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

[mattemate]

Excuse me Sir I will address your logical fallacy and you will hide. There is no fighter on the roster that would be allowed to do what Khamzat did in laying and holding an opponent down and pitter patter fight after fight. You would not receive heavy favor nor position even if winning. It would piss the fans off and you god damn know it. In denial? If there was an entire card of this UFC viewership would plummet. Basically Khamzat is being allowed due to being a cash cow to fight in a dirty style of neutralizing fights from occurring while landing weak shit. You say it’s awesome when Khamzat himself didn’t want to fight this way and was being directed by his corner to.

Meh. Mighty Mouse and I are on one side, the technician side. You're a "just bleed" bro.
Sorry, you're dumb. Go watch pro rasslin, or boxing, or kickboxing. MMA is too cerebral for you.

 

[BabyBlue_Bomber]

There were a few occasions where the ref could have potentially jumped in to halt the bout, and I think it would’ve been justified. Specifically when he had Du Plessis pinned down with his arms isolated…

There have been several fights in the past where fights have been stopped in that same position and similar damage was being dealt. The ref gave Du Plessis the benefit of the doubt (as he should, since Du Plessis was the champion AND it was a title bout) but saying that Chimaev was simply stalling and not trying to win is inaccurate. If the ref had decided to step in when Chimaev had Du Plessis helpless in that crucifix, I don’t think many people would have complained about the stoppage…

 

[deviake]

There were a few occasions where the ref could have potentially jumped in to halt the bout, and I think it would’ve been justified. Specifically when he had Du Plessis pinned down with his arms isolated…

There have been several fights in the past where fights have been stopped in that same position and similar damage was being dealt. The ref gave Du Plessis the benefit of the doubt (as he should, since Du Plessis was the champion AND it was a title bout) but saying that Chimaev was simply stalling and not trying to win is inaccurate. If the ref had decided to step in when Chimaev had Du Plessis helpless in that crucifix, I don’t think many people would have complained about the stoppage…

He was hitting DDP with literally the softest shots I've ever seen in the crucifix.

 

[Captain Herb]

Yeah it's a fucking big problem if the sport (UFC) devolves into this type of exhibition. It's interest crushing, sad, and completely unwanted by most fans. They will go downhill quickly if they follow this path of anti-fighting

 

[spinitch]

Almost a stalemate but Khamzat did get crucifixs plus went for chokes and had control so got a safe decision. If a stalemate position then Ref should stand them up. Vitor vs Rumble got stood up very promptly when Rumble weight on top, coincidentally he was overweight. Merab fights similar to Khamzat and Ref should separate if no action. But the Ref needs to allow advantage position some time to work on advancing. Extended GnP from crucifix is advancing pounding opponent .

 

[Grayto]

Styles make fights.
I’d be more critical of Khamzat if all his fights looked like this, but they ABSOLUTELY do not. I’m not Khamzat fan but it’s ridiculous how high the bar is for this guy, largely due to the precedent he has set for himself. He’s undefeated and completely neutralized the champion. He deserves praise before criticism.

DDP has crap wrestling but is a dog + Khamzat is a great wrestler and a mediocre striker = that fight

 

[mangokush]

Khamzat fans & other MMA hipster fans who are defending that boring fight better keep up that same energy when other fighters in the UFC do that

 

[Oscar Madison]

Khamzat's smirk with that performance --

makes him look like a Jackass, not a killer

 

[maximus__]

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.

All that has to happen is for them to score the fight for the fighter trying to finish the fight.

Khamzat should be able to control and try and win that way, but if DDP is throwing up subs, reversing or landing more offence from the bottom, he should be able to win rounds.

That didn't really happen in this fight so Khamzat wins it.

Example I can think of is Diego Lopes vs Evleov. Evleov should have lost that fight and used a similar strategy to Khamzat to win. Atleast Khamzat landed some offence and not just takedowns.

What we have to be careful of is allowing people to just wrestle to a win. The rules are written to reward the offensive fighter, as long as they do that to the wrestlers, it's a non issue.

