flatlined and still win by winning 10 other rounds on points. They kind of cheer that thing on it seems.

Additionally, I forgot, as a kind of devil's advocate argument, they DO also clearly mention "breaks," as in, fighters standing but clinching. Type of stalling too. What do they do then? I think the interpretation is the risk is increased when they are separated again, but if a fighter is avoiding risk by striking, I guess bringing them closer is a kind of solution. The fight is reset to the starting position though.... Which I guess you can argue is pretty natural

 

[jeff7b9]

I'm confused as to what about this is supposed to be groundbreaking or new?

This has been around forever.

Phil Baroni was stood up from top mount position in a fight, which as I recall was many years ago.

It is the referees discretion and generally won't happen unless there has been a verbal warning to call for action first.


It is also very much written in a way which is open to interpretation, specifically regarding what constitutes and effort to advance and or finish.

How often do strikes need to be thrown?
What differentiates a strike that is working towards a finish from a strike to stall and maintain position? Same for grappling, what constitutes an effort to advance?

 

[don't ask]

Phil Baroni was stood up from top mount position in a fight, which as I recall was many years ago.

I think I remember something similar happening in... I want to say... Arlovski vs Roy Nelson?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Real MMA fans love timidity and stalling.

 

[GiganticMeat]

Rule is very open to interpretation

That being said…fook all them ankle diving stallers

The only part I see as open to interpretation is "The Referee shall either stand up or break the fighters when neither fighter is able to or fails to
demonstrate real, significant and/or sustained effort to advance towards finishing the fight by any method."

By any method... Like, okay, dispiriting your opponent and hoping they literally quit (as in, tap out or quit on the stool without taking very significant damage) is pretty unlikely in professional MMA, within the time limit. Gas your opponent out? I think that could be argued under "overwhelming pace" as outlined later on in the scoring criteria of that document. That one is kinda fine, but gassing them out is still only typically part of the road there (to trying to finish the fight, which is clearly stated). If they pass, and do nothing with it... Or make no effort to advance, it seems pretty clear to me. Fight ending actions are ultimately submissions or (t)KOs.

I honestly think a large part of it is really commentators' influence on the refs... They probably really shouldn't be allowed to shout and try to interfere

 

[Dr. Rose]

I'm confused as to what about this is supposed to be groundbreaking or new?

This has been around forever.

Phil Baroni was stood up from top mount position in a fight, which as I recall was many years ago.

It is the referees discretion and generally won't happen unless there has been a verbal warning to call for action first.


It is also very much written in a way which is open to interpretation, specifically regarding what constitutes and effort to advance and or finish.

How often do strikes need to be thrown?
What differentiates a strike that is working towards a finish from a strike to stall and maintain position? Same for grappling, what constitutes an effort to advance?

Was that the same fight he punched Larry Landless?

 

[GiganticMeat]

I'm confused as to what about this is supposed to be groundbreaking or new?

This has been around forever.

Phil Baroni was stood up from top mount position in a fight, which as I recall was many years ago.

It is the referees discretion and generally won't happen unless there has been a verbal warning to call for action first.


It is also very much written in a way which is open to interpretation, specifically regarding what constitutes and effort to advance and or finish.

How often do strikes need to be thrown?
What differentiates a strike that is working towards a finish from a strike to stall and maintain position? Same for grappling, what constitutes an effort to advance?

Considering it is from only a year ago, and I haven't seen it brought up (along with accusations that no one actually reads the rules), I thought it was worth bringing up. I forgot it happened and part of that is I don't think it's used enough.

Arguably there was no official provision for standing/separating fighters before that date. I'm not quite sure. Do you know?

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

So just now I was perusing some of the upcoming rule changes, when I saw this lumped in with them, and realized it was from last year. Then it all started coming back to me...

Now the wording was initially confusing as to whether this actually passed or was instated, but, unless I'm being hoaxed, it seems to be written right here

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Unifed-MMA-Rules-2023-FINAL.pdf

I'll copy paste it too, in case anyone can't see the image or click the link (bottom of second page btw)

[August 1, 2023]
"Standing up or Breaking Fighters
The Referee shall either stand up or break the fighters when neither fighter is able to or fails to
demonstrate real, significant and/or sustained effort to advance towards finishing the fight by any method. Simply maintaining what may be perceived as a superior position will not be considered effort to advance towards finishing the fight nor grounds for a guaranteed opportunity to maintain that position."

Beautiful. Nice, simple. Could have been written by a sherdogger. They defined stalling in so many words, and provided a solution. Now how can anyone argue that simply having the better position is WINNING? Not only are these people now arguing against the spirit of MMA, but the stated rules! It doesn't matter if the holder prevented them from just doing anything else, winning by default. That is not sufficient under the criteria of trying to finish the fight. In fact the entire rules are biased toward finishing the fight, at every turn. Read them yourselves.

It doesn't matter if Joe Rogan believes a man in lifts always wins without referee intervention on the ground. It doesn't matter if Cormier gets a revenge boner every time wrestling "works." It doesn't matter if just holding someone down "wins" you the fight in your high school wrestling locker room. It doesn't matter if you don't think Merab, Big Nog or King Kong-Godzilla was stalling. A timer scam is NOT fighting.

Prove I've been hoaxed

Merab was landing strikes and improving position which are both scoring criteria. Merab out struck and outgrappled O'Malley, deal with it.

