VitorpeepeetasteStrongTRT - dubate - gooseovermaverick - Unfortunately it is a legitimate way to win a fight and if your better than your opponent then you will be able to stop him from doing it
Look a benson trying to wall and stall pettis and those stupid calf kicks and foot stomps. Pettis didnt let him and tapped him. People only treat you the way you let them treat you 
Avoiding conflict shouldn't be rewarded in a professional fight (cue the stand and wang assholes). A solid defense is definitely necessary but taking someone down and then passing guard or mounting them while not attempting to finish them either through strikes or submissions shouldn't be rewarded.
Dude, think about what you just said. If you are able to get someone down, pass guard, mount them and control them it shouldn't be rewarded? I don't understand how that's a bad thing.
The only reason why these positions are even considered dominant or valuable is because they have the most opportunity to set up the submissions / GNP. If the person achieves the positions but presents no threats from it then to a large extend who cares? The assumptions made for why the position is valuable have not been met.
It'd be like if an nba player could do fancy dribbles between their legs and behind their back, but couldn't shoot the ball into the basket - even if their opposition couldn't steal the ball you still wouldn't be particularly impressed
dubate - VitorpeepeetasteStrongTRT - dubate - VitorpeepeetasteStrongTRT - dubate - gooseovermaverick - Unfortunately it is a legitimate way to win a fight and if your better than your opponent then you will be able to stop him from doing it
Look a benson trying to wall and stall pettis and those stupid calf kicks and foot stomps. Pettis didnt let him and tapped him. People only treat you the way you let them treat you
Avoiding conflict shouldn't be rewarded in a professional fight (cue the stand and wang assholes). A solid defense is definitely necessary but taking someone down and then passing guard or mounting them while not attempting to finish them either through strikes or submissions shouldn't be rewarded.
Dude, think about what you just said. If you are able to get someone down, pass guard, mount them and control them it shouldn't be rewarded? I don't understand how that's a bad thing.
My point is that after about 5 seconds of not attempting to improve position, a submission, or throwing a significant strike the ref should stand them up. A fighter shouldn't get the chance to hold on or grind out a victory. Now if they can continually take someone down 7 to 8 times a round after being repeatedly stood up then they definitely deserve the win.
See, Joe Rogan talks about this a lot. Maybe this comes down to different opinions but if a fight hits the ground, I think it should stay there. It's up to the guy on the bottom to get up or else all sense of a realistic fight and imposing skills or styles on an opponent goes out the window.
My thinking is that a fight should always be geared towards going for the finish. If you have the more dominant position but refuse to do anything about it, you do not deserve the position. Using wrestling to avoid combat or "stall" out a win goes against the whole point of fighting. If you refuse to engage then there are no openings for counters. So if you aren't trying to fight and you aren't giving your opponent an opening so they can fight, then it stops being a fight. I'm not saying that you stand up a fighter who is attempting a submission (dear lord it's fucking infuriating when that happens) but if you aren't attempting a submission or throwing significant strikes then it's time for a stand up (at least IMHO).
I don't think there should be any stand ups.
If a fighter gets position but presents to sub threats or significant strikes , they should definitely get a punishment for timidity eg the yellow card system.
time traveling 12er -
The problem I have with the yellow card system is that you're introducing another element into the fight that is not the two fighters in the cage. The way I see it the fight should be decided as much as possible by the two fighters with the ref in there just to protect the fighters and to ensure fairness. In addition we've seen some horrible decisions made by refs in the past. Is it really better to give them yet more power and responsibility? You're giving the ref the power to cut into a fighters pay.
But stand ups from the ref do the same thing. It takes control away from the fighters in the cage. To bring this back on topic, Askren did finish his last 2 fights and has a 50% finishing rate. It is of course against lesser opposition so take it for what it's worth. People also bitched for years about GSP never going for the finish and he was the biggest star in the UFC. Askren is actually much more active than GSP when the fight goes to the ground. I understand people not enjoying his style but I don't consider him to be a lay n pray fighter that sits in someone's guard for the majority of the fight. He is always looking to improve his position. Askren hasn't developed his finishing ability yet but it is improving.
time traveling 12er - HarryPalms - simply put, if you want to claim you are the pinnacle of a sport you should have the best guys in there, regardless of their fight style.
If the fans don't want that they should be watching wrestling. stop watering down the fucking sport.
It's your opinion that Askren is at the pinnacle of the sport. The UFC says go out there an prove yourself because his current resume doesn't equal the money he wants or the headaches he causes with his mouth and poor attitude. Just because the UFC says they're the pinnacle doesn't mean they're obligated to give in to whatever people want just because they're skilled. That would be an insanely dumb thing to do. No one is owed a job in the UFC.
Don't be ridiculous. His resume more than assures he is FAR FAR better than the majority of the UFC roster in his weight division. You can parrot the official line, but every educated follower of the sport is aware of where his skillset sits in the overall scheme of things.
In regards to his attitude, sure that could make things a little more difficult on his management team, but do you think dealing with Allen Iverson, or Terrell Owens or a Michael Vick is smooth sailing? Your argument is hollow.
If the UFC want to proclaim that they are the superbowl of MMA then they should have the best in their fighting, and not run media spin because the president and face has a grudge and puts his personal preferences ahead of the sport.
Now I will agree as a privately run business they are entitled to do that, but having made that choice they should stop trying to pretend that they put the sport first, have the best fighters and make the matchups to find out who the best is. And it doesnt begin and end with Askren, they have done it for a decade, letting the best fighters walk or pushing them out the door or refusing to bring them in over petty grudges and bullshit.
Dreville79 - He insulted the boss of the UFC both before and after the whole saga. If you're dumb enough to insult a possible employer, don't expect ever to work for them. All these Askren defenders need to go see their bosses tomorrow and call them fat, bald idiots. You'll soon find that's not a great plan
Nor is it wise to bash a possible employees manager, and workplace, because you could loose a good investment.