TKO via control; we need this rule.

Should we have TKOs via control if the guy being controlled is doing literally nothing?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
S

Sean_wongster_wongmastter

Double Yellow Card
Double Yellow Card
Joined
Jan 5, 2023
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
3,965
First off, I'm against standing fighters up for being unable to get up from bottom. You shouldn't reward someone's inability to get up from bottom.

Secondly, if the guy on bottom isn't doing anything (Lewis vs. Almeida), it should be called a TKO for the top guy.

Now, I think this has to literally mean doing nothing... like Lewis sleeping on bottom. The bottom guy basically has to be so exhausted, they aren't transitioning, they aren't trying to get up, and it should be over a long stretch of time like 30 seconds, and the ref. should give multiple warnings for them to move before the TKO stoppage comes.

I think this will solve issues of a lot of lay and prays, and force the bottom guy to take risks to get up or get finished.
 
welcometohavoc said:
I understand the idea in theory but it would incentivize more LnP
Click to expand...

It's not that the bottom guy can't get up, it's that the bottom guy isn't trying to get up though. If the ref sees the bottom guy actively try to get up, it would not be a TKO.

It's almost like a sort of timidity stoppage. I think it would create more action, and I've always been the opinion that it needs to be the bottom guy to be taking risks to get up.
 
HereticBD said:
Oh' yeah, the fans would love that.

Lay on a guy for two minutes. Winner!
Click to expand...

It's more like... if the bottom guy does nothing for 2 minutes, he loses. I'm talking literally nothing. Like sleeping on bottom.

How mad would you be if the Ref told Lewis to move, and Lewis kept sleeping and he just stopped it?
 
Wong_Irish said:
It's more like... if the bottom guy does nothing for 2 minutes, he loses. I'm talking literally nothing. Like sleeping on bottom.
Click to expand...

Now give that discretion to referees, and see what happens.

It's up to the guy on top to finish it, if the guy on the bottom is that terrible. If there's no action, they should just stand them up, not call the fight and declare the dry humper the winner. That might actually cause riots.
 
Goddard should've stepped in and stood them up at least once or twice during all that LnP. He kept telling Almeida to get busy, but never really did anything about it. I feel like there are waves in the UFC (probably due to consistent changes) that influence the refs to let them stay in the dominant position for a period of years, then it goes to stand them up after a minute of no activity, then back to let them LnP. Also there are some refs that are quick to stand up and others that just let the fight commence regardless of what's happening. But no, there should not ever be a TKO awarded due to top control... that will hurt the sport. Maybe time to start bringing in those yellow/red cards.
 
Wong_Irish said:
It's more like... if the bottom guy does nothing for 2 minutes, he loses. I'm talking literally nothing. Like sleeping on bottom.

How mad would you be if the Ref told Lewis to move, and Lewis kept sleeping and he just stopped it?
Click to expand...

So credit a positional advantage without fight ending attacks with a tko win? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,,,,,,,dumb
 
Wong_Irish said:
First off, I'm against standing fighters up for being unable to get up from bottom. You shouldn't reward someone's inability to get up from bottom.

Secondly, if the guy on bottom isn't doing anything (Lewis vs. Almeida), it should be called a TKO for the top guy.

Now, I think this has to literally mean doing nothing... like Lewis sleeping on bottom. The bottom guy basically has to be so exhausted, they aren't transitioning, they aren't trying to get up, and it should be over a long stretch of time like 30 seconds, and the ref. should give multiple warnings for them to move before the TKO stoppage comes.

I think this will solve issues of a lot of lay and prays, and force the bottom guy to take risks to get up or get finished.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is it

 
HereticBD said:
Now give that discretion to referees, and see what happens.

It's up to the guy on top to finish it, if the guy on the bottom is that terrible. If there's no action, they should just stand them up, not call the fight and declare the dry humper the winner. That might actually cause riots.
Click to expand...

You think very little of fighters, if you think the bottom guy won't do anything to stop being the loser of a fight via control (unless they are death gassed, which it's pretty much over anyways at that point).

I think 99% of fighters that aren't death gassed will try buck and move if the ref warns them to move or lose. They don't have to be successful at the transition or buck but they gotta be trying.
 
What they need to do is stand them up. Allowing long periods of time with no real activity is a fail for the sport. This sets up situations where a fighter can win by merely staying on top.
 
Oscar Madison said:
Control being down on the List -- yet elevated to TKO status.

OP is a shitshow.
Click to expand...

What? It's less so about top control, and more so about inactivity on bottom.

I see inactivity on bottom like running from your opponent on the feet, and enough running, timidity and refusal to engage can already result in a DQ win for your opponent.

Besides, I can only think of a few fights ever that should result in a TKO via control, Lewis vs. Almeida being one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,264,769
Messages
57,303,275
Members
175,631
Latest member
Hello

Share this page

Back
Top