 

[Captain Herb]

Almost a stalemate but Khamzat did get crucifixs

I'm not sure what's more embarrassing for a professional fighter: To be put into 5 crucifixes in one fight or to have 5 crucifixes and not be able to stop the fight--or even do any damage. I don't recall any fight where that position did not result in a finish.

 

[Captain Herb]

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

If you watched the video Luke said the opportunities weren't there because Bores never postured up to allow himself effective gnp or moved into a position to attempt a serious submission. Instead he just laid chest to chest to maintain control for control's sake--which, by the rules, should not win fights.

 

[Captain Herb]

If you neutralize your opponent's offense to zero, you actually won the fight.

No one wants to watch a fight where the fight is neutralized. We want to see a fight, not someone avoiding it, whether it's in grappling or striking. Besides, as Luke pointed out, the unified rules say that Bores should not have gotten points for control--but no damage or effort to finish the fight

 

[Joshua8531]

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.

Well if thats what draws your peeps, anything you say will draw rhe same class of ppl.

 

[italiamusica]

He was hitting DDP with literally the softest shots I've ever seen in the crucifix.

This is what I came to say.

If anything, you could argue that he wasn't looking to finish the fight until later rounds for some reason. In 90% of the crucifix positions, Khamzat was barely throwing, or throwing soft punches. It wasn't until round four or whenever that he actually started to hit with power in the crucifix.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

We want

k

Besides, as Luke pointed out, the unified rules say that Bores should not have gotten points for control--but no damage or effort to finish the fight

Yes they do, he's wrong.

*edit*
He only brings up the unified rules in terms of stand up, not points. What are you referencing here? He even calls it advantageous grappling at a few points and I fail to see how that's not in the first tier for effective grappling. Too many people get confused by seeing "control" as the third tier and just go "Oh control = control," but don't realize that top control is effective grappling and octagon control is the third tier. It's right there in the part about cumulative points as opposed to immediate.

 

[Epsteins Guard]

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.

Not his fault the fight sucked, it's DDP's fault the fight sucked. If Khazmat had finished DDP with a choke 15 seconds after the took DDP, it still wouldn't be a good fight. It'd just be a one-sided win that happened faster. You can say hey, he should have taken more risks. But why? DDP could have taken more risks too but he didn't. For the most part he just took the shots in the head when he was in crucifix position because he knew the moment he tried to scramble he'd be choked out and so he just didn't even take the risk. That's on DDP. His entire gameplan after being taken down was "I hope Khazmat gasses out from molesting me." Well, that turned out to be a stupid strategy.

 

[chs140]

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.

Luke Thomas doesnt have any expertise. He's a fat white belt that never did any striking. He's an armchair coach, a sophist at best.

He really is the dunning Kruger of fight breakdowns.

 

[jsbx45]

Khamzat has finished a lot of fights. Everybody needs to calm the f*** down. Y'all are making me defend a champ I don't even like, but he won fair and square.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Well if thats what draws your peeps, anything you say will draw rhe same class of ppl.

I mean in some way you're not wrong. If it works for him then it works.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Not his fault the fight sucked, it's DDP's fault the fight sucked. If Khazmat had finished DDP with a choke 15 seconds after the took DDP, it still wouldn't be a good fight. It'd just be a one-sided win that happened faster. You can say hey, he should have taken more risks. But why? DDP could have taken more risks too but he didn't. For the most part he just took the shots in the head when he was in crucifix position because he knew the moment he tried to scramble he'd be choked out and so he just didn't even take the risk. That's on DDP. His entire gameplan after being taken down was "I hope Khazmat gasses out from molesting me." Well, that turned out to be a stupid strategy.

You could argue they [DDP] had a stupid strategy, I'll give you that. But clearly by round 3 he knew the strategy wasn't working, and was trying to defend takedowns. He just didn't have the wrestling skill to do anything.

But again, Khamzat could have taken risks. He could have tried to finish the fight. And yes, that would have risked him gassing out and given him a higher chance to lose. That's how taking risks works. He made a choice to secure the belt. Fair enough. But you're bending over backwards to ALSO not make it his fault the fight was boring, and you're simply wrong.