Discussion in 'Grappling Technique' started by gottoesplosivo, Sep 2, 2010.
I found this article very interesting, what do you think?
You're right, but judges are dumb. Everyone can objectively see A took B down. However, "offensive grappling" gets a bit murky without that in the majority of fights. Unless, of course you want to bring in grappling experts only to judge MMA fights.
Man that was so poorly written that I could not finish the article.
I have no problem with a Grey Maynard approach, fighters need to get better takedown defense, scrambling and guardgame
they just want to be saved by the refs
This is very true
Agreed. The writer was just wanking words all over the page. The desire for such vocubularic decadence has been erroneously exagerrated by the scribe, methinks.
the sad part of these forums are, most sherdoggers would overlook this thread and instead post in another BJ Penn thread.
If it was written without the number 1 priority being "try too hard to impress everyone with my intelligence", it might actually be a worthwhile read. As it stands, it's just an ego piece.
Thanks for the cliffnotes, i didn't read it...never said i was any different than other sherdoggers, LOL.
i didnt write the article,so whatever...i was just curious about some opinions
and yes i know my english sucks and it's pretty basic,i'm an italian user always trying to improve my english
Its not badly written.
the author was trying to hard, it was an unreadable mess.
Trying too hard is one thing, unreadable is another. It was perfectly readable.
Well I managed to read it...
and I agree with most of it.
No, trying too hard with over-convoluted flowery language is the same thing as being unreadable.
No it is not, not by a long shot. It is perfectly readable to anyone with decent comprehension. It simply puts off people too lazy to put any effort into reading it. Im not going to argue this further.
Agreed. I think the English language has just degenerated so much that many people can't understand there's a difference between professional writing and the shit spewed out on text messages.
Also, the article makes great points about scoring the takedown. This was one of my fears when Wanderlei fought Bisping. I'm sure there are other judges out there that would have scored a round or two in Bisping's favor based on the takedowns he scored. If a fighter manages to pop up immediately or if they utilize an effective guard and avoid damage or even threaten from his back then simply having top control shouldn't count for jack.
I would hope it's quite clear from the way I write that I don't have any problems with reading comprehension. The question of whether or not an article is a good read or not has nothing to do with the level of vocabulary used, or apparent intelligence displayed.
When the message you are trying to get across becomes bogged down by the intricacy of your unnecessary waffle, you are not doing a good job, but feel free to keep acting like the only reason people think that article is shit is because they just don't understand.
I get your side of the argument. I mean, why use one word when you can use fifty, right?
The article was perfectly readable. I like the main points raised by the article. Stalling and the value of a takedown in the context of winning a round should be re-evaluated.
Stalling should be discouraged, be it either avoiding contact, wall and stall or lay and pray. I'm sure the rules will get stricter, with more warnings and standups for periods of inactivity. A few people will complain, but MMA will gain from it.
Stealing a round with a takedown is the most bizarre concept for me. If you execute a takedown at the end of a round, it is essentially meaningless. You have no time to do anything with it.
Stalling isn't permitted in most grappling competitions. Why should it be permitted in a competition that involves much more than grappling? If anything stalling rules should be stricter.
Separate names with a comma.