When is it appropriate to separate fighters on the ground/stand fighters up?

[Blastbeat]

With last night's title fight in mind, the thread title's question came to me.
Goddard stood the fight up twice. the first time i agreed with because Khamzat was just laying on him, but the second time Khamzat was hitting Dricus and i dont think it shouldve been stood up.

i am against lay and pray, but i do think grapplers/wrestlers deserve to work their skills on the ground. Khamzat didnt lay and pray the whole time, but he did a little bit of the time.

Should there be a time limit enforced? for either time on the ground or time that the referee determines is appropriate if the fighter isnt active enough? or no time limits?
what constitutes enough activity to have a fight remain on the ground?
should there be a set amount of warnings, one warning, no warning at all?
or is it something that is hard to codify and it depends on the situation?

 

[188912345]

The second time was definitely ridiculous, since Khamzat was hitting him and Dricus was moving underneath him, using the small space he got from Khamzat's punches to try and make something happen.

It looked like a scramble or reversal attempt was seconds away, which would've given Dricus an opportunity to reverse it without the help of Goddard, or Khamzat to secure a more dangerous position.

It wasn't a stalled out position against the fence or anything like that, where it would be justified.

 

[witt1021]

second time was bullshit. but khamzat went the whole fight with zero submission attempts. baby strikes really do nothing if you dont follow up with big strikes or subs. you are softening them up for no reason. he did a lot of laying. he was advancing positions but wasnt really doing anything with them. it was just a pure grappling clinic. i enjoyed the fight. i blame ddp for making the fight boring. if ddp could at least try to defend a takedown it would have been more clinch grappling and punches thrown, but he could even do that. he was taken down effortlessly and to top that off he couldnt get up to save his life.

 

[jeff7b9]

Did Goddard give any specific commands PRIOR to the standups?

"You gotta work to advance"

or something to indicate that a standup from CUMULATIVE meh levels of action was coming?

The situation by nature is subjective and in theory even a "dominant position" can be abused or used for stalling, so the argument that "it was a dominant position" I think has to be evaluated relative to how much damage was being done or at least was any attempt to damage or finish really occurring?

 

[Fahcough]

As soon as you can see the souls of both fighters feet. Should be stood up immediately at that point.

 

[Cartiac]

I think both standups were bad. Khamzat hit the guy over 500 times, but how much harder is he supposed to try when he is literally just beating a dead horse? DDP was doing absolutely nothing to improve his position. Was Khamzat supposed to just stand up and punch himself in the face?

UFC should break out those old Pride yellow and red cards and encourage the refs to use them. Maybe DDP would have actually tried to get the f up and fight after the first or second time he was fined 10% of his pay.

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Goddards a prick

Terrible stand-up and give DDP a standing chance for no reason

 

[TrueBias]

Goddards a prick

Terrible stand-up and give DDP a standing chance for no reason

There was a reason. Entertainment.

I say ban the crucifix position. Its never been enjoyable.

Beyond that, hard to justify a stand up when in a dominant position. If you're not in one and cant get to one, even if attempting it, stand the guys up.

 

[bubbleboyjones]

With last night's title fight in mind, the thread title's question came to me.
Goddard stood the fight up twice. the first time i agreed with because Khamzat was just laying on him, but the second time Khamzat was hitting Dricus and i dont think it shouldve been stood up.

i am against lay and pray, but i do think grapplers/wrestlers deserve to work their skills on the ground. Khamzat didnt lay and pray the whole time, but he did a little bit of the time.

Should there be a time limit enforced? for either time on the ground or time that the referee determines is appropriate if the fighter isnt active enough? or no time limits?
what constitutes enough activity to have a fight remain on the ground?
should there be a set amount of warnings, one warning, no warning at all?
or is it something that is hard to codify and it depends on the situation?

The litmus test is when the entire crowd who is pro Khamzat starts booing thats usually a sign.

The issue with Khamzat's style is he's doing just enough not to warrant it for most.

 

[Cartiac]

There was a reason. Entertainment.

I say ban the crucifix position. Its never been enjoyable.

Beyond that, hard to justify a stand up when in a dominant position. If you're not in one and cant get to one, even if attempting it, stand the guys up.

Come on, if you can't find at least a little enjoyment from watching Khamzat repeatedly putting a white African that frequently credits Jesus into a crucifix, then what can you enjoy?

 

[Rampage_Jackson]

second time was bullshit. but khamzat went the whole fight with zero submission attempts. baby strikes really do nothing if you dont follow up with big strikes or subs. you are softening them up for no reason. he did a lot of laying. he was advancing positions but wasnt really doing anything with them. it was just a pure grappling clinic. i enjoyed the fight. i blame ddp for making the fight boring. if ddp could at least try to defend a takedown it would have been more clinch grappling and punches thrown, but he could even do that. he was taken down effortlessly and to top that off he couldnt get up to save his life.

I don't know what constitutes an official submission attempt from the bozo statisticians but if you don't think he was making sub attempts idk what to tell you lol

 

[TrueBias]

Come on, if you can't find at least a little enjoyment from watching Khamzat repeatedly putting a white African that frequently credits Jesus into a crucifix, then what can you enjoy?

Welp, for starters?

Not that.