they do reward the bottom guy for stalling by allowing a stand up, but more importantly they don't reward him for going for a submission.
Submissions are risky maneuvers, if you miss it you can end up in a bad position. But since they don't count submission attempts, than there is nothing to offset the risk of going for one. So if you combine this with the reward they offer for stalling (from bottom) you get a stale guard.
The rules need to reward risks in a fight. Only way to do that is to make "trying to end the fight" a criteria for scoring and remove takedowns as a criteria.
Thunderlips, that's kind of disingenuous. An attempted submission that fails is more akin to a good standing combination that doesn't stun or KO the opponant. Submissions require a degree of control and should be scored, even if they fail. 
@ Thunderlips:
Your missing the point. If a fighter is going for submission, regardless if it is sloppy or not, at least he is on the offensive and trying to finish the fight.
All I am saying is give the fighter an incentive to go for the submission, because if not fighters will want to play it safe and just hold guard and wait for a stand up. Submissions are risky, so lets reward the risk.
Incentives matter, we know this in life and same applies to fighting.
Thunderlips The Ultimate Male - Stand ups have no place in MMA. The ref should never help a fighter do something that they should be able to do on their own.
Exactly
Get rid of takedowns instead. Its all about excitement right !?
fubar1025 - they do reward the bottom guy for stalling by allowing a stand up, but more importantly they don't reward him for going for a submission.I agree that "attempts to end a fight" should factor in the scoring, but highly disagree about removing takedowns.
Submissions are risky maneuvers, if you miss it you can end up in a bad position. But since they don't count submission attempts, than there is nothing to offset the risk of going for one. So if you combine this with the reward they offer for stalling (from bottom) you get a stale guard.
The rules need to reward risks in a fight. Only way to do that is to make "trying to end the fight" a criteria for scoring and remove takedowns as a criteria.
I do however think that stuffing takedowns should earn you something,
a good example of this to look at would be Okami/Munoz.
Though he still won anyway, Okami should've earn some points for stuffing approximately 50000 takedown attempts by Munoz
Thunderlips, I mostly agree with your last post. Some are sloppy and shouldn't count for much, some are serious and should. Either way, the agressor deserves more credit than the defender. Same with takedowns. Same with strikes. Same with grappling. You're a great poster who usually makes great points, but I think your a little off on this one.
Thunderlips, if ALL the top man does is defend, he should lose. Period. The agressor should get more credit as the agressor than the defender. Top position isn't necessarily the winning one.
@ Hel13:
Ok, how about this for compromise. Keep takedowns as part of the scoring criteria, cuz heck if all else is even than perhaps that is the deciding factor. But don't make it the top priority in scoring the fight (as it currently is). Then add "attempts to end a fight" as a scoring criteria, and this encourages submission artists to start applying their craft.
The rest should probably balance out. Point is, right now the rules favor the wrestler and that is why fights are going to decision. Btw, this rule change would also encourage the wrestler to go for more GnP to end the fight. So in the end we're all winners.
What we really want is more clear cut winners and less decisions. Everyone wants to blame the fighters, but I blame the rules. Rules of the game are what dictate the way the game is played.
The stand up rule bacame part of MMA because of the uneducated fans that would always BOO when they didn't understand what was going on once the fight hit the ground.
The UFC's original concept was to let two guys go at it with no rules, which equals a real fight. I understand the official rules that are in place in MMA, but to leave it up to the ref to decide when to change the whole fight at that moment is stupid.
This is not boxing or kickboxing. There are other sports for stand up combat. MMA should be as close to no rules as possible, of course without the dirty shit.
Thunderlips The Ultimate Male - "Okami should've earn some points for stuffing approximately 50000 takedown attempts by Munoz."I think you missed the entire point of my post, I didn't say Okami won for stuffing takedowns....
Okami won that fight because he did more beyond just stopping takedowns. If one guy stops takedowns and other guy only attempts takedowns there is not much to judge a fight on winning or losing. It is all subjective based on everything that happens.
Thunderlips, ok, I think we mostly agree. The way you worded your first post I responded to made me think you didn't want ANY sub atempts scored unless they caused serious damage, which I disagree with. I agree, rare is the do nothing from top position fighter, that wasn't what I meant though. I was referring to top man only maintaining position and not attacking due to the frequency of sub attempts from the guard.
allow upkicks from the guard...... ( & bring back the heel to the kidneys...may not finish the fight, but i loved it when Royce was doing it)