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.
The objective of MMA is to win via inflicting more damage than your opponent, not to make him quit due holding him down for a long ass time.

So no.
 
Ewwww, terrible idea.

We slready have a control without action or interest sport, wrestling.
 
I agree. These are legit wins. I've won by pinfall plenty of times.. Even a few times i even getting clobbered on & on the verge of being KOed n then pulled off a come from behind win via ringside manager distraction inducing opponent to back turn into surprise schoolboy roll-up clean 1 2 3 count pinfall come from behind victory and rolled out of danger through the bottom rope before 8 of his nwo buddies could jump me.. 3 count pinfall might be too short for UFC rule set but yur suggested 30 sounds reasonable. 30 count pin fall may as well be a brutal highlight reel KTFO for the ages win, considering the iron man match is only like a 10ish count fall. Imagine if you couldn't kick out of a 30 count pin fall and then complained that this rule sucks.. Maybe you are a jobber is the reality but most likely dead if you couldnt kick out at 30
 
Last edited:
Like I get where you're coming from but this is EASILY one of the worst ideas I've ever read on here. Maybe top 5 ever on the entire history of internet.
 
Literally the single worst rule suggestion in the last ten years, and there was a guy arguing that fights would be more exciting if both pugilists had brass knuckles on.
 
Hard AF to believe this idiotic idea went past the first page.​

Whoever can't finish someone fighting as worthlessly as Derrick did on the bottom deserves NO WIN.

''BOOS" for both in that last "fight" - for lack of a better term - were deserved for their weak AF performance.

Derrick's hype on the "New Contract" insults every fan & the sport for getting paid NOT to perform.
 
Last edited:
In teh beginning of teh UFC... the largest problem with wrestlers was that they could just control & win the round. They toiled wit teh rools for decades to conclude on what they have today, which is that they get zero credit for control until they do something with it.

The concept in teh OP may have validity, but I don't see any way to practice it without the laynprayerz manipulating it to stall.
 
i voted yes just because it would be hilarious.

In a fight though, that ruling would be stupid. In a fight, the reason why mount is advantageous is because the mounter can easily mount effective offence. Ain't nobody there to see fighters compete to keep full mount
 
If we’re talking about how things should be. No.

I don’t believe being in top control means you are winning the fight if you aren’t scoring damage or sub attempts. So in your scenario, they are drawing. Now obviously Jailton was ahead because he was doing SOME degree of damage and sub attempts.

If a guy on the bottom is doing nothing he should be finishable. The reverse is like suggesting someone should be given a tko over their opponent on the feet bc their opponent is only circling and barely throwing. If you can’t damage your opponent that’s a you problem.

I want to see people win fights. As far as I’m aware I’ve been in side control and top Mount many times with my girlfriend and none of those were fights.

You win by damage. If nothing is happening if gets stood up. If you are doing damage you are winning. If you are lying on top of someone and you are both doing nothing, neither are winning. If the guy on top is the only one doing anything he is slowly winning the fight.
 
Also i completely disagree the losing fighter should have to take risks. I know it’s sometimes what just happens if you’re two down. But i think further favouring grapplings up in a fight to be conservative is a terrible idea. And it doesn’t make sense.

the guy who took the fight to the ground should be the one advancing it, if it’s a stalemate in the ground then no one is winning the fight.
 
1. I do agree that often, the guy on bottom is the one stalling the action. But that's usually by controlling posture and trying to force a referee stand-up.
2. If someone is able to just lay on their back without taking any damage (like Lewis did), that's a clear indication that the guy on top isn't doing enough.
3. Yellow cards would be a much better solution than what TS is proposing.
 
Almeida should have just kept striking even just a little. They didn't have to be full power damaging punches. When he did it at the end of round 3 Lewis covered up and looked ready for the fight to be stopped.
 
If you have the top position and the guy on the bottom is doing 'nothing' and you still cannot work towards a finish, its a neutral position. Stand them up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,264,805
Messages
57,305,241
Members
175,631
Latest member
Hello

Share this page

Back
Top