"I still believe they have to adapt to the rules and the sport. If you are less skilled in one area of the game, you need to improve. If you look at any professional sport, the top athletes are good at all aspects of their respective sport, not just one. Most probably started out with a fundamental skill, but to become the best,they too had to adapt to their sport and improve in many areas to become complete athletes."
True, but what does that have to do with biases against grapplers due to the stand up rule? Of course everyone should always be improving ... I'm just saying that the rule is biased against grapplers.
Regardless of the rules they should be consistent, not changed by the ref as he goes or different from match to match. That way you know which way it is skewed before going in. they should not have it restarted for no apparent rule other then the ref felt like it. Maybe a time count or something more solid with same position restarts on the ground.
It also makes it harder for the ref to determine the outcome which should be a goal of all combat sports. let the fighters fight.
Basketball could be viewed to be bias against people under 6ft. Should we raise the basketball net to 15ft?
Football could be viewed to be bias against people under 200pds. Should we implement weight classes in football?
Volleyball could be viewed to be bias against people without a 40" vertical. Should we raise the volleyball net from 8ft to 12ft?
These changes would certainly level the playing field for everyone in those sports.
I guess my point is that there are regulations in place in all sports, and some of them are seemingly unfair towards certain skills or characteristics.
I've already admitted that for a 100% grappler, the TKO rule is biased. I'm not debating that. However, for a more rounded fighter (which is what I believe an MMA fighter is supposed to be), this rule shouldn't be an issue. Stand up, fight on the ground, it shouldn't matter. This is provided that the rule is applied consistently, and is not used as an escape mechanism. This is whole other can of worms.
Great debate guys. It's great to get different perspectives on these issues. Thanks.
I never really understand why the concern of changing the rules. They have always been the same in this organization.
If you don't like them there are other organizations that cater different styles. We compete in cages, rings, ShootBoxing, K-1 style. But we don't prepare the same for them all.
Its a sport with different organizations with different rules thats where it becomes competitive...
That analogy is flawed. Everyone in TKO fights in the same ring with relatively the same equipment. It's just that certain MA in the MMA are given preferential treatment. That would be like creating rules that restricted the passing game in football, but not the running, or the layup in b-ball but not the dunk.
This is done because many in MMA probably feel crowds don't appreciate grappling and prefer standup fighting, which is their business and their audience. Just don't say or pretend it isn't bias. It is. It's just a bias that TKO (and others) think will increase interest in their product (others have already accused the UFC of highlight to look like bad toughman contests).
It's part of the culture. Look how many fighters play headgames about their opponent's being 'afraid to stand' with them, tricking them away from the ground game where they may do a lot better. How many times do you heard 'afraid to grapple'.
This probably comes about from some boring ass grappling matches of the passed where (predominantly wrestlers) just lay on top of their opponents and did nothing (a sport killing strategy I remember best from Royce vs. Shamrock Superfight).
But, we've also seen stand up fighters run away for an entire match to try and eek out a JD, and they should be penalized the same way, as they kill the sport just as dead.
"Its a sport with different organizations with different rules thats where it becomes competitive..."
??? All big sports I can think of pretty much have the same rules across the board ... basketball, soccer, tennis etc all pretty much have the same rules. MMA is the strange one where the rules differ from event to event ... how is that a good thing in making for a standardised bigger sport?
Football is about the only one I can think of with rules designed to promote different kinds of games (American 4 downs, Canadian 3 downs, Aussie rules chaos, and the rest of the world only using their feet ;)
However, regionalization of rules leads to marginalization of development. If you have well rounded rules, you will attract well rounded vets and encourage well rounded fighters in the next generation.
Organizational motives may have nothing to do with this if the Quebec Commission is the one that sets the rule. Before we criticize the promoters of the events, let's get that fact straight.
So what is your ultimate goal for MMA? Do you want to see standardization, or do you want to see organizations maintain their own identity in various markets? I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of fans, promotors, fighters and trainers on this one. :)
Do you want to see MMA become a large spectator sport as Pride and UFC are trying to accomplish, or would you prefer it to remain low key in most markets as it has in the past such as TKO?
I just realized that I hijacked Marks' thread, which was a total shithead thing to do. Any chance one of the mods can start a new thread and move this other debate?
I certainly don't want to take away from Mark's victory.
What you guys seem to be forgetting is that the fans are the ones who pay for our fighters and the majority of the fans come to see "action," they donot understand the skill of grappling and fighting for position. So therefore we have stand up rules to create more "action" and less stalling on the ground. Lets face it two guys going toe to toe is exciting, look at hockey, how many people do you think are packed into thoes arenas just to see the fights??
For people that understand and enjoy the sport of grappling, we have grappling tourneys and things like that. But MMA, its different, it can attract anybody weather they understand the sport or not.
Grappling has always been at the roots of mma. Yes the fans in Montreal want more striking, but I guarantee that since UCC1 to now, there's been a vast increase in the number of fans who now understand grappling ... given time, they'll all get it. Look at Pride in Japan, the fans there are watching every move on the ground almost religiously. It's not just part of their culture, it transcends that, it's fighting. People who love mma get it. First time fans want to see the brawls, but they'll learn too. Taking grappling away from them just makes no sense ... see Rene's post as to what those fans should watch.