I posted this on another thread, but I think it deserves its own discussion. Here is how standups should work:
referee decides which guy is stalling, top or bottom.
you penalize (warn, or deduct point if already warned, and fine) the staller.
you let the non-staller choose if it gets restarted in position or stood up.
this way, you don't reward the gay ass stalling fighter for being non combative on the ground. you punish a lame standup fighter for simply stalling on the bottom hoping to get it stood up by letting the fight continue on the ground. you punish a lame lay n prayer by letting the bottom man get it stood up.
this system is no more subjective than the current one, but much much more effective and would encourage even more action.
Thoughts?
you say that like your an authority, even though it is vastly flawed.
I think your system has merit, but it may be hard to determine which fighter is stalling, since there are many times when both fighters are being too tenative. To me, fights should only be stood up if the fighters are at detente; for at least 90 seconds there is no improvement in position by either party, no serious attempts at a submission, and no attempts to throw effective and damaging strikes.
It's hard to penalize the fighter on the bottom for stalling, he's there against his will.
With a good fighter on top of you, sometimes a sweep or submission isn't possible.
Sometimes all the bottom man can do is defend himself by tying the top man up, and keeping him from doing damage. This could be seen as stalling by some, but what is the bottom man supposed to do? Let himself get hit?
If the man on top can't impose his will and do damage to the bottom man (regardless of the bottom man's choice of defensive techniques) then the fight is at a stalemate, and should be stood up.
If you are good enough, the guy on the bottom shouldn't be able to completely stifle your game, and if he can, he isn't stalling.
IMO, the only real way to make someone not stall, is the yellow card. for every stalling call.
since that would probably be illegal in the US, get some fucking educated referees
thats all there is to it.
LOL i dont think their should be standups at all.
Fuck it you dont want to be on your back, do what chuck does.
"It's hard to penalize the fighter on the bottom for stalling, he's there against his will."
He can give his back and try to standup up, buck wildly, try to push him off, whatever. He doesn't do these things because it might give his opponent an opening for a submission or strikes; so, instead, he stalls. That IS his choice. If he's afraid to do anything for fear of his opponent attacking, he should not be rewarded for it. Fuck, sounds like "checkmate" to me.
Leigh - i like the sound of that but lets say that a striker is stalling on bottom. the grappler will obviously choose to keep the fight on the ground but the audience will get bored
he will either be compelled to move and attack, or be disqualified (after points have been deducted). what will happen, is he will spaz out, and action will happen.
mongo54 - you say that like your an authority, even though it is vastly flawed.
i am as much of an authority as many. if you think it is flawed, argue why.
Already In Use - Stand-ups should be done when no fighter is doing any real work on the ground.
Take AA vs Nelson. Nelson got a kimura, but AA was blocking it successfully. Eventually, Nelson let it go and was stood-up after a few seconds. They were on the ground for a while and were not doing much.
if neither fighter is combative, yes, they could warn/fine both and stand them up. but usually it is the case that only one is stalling, not both, unless they are exhausted. in that case, the stand up will not be exciting either.
Already In Use - Stand-ups should be done when no fighter is doing any real work on the ground.
Take AA vs Nelson. Nelson got a kimura, but AA was blocking it successfully. Eventually, Nelson let it go and was stood-up after a few seconds. They were on the ground for a while and were not doing much.
also, re: AA vs Nelson, gtfo with that shit. He was stood up right after the kimura before given any time to move on to another offense. He had him in a kimura, which is doing a lot, which he gave up, then it was stood up directly. if you think that was a good stand up, gtfo, you noob.
FightMeI'mIrish - It's hard to penalize the fighter on the bottom for stalling, he's there against his will.
With a good fighter on top of you, sometimes a sweep or submission isn't possible.
Sometimes all the bottom man can do is defend himself by tying the top man up, and keeping him from doing damage. This could be seen as stalling by some, but what is the bottom man supposed to do? Let himself get hit?
if he is only holding on, he is stalling.
if he is in that position, he needs to be escaping, or be offensive.
otherwise, he is stalling. if he can't escape without getting hit, tough titty, learn to grapple.
BJ > DORKUS - "It's hard to penalize the fighter on the bottom for stalling, he's there against his will."
He can give his back and try to standup up, buck wildly, try to push him off, whatever. He doesn't do these things because it might give his opponent an opening for a submission or strikes; so, instead, he stalls. That IS his choice. If he's afraid to do anything for fear of his opponent attacking, he should not be rewarded for it. Fuck, sounds like "checkmate" to me.
absolutely correct.
One of the major problems with standups in the first place is that they give the referee too much influence over the outcome of the fight.
Your idea only exacerbates that problem.
The ideal in my mind is simply no standups, get rid of the idea that if you're on the bottom you are always losing, and get (train) more knowledgeable judges.
Simply abolishing standups is a break-even solution in terms of action, and preserves the continuity and legitimacy of the fight.
"The ideal in my mind is simply no standups, get rid of the idea that if you're on the bottom you are always losing"
The problem is that there are time limits, and decisions. With no standups, a passive wrestler who is not interested in finishing could win virtually every fight. He would not give even the minor openings that current "keep working!" forces, which means that the best sub guy in the world might not be able to get even a good submission attempt in there.
BJ > DORKUS - He can give his back and try to standup up, buck wildly, try to push him off, whatever. He doesn't do these things because it might give his opponent an opening for a submission or strikes; so, instead, he stalls. That IS his choice. If he's afraid to do anything for fear of his opponent attacking, he should not be rewarded for it. Fuck, sounds like "checkmate" to me.
demandango - if he is only holding on, he is stalling.
if he is in that position, he needs to be escaping, or be offensive.
otherwise, he is stalling. if he can't escape without getting hit, tough titty, learn to grapple.
Very good points.
However, isn't it sometimes effective to tie someone up, allow them to get frustrated and begin to get wild and make mistakes, and then capitalize on these mistakes?
Isn't relaxing and waiting for your opportunity one of the basics of Gracie JJ?
BJ > DORKUS - "The ideal in my mind is simply no standups, get rid of the idea that if you're on the bottom you are always losing"
The problem is that there are time limits, and decisions. With no standups, a passive wrestler who is not interested in finishing could win virtually every fight. He would not give even the minor openings that current "keep working!" forces, which means that the best sub guy in the world might not be able to get even a good submission attempt in there.
Does this submission guy have elbows?
If the wrestler is able to keep his opponent down, AND do more damage from that position, then he IS winning. That's legitimate. If it's not interesting, it's because the bottom guy isn't a good enough grappler to improve his position.
Is the solution to that entertainment problem to have the referee help the inferior fighter to make it more competitive? I don't think so.
BJ > DORKUS - "The ideal in my mind is simply no standups, get rid of the idea that if you're on the bottom you are always losing"
The problem is that there are time limits, and decisions. With no standups, a passive wrestler who is not interested in finishing could win virtually every fight. He would not give even the minor openings that current "keep working!" forces, which means that the best sub guy in the world might not be able to get even a good submission attempt in there.
Then it sounds to me like people need to learn to wrestler better, instead of trying to legislate away their hard earned advantage.
Slowestshot -BJ > DORKUS - "The ideal in my mind is simply no standups, get rid of the idea that if you're on the bottom you are always losing"
The problem is that there are time limits, and decisions. With no standups, a passive wrestler who is not interested in finishing could win virtually every fight. He would not give even the minor openings that current "keep working!" forces, which means that the best sub guy in the world might not be able to get even a good submission attempt in there.
Then it sounds to me like people need to learn to wrestler better, instead of trying to legislate away their hard earned advantage.
Amen.