I read this the other day and it makes a lot of sense to me.
From Fredrik From Gothenburg
"If you want to have more action once the fight hits the ground, take away the stand ups. They actually reward stalling and only playing defence from the bottom instead of forcing fighters to get offensive. So take the stand ups away and make sure the judges understand that a fighter can win by being offensive off his back and I believe alot will take care of it self. "
Surely holding on to your opponent and hoping the ref steps in is timidity?
This suggestion is something I see a lot of today and it makes me think that the people suggesting it never watched the old Vale Tudo fights and early UFCs. With no stand-ups, if a fighter feels like he might get beat he fights for a draw. ken Shamrock condisered his 2nd fight to a draw with Royce a victory because he didn't get beat. The only way to stop stalling is to PUNISH FIGHTERS FOR DOING IT. If you think you will lose if you stall then you will engage more.
If there were no standups, and a wrestler got a takedown on a BJJer and defended subs for an entire round...my scorecard would be 10-9 for the BJJer...
...UNLESS the wrestler was scoring with significant strikes the whole time (regardless of advancement of position).
at most, limit it to one stand up a round.
No standups. They've been a massive problem since the PRIDE days.
Stand ups, have a place. I think though, they should be used very sparingly in a 5 min round. Way too many inexperienced refs in MMA (Speaking at a local and big level) give in to the unwashed masses when the fight hits the ground, and stand guys up way too fast. <br /><br /> I do think though, if refs were much more educated in the sport they are reffing (you know, they know what the fuck they are watching/doing) they should give more fouls for passivity. A good ref (Dean/mccarthy/mazagati/Yamasaki/etc) will know who is stalling the fight (whether its the guy in the guard trying to hip hug for the sole purpose of killing guard, or if its the bottom guy going for the super hug with arms and legs) and take a point. Its in the rules now to foul a fighter and take a point. But, I have never seen it done. I have seen it threated maybe twice, but have seen at least 10 televised fights where it would have been prudent to take a point. <br /><br /> The only problem is, alot of the MMA refs are dumb fucks who are some state senator's 4th cousin and get a decent weekend gig for extra money.
I hate standups.
People often complaint about PrideFC restarts but I find standups much more unfair and anoying.
Sajite - I hate standups.the restarts and standups were always equally annoying to me......
People often complaint about PrideFC restarts but I find standups much more unfair and anoying.
the restarts completely killed the flow of a fight to me sometimes, especially at those suspect times when a specific fighter seemed to get an extended break to also wipe a cut/get a drink and apparently take a damn nap before the fight would actually freakin' resume.
Haulport, you're pointing to one dimensinal fighters, not the well rounded mixed martial artists of today. I agree with Kai and Sajite 
If you think you will lose if you stall then you will engage more.
Correct application of current rules would take care of this. Repeated threatening submission attempts and/or strikes from the bottom would outweigh a takedown followed by stalling, and thus the bottom fighter would win, meaning the top fighter would be forced to engage. No need to add a RULE to punish the top fighter (as though he is the only one being inactive). I thought most of us agreed there are already too many rules?
"If there were no standups, and a wrestler got a takedown on a BJJer and defended subs for an entire round...my scorecard would be 10-9 for the BJJer"
This simply shows a bias on your part.
Getting taken down and doing nothing else would earn you a win?
I really hope that in this day and age, no one fights like that (I know they do at times, but for the most part fighters are working harder to produce action/do damage).
Noshame, I think DJ last call means if the wrestler does zero damage and just maintains position. I think of round 1 of Mousasi vs King Mo, Mo did nothing but hold Mousasi down, Gegard did ALL damage that round (I know, he said BJJ and sub attempts, but that's the first bottom man wins a round I could think of).
DJLastCall - If there were no standups, and a wrestler got a takedown on a BJJer and defended subs for an entire round...my scorecard would be 10-9 for the BJJer...
...UNLESS the wrestler was scoring with significant strikes the whole time (regardless of advancement of position).
that doesnt make sense, the wrestler accomplished his goal to take the guy down where as the BJJ guy failed to do what he was trying to do.
you don't award a homerun to a guy when the count is 0-2 and he foul tips it in the stands.
the OP did bring up a good point about guys on the bottom stalling to get a standup. people place alot of blame on the wrestler but what about the guy who doesnt try subs from the bottom but just holds on for the stand up.
noshame -
This simply shows a bias on your part.
Please explain.
PS - I am a wrestler.
sewich - the wrestler accomplished his goal to take the guy down
So for a wrestler in MMA the only goal is a takedown? I believe you are mistaken. Reread the example I offered.
sewich - people place alot of blame on the wrestler but what about the guy who doesnt try subs from the bottom but just holds on for the stand up.
This is an example of a successful defense. If the wrestler can't pass guard, and isn't landing any strikes...how is he winning?
A BJJer attempting subs from the bottom is attempting to finish the fight. A wrestler simply defending sub attempts is NOT working to finish the fight...he is working to NOT be finished.
An example of this on the feet would be a standup war in which one guy was throwing everything he could at his opponent, and the opponent blocked EVERYTHING. Who is winning? Oh...the guy pushing the action. Kind of like the BJJer in my example.
Anytime anyone says 'pass guard', they are showing their Bias.
Passing guard doesn't mean shit in MMA and shouldn't mean shit.
Damage done is what counts right now. Submission attempts should count as well, but that's a different argument.
Not only should they get rid of standups I think they should take out rounds.
Title fights would be 25 minutes without any breaks while non-title fights would be 15 minutes without breaks.
http://www.mma-core.com/videos/_Herbert_Goodman_vs_James_Brasco_Shine_Fights_2?vid=10007160
i got beat becasue of dumb stand ups.....guy on bottom did zero !!! didnt try to get up, didnt try to submit or strike me...
you tell me man....
it was bullshit !!! i push the fight for 13 minutes and he gets a stand up with two minutes remaining....not to mention the stand up with ten secnds in the 2nd round
opinions...???
Captain America - Haulport, you're pointing to one dimensinal fighters, not the well rounded mixed martial artists of today. I agree with Kai and SajiteNah...this is definitely a situation of mouse and cheese. When you give a mouse a chance for easy cheese he will take it. A draw will always look better than a loss to a fighter so if they are in trouble they will fight for a draw. basic human nature.
What you have to do to get the best out of people is to take away all escape routes. Sun Tzu spoke of putting soldiers on "death ground" (i.e. a spot where they have no escape). He spoke of never attacking troops when they were in such a position because you would see the fiecest side of them. And he spoke of putting your troops in such a position to get that fierceness out of them when you were in terrible trouble. It is a basic cornered animal response. If fighters feel that they have no alternative but to fight balls out otherwise they will lose they will fight like that. If they feel tey can always fall back to an easy way out.......then that's what many of them will do...
Haulport, how is that an argument for standups? Bottom guy stalls for a standup, and gets it! That's rewarding a staller! If the man on bottom hangs on for dear life, it's pretty damn hard to pass guard, posture for power, work a sub, and so on. If you take away that out, then the man on bottom will need to work for a standup, instead of being gifted one. As it stands, fights get stoodup, regularly, that means there is zero incentive for the wrestler on top to stall, every stand up leads to a potential KO loss, and as the fight progresses takedowns are harder to secure. Your argument is confusing to your point.