 

[jeff7b9]

Considering it is from only a year ago, and I haven't seen it brought up (along with accusations that no one actually reads the rules), I thought it was worth bringing up. I forgot it happened and part of that is I don't think it's used enough.

Arguably there was no official provision for standing/separating fighters before that date. I'm not quite sure. Do you know?

They have been able to stand up fighters forever.

If anything maybe this is a SLIGHT change in the verbal expression of that, which could be a good thing if it prevents stalling, but I don't see anything that I would consider a major game changer. It is still refs decision if and when to call for a stand up based on their opinion of sufficient action.

 

[GiganticMeat]

They have been able to stand up fighters forever.

If anything maybe this is a SLIGHT change in the verbal expression of that, which could be a good thing if it prevents stalling, but I don't see anything that I would consider a major game changer. It is still refs decision if and when to call for a stand up based on their opinion of sufficient action.

To me it feels like it actually used to be more common. If anything both fighters were even expecting it. Just either a change in attitudes or maybe fighters being better at evading it, refs being timid, etc

I would expect this means they recognized it's a problem. The no-hands on the mat rule is also against gaming the rules, that's coming in November with the elbows

 

[dipstickjimmy]

So just now I was perusing some of the upcoming rule changes, when I saw this lumped in with them, and realized it was from last year. Then it all started coming back to me...

Now the wording was initially confusing as to whether this actually passed or was instated, but, unless I'm being hoaxed, it seems to be written right here

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Unifed-MMA-Rules-2023-FINAL.pdf

I'll copy paste it too, in case anyone can't see the image or click the link (bottom of second page btw)

[August 1, 2023]
"Standing up or Breaking Fighters
The Referee shall either stand up or break the fighters when neither fighter is able to or fails to
demonstrate real, significant and/or sustained effort to advance towards finishing the fight by any method. Simply maintaining what may be perceived as a superior position will not be considered effort to advance towards finishing the fight nor grounds for a guaranteed opportunity to maintain that position."

Beautiful. Nice, simple. Could have been written by a sherdogger. They defined stalling in so many words, and provided a solution. Now how can anyone argue that simply having the better position is WINNING? Not only are these people now arguing against the spirit of MMA, but the stated rules! It doesn't matter if the holder prevented them from just doing anything else, winning by default. That is not sufficient under the criteria of trying to finish the fight. In fact the entire rules are biased toward finishing the fight, at every turn. Read them yourselves.

It doesn't matter if Joe Rogan believes a man in lifts always wins without referee intervention on the ground. It doesn't matter if Cormier gets a revenge boner every time wrestling "works." It doesn't matter if just holding someone down "wins" you the fight in your high school wrestling locker room. It doesn't matter if you don't think Merab, Big Nog or King Kong-Godzilla was stalling. A timer scam is NOT fighting.

Prove I've been hoaxed

So Fighter X takes down fighter Y and is in a dominant position. Fighter Y on the bottom "Stalls" by clinging on and you feel his punishment should be a stand up? Isn't that a reward for Stalling?

Pretty sure you know you haven't been hoaxed by anyone and are simply "Hoaxing" yourself. Not everything is explicitly black and white.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

So just now I was perusing some of the upcoming rule changes, when I saw this lumped in with them, and realized it was from last year. Then it all started coming back to me...

Now the wording was initially confusing as to whether this actually passed or was instated, but, unless I'm being hoaxed, it seems to be written right here

https://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Unifed-MMA-Rules-2023-FINAL.pdf

I'll copy paste it too, in case anyone can't see the image or click the link (bottom of second page btw)

[August 1, 2023]
"Standing up or Breaking Fighters
The Referee shall either stand up or break the fighters when neither fighter is able to or fails to
demonstrate real, significant and/or sustained effort to advance towards finishing the fight by any method. Simply maintaining what may be perceived as a superior position will not be considered effort to advance towards finishing the fight nor grounds for a guaranteed opportunity to maintain that position."

Beautiful. Nice, simple. Could have been written by a sherdogger. They defined stalling in so many words, and provided a solution. Now how can anyone argue that simply having the better position is WINNING? Not only are these people now arguing against the spirit of MMA, but the stated rules! It doesn't matter if the holder prevented them from just doing anything else, winning by default. That is not sufficient under the criteria of trying to finish the fight. In fact the entire rules are biased toward finishing the fight, at every turn. Read them yourselves.

It doesn't matter if Joe Rogan believes a man in lifts always wins without referee intervention on the ground. It doesn't matter if Cormier gets a revenge boner every time wrestling "works." It doesn't matter if just holding someone down "wins" you the fight in your high school wrestling locker room. It doesn't matter if you don't think Merab, Big Nog or King Kong-Godzilla was stalling. A timer scam is NOT fighting.

Prove I've been hoaxed

That rule's meaningless the refs won't take it seriously. Because it's at their discretion and reffing sucks. MMA needs hard stalling rule like a take down and cage clinch clock. Get a takedown or pin someone on the cage give them 60s timer to significantly damage your opponent or lock in a sub or it's back to the center.

That's the only way we're getting fighting back in MMA until then it's gonna be alot of athletic competition where occasionally a fight might break out.

 

[pick999]

Why didn't they enforce this in val grasso fight?