What I did not Appreciate about Khamzat's Victory, and is it a problem?

[BlackStrap]

I watched this video from Luke Thomas, who I have previously avoided (because he is annoying), and he made what I thought was a very good point about the match: Khamzat's control was almost entirely for the sake of neutralizing DDP, and was not/could not have been with the intent to actually win the fight.

CAVEAT: I am differing to his expertise, because frankly this went way over my head when I was watching, and I simply do not have the experience to know whether what he said is accurate- as far as what is and is not possible for an athlete at that level.

The reason he says Khamzat's control was entirely for the sake of neutralizing DDP, and not for the sake of trying to win the fight is because the unified rules of MMA (judging criteria) emphasize that a fighter needs to "to advance to a position to finish the fight". Luke Thomas claims that mechanically Khamzat could not have been trying to "advance to a position to finish the fight" because it was mechanically impossible from the majority of his positions (chest to front, chest to back, knees on ground).

He also added some anecdotal evidence relating to corner directions, including Khamzat asking for permission to stand with DDP or attempt a submission- which is neither here nor there in my opinion.

[Those are the cliffs, Luke talks for nearly 20 mins, but that's all he actually says- other than "I'm right"]

Point being, I am one of those people who felt that his domination, and the style of his domination, was sufficient. Looking at the ruleset, and with more insight as to Luke's view on Khamzat's approach (remember my CAVEAT), I am now reconsidering my position.

It was cool to see the control, but in light of the unified rules, the casual fans, and the Just Bleed God hardcore fans, I wonder whether Khamzat's strategy is a bigger problem than I initially took it to be.

A fight is a necessarily risky undertaking. At a certain point, an excessively risk averse approach is not really fighting. Beyond simply standing fighters up, should there be more significant penalties for stalling a fight, and if so, perhaps Khamzat should not be the champion (in that manner). That is my question, notwithstanding my feeling that Khamzat is a MUCH better fighter than DDP, and that he should be champion.

 

[KungFuCow]

I dont disagree that Khamzat won but it wasnt very exciting.

I hope thats not a taste of whats to come in the future.

 

[oski]

 

[Alpha_T83]

Luke Thomas being an idiot as usual. It's amazing how much this guy can double down on being wrong. He's like the MMA version of Pirate Software. Completely arrogant and full of himself.

This guy smells his own farts.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

I watched this video from Luke Thomas, who I have previously avoided (because he is annoying), and he made what I thought was a very good point about the match: Khamzat's control was almost entirely for the sake of neutralizing DDP, and was not/could not have been with the intent to actually win the fight.

CAVEAT: I am differing to his expertise, because frankly this went way over my head when I was watching, and I simply do not have the experience to know whether what he said is accurate- as far as what is and is not possible for an athlete at that level.

The reason he says Khamzat's control was entirely for the sake of neutralizing DDP, and not for the sake of trying to win the fight is because the unified rules of MMA (judging criteria) emphasize that a fighter needs to "to advance to a position to finish the fight". Luke Thomas claims that mechanically Khamzat could not have been trying to "advance to a position to finish the fight" because it was mechanically impossible from the majority of his positions (chest to front, chest to back, knees on ground).

He also added some anecdotal evidence relating to corner directions, including Khamzat asking for permission to stand with DDP or attempt a submission- which is neither here nor there in my opinion.

[Those are the cliffs, Luke talks for nearly 20 mins, but that's all he actually says- other than "I'm right"]

Point being, I am one of those people who felt that his domination, and the style of his domination, was sufficient. Looking at the ruleset, and with more insight as to Luke's view on Khamzat's approach (remember my CAVEAT), I am now reconsidering my position.

It was cool to see the control, but in light of the unified rules, the casual fans, and the Just Bleed God hardcore fans, I wonder whether Khamzat's strategy is a bigger problem than I initially took it to be.

A fight is a necessarily risky undertaking. At a certain point, an excessively risk averse approach is not really fighting. Beyond simply standing fighters up, should there be more significant penalties for stalling a fight, and if so, perhaps Khamzat should not be the champion (in that manner). That is my question, notwithstanding my feeling that Khamzat is a MUCH better fighter than DDP, and that he should be champion.

I think this is rubbish but it will sure have traction amongst the sherdog meatheads

 

[GrantB13]

The rules don't say you MUST attempt to finish the fight. In the guide, Plan A is effective striking/grappling (equally weighted from what I understand), Plan B is effective aggression, and C is control of the fighting area. B and C are not considered unless A is deemed equal. "Effective aggression" is defined as "aggressively making attempts to finish the fight". Therefore, the attempt to finish the fight is not as important as landing jabs for 5 rounds as long as you are significantly out striking the opponent.

 

[Alpha_T83]

The rules don't say you MUST attempt to finish the fight. In the guide, Plan A is effective striking/grappling (equally weighted from what I understand), Plan B is effective aggression, and C is control of the fighting area. B and C are not considered unless A is deemed equal. "Effective aggression" is defined as "aggressively making attempts to finish the fight". Therefore, the attempt to finish the fight is not as important as landing jabs for 5 rounds as long as you are significantly out striking the opponent.

I think they just passed new unified rules of MMA this August 2025 which completely change the scoring criteria. I liked the old rules, which actually prioritized damage, and specifically stated that control scored zero points unless all other factors were equal.

I have no idea what the consensus on the "meta" for scoring under the new rules will be. It's too early tell.

However, I think the thing being missed in this discussion is that 1) the rules don't require Khamzat to attempt to finish the fight but 2) it's still Khamzat's fault the fight is boring if he chooses not to take risks. Khamzat fans want him to not be responsible for the fight being boring, so they are bending over backwards to justify that position. The reality is that Khamzat played it safe to win the belt, fine, but it's his fault the fight sucked. He could have finished it.

