TKO via control; we need this rule.

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

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.

Burden should be on the bottom fighter to take risks. More often than not, fights stall themselves out on the ground because neither fighter wants to take a risk.

Top fighter doesn't want to risk control, and bottom fighter doesn't want to give up their back or get subbed. Put the burden on the bottom fighter to risk back takes and submissions to get up.

 

[Bowser]

Just being on top isn’t offense

 

[chinarice]

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.

So like, fuck BJJ? lol

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

So like, fuck BJJ? lol

What? If the bottom guy is actively using BJJ to defend/sweep/transition/get up, it wouldn't be a stoppage.

I'm talking complete lull in the action where the bottom guy just gives up and decides to do fuck all.

I'm even fine with punches from the bottom being enough activity to prevent a TKO, like arm punches to the ribs.

You just can't lay there and sleep.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Just being on top isn’t offense

It's not about rewarding the top guy for their offense. It's about punishing the bottom fighter for timidity, refusal to engage, and not doing anything.

I would think of it as running from the opponent on the feet which can result in DQs.

 

[chinarice]

What? If the bottom guy is actively using BJJ to defend/sweep/transition/get up, it wouldn't be a stoppage.

I'm talking complete lull in the action where the bottom guy just gives up and decides to do fuck all.

I'm even fine with punches from the bottom being enough activity to prevent a TKO, like arm punches to the ribs.

You just can't lay there and sleep.

If they're just laying there, is the guy on top doing anything or also just laying there?

 

[Bowser]

It's not about rewarding the top guy for their offense. It's about punishing the bottom fighter for timidity, refusal to engage, and not doing anything.

I would think of it as running from the opponent on the feet which can result in DQs.

But if there isn’t much action the guy on top needs to be punished too

How about we just call it a NC instead

 

[Kenny Powerth]

“Literally” nothing

LOL

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

But if there isn’t much action the guy on top needs to be punished too

How about we just call it a NC instead

Nah, top guy has a more advantageous position. All things being equal, the person who is scoring vs. the person who isn't should win.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

“Literally” nothing

LOL

I don't think I would have seen someone literally do nothing until the Lewis vs. Alemida fight.

Derrick Lewis was literally in a coma or playing dead. That shit was weird, and he should have been finished cause of it.

How mad would people be if the ref in round 4 was like fuck this, Lewis is basically unconscious at this point. It's a tko.

 

[Paolo Delutis]

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.

Umm no ...

Your already winning by having mount... if you want a tko... I dunno maybe throw some strikes from there lol ..crazy idea right...to Punch and elbow from the mount in an MMA fight LOL

This is fighting not BJJ ...

 

[Tweak896]

This is the dumbest idea.

 

[Bowser]

Nah, top guy has a more advantageous position. All things being equal, the person who is scoring vs. the person who isn't should win.

Having a more advantageous position and not doing anything is even more flagrant

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

Having a more advantageous position and not doing anything is even more flagrant

Nah burden should be on losing fighter to take risks.

All sports have that fundamental rule. The person that is down has to make the riskier plays. The person that is winning should be allowed to be conservative to secure the win.

If you are losing, and you refuse to make the riskier play, then you just lose, that's how it should be.

 

[podsox]

The rule would completely eliminate submission attempts

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

The rule would completely eliminate submission attempts

No it won't since it's not about control but about inactivity from bottom. I framed it in a poor way by calling it TKO via control, I should have called it TKO via inactivity on bottom.

You can be controlled but still be very active on bottom.

 

[podsox]

It would be very funny seeing Jon finch with the record for TKO’s

 

[suffersystem]

Hard no

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

This is the dumbest idea.

I need a solution for something like Lewis vs. Almeida never happening again. It was the weirdest shit ever. And between punishing Alemida or Lewis, I choose Lewis. He can't sleep on the ground, TKOed.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

It would be very funny seeing Jon finch with the record for TKO’s

Almost all of Jon Finches opponents were active on the ground, so he'd never win via them falling asleep and not moving.