fighters should be forced to engage sitting opnts

jkennedy - 
IP - All these quick stand-ups for no solid reason are, in some cases, setting MMA back to kick-boxing in the 1980's.


What quick stand ups? Aoki would get a few moments to scoot across the ring and it was painfully clear that Melendez would just avoid him. Mario Yam stands them up and Aoki goes back to the same plan when he gets knocked down.


The stand-up by the ref WHILE Melendez was punching Aoki in the face. Remember the confusion? 'member?

jkennedy - What about my point in reference to crawling towards an opponent? Knee-walking? Duck-walking?

Bullshit. If that's the case they should legalize knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent. A standing fighter shouldn't be forced into his opponents guard through rule manipulation, if the ground fighter can't get a take down then he should butt scoot at his own risk. Just because he can sit on his ass doesn't mean the other fighter should be forced to the ground.

So long as soccer kicks and knees to the ground are illegal butt scooting should be a stand up as it's an attempt to force an opponent to the ground without any form of take down, just a manipulation of the rules. If a ground fighter isn't good enough to get the takedown then someone shouldn't be forced into their game because they want to sit on their ass. If you want butt scooting like in japan, then it needs to be in japanese rules, American rules are not suited for butt scooting.

The japanophiles need to realize their golden boy is one dimensional and outside of that one amazing skill has nothing to offer top fighters. No amount of complaining about perceived slights and how he isn't being catered to enough will change that.

If you can't take them down through skill, then you don't get to abuse the rules in regards to kicking a downed opponent. Stomps and soccer kicks or nothing.

He's not saying they should have to go to the ground but to engage them.

I dont agree with this.

Standing fighter should be able to engage if he wants to. But since that situation can lead to nowhere and eats up time, the current practise of standing fighter option should continue. He wants to engage, he can. If he's thru with it, stop the action and stand scooted fighter up.

We shouldnt really need to discuss this. Its fine as it is.

 butt scooting would escalate to a point where people stop watching MMA.

Uchi - Allow Soccer Kicks and I'll agree.


 This! If they allow strikers to openly engage people who were grounded then fine - But you shouldnt be allowed to nutralize half of a strikers attack just by sitting on the ground and then force the striker to have to engage the but scooter on limited terms. 



If they force strikers to engage dont give butt floppers any atvantage allow kicks and knees to the head of a downed opponent.

Jebus Christ - They just honestly need to get rid of the rule where the fighters are stood up EVER. Let the fight go. The referee is interfering with the outcome when they do this.

If a guy butt scoots a tremendous amount he will lose the judges decision, and also be mocked by the fans. If that isn't enough incentive to get them to stop then they won't every be a champion anyway, and they most likely will never stop doing it. The promotions can drop those guys and find someone else.

By standing the fighters up you are directly affecting the fight for no reason other then you the referee think in your opinion there is not enough action. It's either a sport or entertainment. If the sport on it's own is not entertaining enough for people then it will die.

LOL, you mean we could have been treated to 25 mins of Aoki butt-scooting after Melendez while he circled the cage. Great idea!!

Seriously, this is the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time. Why would anyone bother training stand-up at all if their opponent could simply flop to their back and butt-scoot around after them??

The ridiculous sight of two grown men dropping to their asses and scooting up to each other at the beginning of every round would bring death to this sport alone.

Even tho I agree 100% that running from the guard to stand back up is most certainly fleeing the fight...

... that being said its part of the skill of the guard that you must be able to keep someone in it!

Rules are fine as is IMO

 just get in his guard - LMAO

It's a fairness of rules argument:

If there is a stalemate/no action on the ground referees stand up the fighters.

Why then if there is a stalemate/no action on their feet do referees not make the fighters go to the ground?

Why is a grappler forced to physically take the fight to the ground and a stand up fighter not forced to physically make it standing?

MAMAOmaha - It's a fairness of rules argument:



If there is a stalemate/no action on the ground referees stand up the fighters.



Why then if there is a stalemate/no action on their feet do referees not make the fighters go to the ground?



Why is a grappler forced to physically take the fight to the ground and a stand up fighter not forced to physically make it standing?
Because humans walk on two legs. Thats where fights start. 



Not to mention the rules change once a fighter hits the ground.  A striker cant utilize half of his offense.  A grapler is free to grab and  wrestle with an opponent regardless of where the fight is taking place. 



Again if a fighter is not engaging an opponent when standing he should have a point deducted...then DQ'ed if he continues to do so.  If you want to force engagment at all times even when an opponent is grounded then allow him to use all his tools so grapplers do not get an advantage of engaging a striker without having to worry about half of his weapons.



If they allowed kicks, stomps and knees to the head of a grounded fighter grapplers would never try to butt scoot anyway.

  

MAMAOmaha - It's a fairness of rules argument:



If there is a stalemate/no action on the ground referees stand up the fighters.



Why then if there is a stalemate/no action on their feet do referees not make the fighters go to the ground?



Why is a grappler forced to physically take the fight to the ground and a stand up fighter not forced to physically make it standing?
You make a good point but how would you figure out some sort of equal ground position where one person doesn't have an advantage over the other one? Your point has some validity to it but I beleive the practicality of this issue is a major disadvantage to it. 



I am personally a fan of instituting stomps and kicks to the head of the grounded fighter and force a person to engage someone.  Granted dropping with no contact is still bad however is someone goes for a takedown, misses, and then starts buttscooting he should be punished for it by taking damage.



The rule was put in place (as far as I konw) to protect the fighters.  However when that was instituted many poeple didn't know about defending themselves on the ground. The reality now is different so I think they should come back.



and hehe missed the other point while I was writing this

(edit) spacing and second post quoting the same thing

  

soccer kicks, stomps ftw

jkennedy - @IP

1. Mario fucked that one up for sure but it was one time out of dozens of times when Aoki wanted to butt scoot.

2. I seem to remember someone doing that either at an event I was at or an older UFC. The thing is you're still mobile at that point and can go up or down depending on what happens. I also seem to remember the duck walker being on the receiving end of a vicious knee that broke his nose.


Adding to your points, Melendez was tagging Aoki at almost every butt-scoot attempt. If Mario allowed Aoki to do what he wanted, Melendez was starting to time him.

PrettyBoy - 
MAMAOmaha - It's a fairness of rules argument:

If there is a stalemate/no action on the ground referees stand up the fighters.

Why then if there is a stalemate/no action on their feet do referees not make the fighters go to the ground?

Why is a grappler forced to physically take the fight to the ground and a stand up fighter not forced to physically make it standing?
Because humans walk on two legs. Thats where fights start. 

Not to mention the rules change once a fighter hits the ground.  A striker cant utilize half of his offense.  A grapler is free to grab and  wrestle with an opponent regardless of where the fight is taking place. 

Again if a fighter is not engaging an opponent when standing he should have a point deducted...then DQ'ed if he continues to do so.  If you want to force engagment at all times even when an opponent is grounded then allow him to use all his tools so grapplers do not get an advantage of engaging a striker without having to worry about half of his weapons.

If they allowed kicks, stomps and knees to the head of a grounded fighter grapplers would never try to butt scoot anyway.
  


considering it is universally accepted that modern MMA rules are specifically design to favor the striker in every single aspect of the fight, this argument is freaking retarded!