 

[ninja boot]

Well his corner was intent on winning by any means possible and not fixed on finishing is why. It seems irrational to take risks being flashy or blow his load trying to push a better position when he already has outright control.
Khabib wasn't consistently making daring attempts to finish everyone either Luke.

 

[AmonTobin]

Asking Khamzat, "why didn't you finish the fight?", is no different than asking Dricus, "why didn't you get up?".
This is essentially asking both guys, why they didn't "try harder", while sitting on your couch .

 

[wisdom blows]

Stopped at your first sentence. He did win the fight. His grappling positional dominance won him the fight. You could argue (I wouldn’t) he didn’t try and finish the fight, but that’s very difffernt than not trying to win. That’s what Dricus did. Dricus fought to not be finished, not to win.

 

[Thy]

Blame ddp for not letting him sink a rnc in. IF ddp just stopped defending, yall wouldn't be complaining.

 

[wisdom blows]

I think they just passed new unified rules of MMA this August 2025 which completely change the scoring criteria. I liked the old rules, which actually prioritized damage, and specifically stated that control scored zero points unless all other factors were equal.

I have no idea what the consensus on the "meta" for scoring under the new rules will be. It's too early tell.

However, I think the thing being missed in this discussion is that 1) the rules don't require Khamzat to attempt to finish the fight but 2) it's still Khamzat's fault the fight is boring if he chooses not to take risks. Khamzat fans want him to not be responsible for the fight being boring, so they are bending over backwards to justify that position. The reality is that Khamzat played it safe to win the belt, fine, but it's his fault the fight sucked. He could have finished it.

You say it which such confidence that could’ve finished. Maybe the openings were not there? DDP is an elite fighter.

 

[chinarice]

His points would be easier to take seriously if he also validly criticized DDP for what happened on Saturday but he doesn't so I can't.

It's not on the winning fighter to take the risks and IMO is on the guy losing to take risks. That's absolutely ridiculous to think the winning fighter should need to risk anything if they're winning by a lopsided margin.

 

[Ozze]

Little bit of both.

Khamzat content to be there, winning an easy fight via control.

DDP also too content to just sit there defending waiting for the moment Khamzat would fade.

I rewatched the fight the other day to see if DDP was as passive as I remembered, and although he did try to improve his positions at some moments, he spend an awful lot of time without doing much. Example: just in one knee by the fence.

Was it because everytime he tried something Khamzat would shut it down? Who knows...

 

[Alpha_T83]

You say it which such confidence that could’ve finished. Maybe the openings were not there? DDP is an elite fighter.

Do you really think Khamzat *could not* have finished it? Really? That's the logic you're going to go with?

 

[Clark Rogers]

I guess TS never heard of lay n pray before this?

I'm not exactly saying i agree with Luke Thomas, but that's exactly what he's described.

 

[Alpha_T83]

I guess TS never heard of lay n pray before this?

I'm not exactly saying i agree with Luke Thomas, but that's exactly what he's described.

IDK what kind of revisionist history some people here are on about, but "Lay and pray" is a term I've heard for over 20 years, and going back to the early 2000s it originally meant laying on top of your opponent, stalling, and praying the judges would give you a decision.

I keep seeing sherdoggers saying "lay and pray" was originally meant to insult the fighter "laying and praying" on the bottom, but that's simply not the case. Go find someone talking about lay and pray in the late 90s and early 2000s.

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Goat Mayweather triggered fans with his style

Hitting and not getting hit, isn’t that the pinnacle of fighting?

Khamzat found a way to beat a dangerous champ who finishes guys and not even get touched once

I know his team is responsible for reeling-in the old Khamzat and letting him know with a disciplined approach, he can beat anyone

I know I admit he may have been able to do more, but I bet he was not use to that method of control but really stood with the plan the corner gave him. Shows he is coachable and will listen to a coach and not follow his heart and pride like so many fall victim to

 

[Tweak896]

I'm sorry but taking the back is trying to finish the fight. DDP clearly was in sub defense mode. His BJJ defense was good enough to not get submitted, but you can't blame Khamzat for that. Maybe the guy could've taken another approach in the future, but he's not a GNP guy like Khabib. Probably another thing was all the crying about his cardio, so maybe he was fine with not getting the subs because he's proving he can go 5 rounds.

Still, I saw a guy who took better positions as they were available. I don't think he can just sub anyone he wants, he's not Maia. He can force them out when he takes fights with weaker competition, good enough to sub Whittaker. Lots of the high level MWs are hard to submit. He still was the 1st to submit Whittaker in the UFC. Once you take someone's back there really isn't a better position, and when the guy is hard to sub from that position, it becomes a stalemate.

Khamzat has already proven himself as a finishing machine, much more than other fighters.

 

[Clark Rogers]

IDK what kind of revisionist history some people here are on about, but "Lay and pray" is a term I've heard for over 20 years, and going back to the early 2000s it originally meant laying on top of your opponent, stalling, and praying the judges would give you a decision.

I keep seeing sherdoggers saying "lay and pray" was originally meant to insult the fighter "laying and praying" on the bottom, but that's simply not the case. Go find someone talking about lay and pray in the late 90s and early 2000s.

I can't really yell if you're replying as if what i said fell into the top category or the bottom lol, but ... I'm talking like, laying on top of a person while unable to advance on a position, or refusing to advance on a position, and hoping it works out for you in the end. Do just enough pitter patter and positional adjustments to appear busy.

Again, not saying that's exactly what happened here, just that in all of Luke's expertise he essentially described what we've historically called LnP.

Edit - I should mention that I just went by the cliffs. No damn way I'm listening to LT for 20 minutes, so what i said is only as applicable as the cliffs were.