I always see "fans" blaming the fighter with top control for a boring fight, but why doesn't anyone ever blame the fighter on bottom? People criticize fighters like Okami for not taking risks on top due to the fact that they could lose their position. But, I've never seen anyone say that about the fighter on bottom. The same rules apply, if the fighter on bottom tries to perform a sweep or submission, they're giving their opponent and opportunity to advance their position or get a submission of their own. If you guys are going to blame Okami for a boring fight, then you have to blame Belcher even more so. Okami always advanced position, he had side control, mount, back control, so it's not like he was just laying in guard. Belcher "stalled" on the bottom, and didn't really try much from his back because he knew Okami could easily counter it. Hell, remember the look he gave the referee when Okami clinched him? This bullshit idea that the referee is supposed to come to the rescue for every striker who's getting out grappled is bullshit. If you can't get your opponent off of you, then that's your problem. The referee is there to enforce the rules, not intervene when the fans start booing.
Probably because those people when they get into fights end up on the bottom as well. It's not boring you can power your way out of the bottom you just have to use some strength and power. There really is no excuse for a bottom guy.
That's not always true. Many times the fighter on bottom is more active and he still loses simply because he was on the bottom.
Guy on the bottom is there against his will, while the man on top is making a conscious decision to fight in such a manner.
Because if a top fighter is not working in what is scored y the UFC as a dominant position, then they are dragging the fight out, and not allowing enough time for a fight to take place. In other words, they are not necessarily winning or making the bottom fighter react when they're supposed to be in the dominant position. Here's the reality, if you're making your opponent defend, then you have to make your offense count.
Is this serious? Okami had mount and made no attempts to do anything but say a prayer. The top is the dominant position; therefore, it is expected for the fighter in control to utilize that control. ETA: Also, as a fan, you should want a fighter to try to finish the fight, not coast by with a decision. They're judged on that partially - aggression.
No, the responsibility is on the fighter who is losing to do something different. The guy who is winning is, well, winning so why should he change anything?
Your argument ignores the reason why the guy on bottom is usually to blame. Oftentimes the fighter on the bottom is to blame because he's fighting too defensively. I agree that the top is the dominant position, and the guy on bottom knows that. So while the guy on top should (and almost always does) try to capitalize, often his capacity to take advantage is limited to almost no offense because the guy on bottom is being so defensive. The guy on bottom knows he's almost definitely losing. The impetus is on him to make something happen. If all he can do is stifle the offense of the guy who's on top of him (and therefore almost definitely beating him,) he knows that's still a losing road. Basically, the guy on bottom should be blamed for making the fight boring and accepting a boring defeat instead of taking some risks to sweep, get up, or get a sub. Rather than expose themselves to danger, many guys just hang on hoping for a standup which is total bullshit, and in 99.9% of boring "lay and prey" fights, it's the guy on bottom making it boring by not taking those risks and doing what he has to do. At some point, you have to realize standups aren't coming and the subs aren't working. At some point you have to take risks to get the fight off the mat.
