The Problem :
1) American fans hate grappling because they dont understand it.
2) The rules in the UFC cater to strikers by the very fact there is a standup rule and breaks in clinches.
3) The current scoring and judging system in the UFC cater to takedown points and winning on jabs.
4) Wrestlers and BJJ champions are forced to stand and fight, when in fact they would win almost every match via submission or strikes on the ground.
The Solution :
1) Fights should only have 2 zones, Standup and Ground.
2) Eliminate the stand up rule and breaks in clinches.
3) Eliminate points for takedowns.
4) Fights are won by the amount of damage inflicted in each zone. Damage = total connected strikes and total submission/sweep attempts in each zone.
Submission/Sweep attempts have much higher weighting than strikes. Therefore KOs and Submissions truly become the goal of the fight.
I don't think you know what a split decision means.
I do think the UFC judging sucks though(way too much value on takedowns and not enough on subs). The 10 point must is fucking retarded for MMA.
I don't get what you are saying. Seems to me people go nuts these days when someone gets close to a sub and go even more nuts when someone escapes a sub. Only time they don't like the ground game is when someone is laying and praying inside someone's guard or when they are hugging up against the fence for too long without doing anything.
No one was booing when Nog nearly got Randy in that choke...people were going crazy!
People always cheer when they think the fight is about to end.
80% of the new fans dont know what is happening on the ground, and would prefer to see a KO standing up. And because the fix is in, to showcase standup - there is a false perception on how effective striking really is.
Who cares what 80% of fans think. What matters only is what the UG thinks. Instant fail on your part, friendo.
I'd love to see stand ups go, or at least become much more infrequent and only used when genuine stalling is taking place. An annoying thing is that much of the time, the guy on the bottom is doin the stalling and being rewarded for it with a stand up.
I also HATE stand and wanging, the worst part of most UFC events is seeing grapplers use their shitty stand up to "entertain" when all it does to me is make the sport look embarassing.
Wrestlers are not forced to stand & wang to win. In reality, the converse is true. Wrestlers are more likely to win if they lay & pray. See Clay Guida for the archetype of someone willing to trade excitement for wins.
Your premise is not only wrong, it's bass ackwards.
Zedlepln - Wrestlers are not forced to stand & wang to win. In reality, the converse is true. Wrestlers are more likely to win if they lay & pray. See Clay Guida for the archetype of someone willing to trade excitement for wins.Your premise is not only wrong, it's bass ackwards.
They are put in a difficult situation though as they are lambasted for doing what they do best- controlling the fight with their wrestling. Im almost certain that Sherk's recent examples of standing and wanging are down to the criticism he got for using his wrestling and top game- which I actually found pretty exciting to watch in contrast to him pissing away a decision by flailing away with his t rex arms.
I don't think there are many fans that find the ground game boring anymore, as long as the fighters are active. They just don't want to see 3 rounds of leg humping with the occasional rabbit shot.
billy914 - Zedlepln - Your premise is not only wrong, it's bass ackwards.wat
billy914 - Zedlepln - Wrestlers are not forced to stand & wang to win. In reality, the converse is true. Wrestlers are more likely to win if they lay & pray. See Clay Guida for the archetype of someone willing to trade excitement for wins.Your premise is not only wrong, it's bass ackwards.Sherk's criticism is based on one fight in his career. One fight. Not a good example. His other fights, he's either taken his opponent down, or tried to (Edgar), or won the standup because that was were he did have the advantage. Before his bout with BJ, Sherk was largely regarded as the epitome of a blanket: he would spend nearly the entire round taking guys down and working passes with very little attempt to end the fight.
They are put in a difficult situation though as they are lambasted for doing what they do best- controlling the fight with their wrestling. Im almost certain that Sherk's recent examples of standing and wanging are down to the criticism he got for using his wrestling and top game- which I actually found pretty exciting to watch in contrast to him pissing away a decision by flailing away with his t rex arms.
Guida, on the other hand, had established a reputation prior to the Heurta fight as one of the most aggressive fighters in the UFC. On his feet, he would throw. On the ground, he would posture up and bring pain or even go for subs. After losing to Roger, he joined the dark side and traded that excitement for control. He re-shaped his game to fit the current ruleset, something that runs squarely against the premise of your claim.
The rules do not need rebalancing in favor of wrestlers. You could make a better case that they need rebalancing away from wrestlers.
"when in fact they would win almost every match via submission"
voted down for trolling
"Submission/Sweep attempts have much higher weighting than strikes"
LOL spoken like a real BJJ guy.
Grappula - "Submission/Sweep attempts have much higher weighting than strikes"LOL spoken like a real BJJ guy.
All fights start standing not on the ground. So there is extra work involved in getting the fight to the ground.
And why make individual strikes standing or on the ground worth much, there are hundreds of them and mostly thrown in todays rules to accumulate points, not to finish.
And for the lay'n'pray fighters, sitting in guard and dropping limp wristed hammer fists or holding on may not get you the win, if the fighter on bottom is trying to submit or sweep you. So you better start dropping bombs to KO or change your position.
Submissions are legitimate attempts to end the fight, so is striking to get a KO.
Yeah, the UFC said they would not stand the fights anymore when they started rounds. That didn't last very long. If they're going to have rounds, they should really ease up on the stnadups.
Voted down.
eliminating clinch breaks is one of the worst recommendations i've heard in some time.
i do think you'd see a lot more submissions and grappling based victories if there were no time limits and no standups, but that's not the sport of mma anymore.
canuck34 - I don't get what you are saying. Seems to me people go nuts these days when someone gets close to a sub and go even more nuts when someone escapes a sub. Only time they don't like the ground game is when someone is laying and praying inside someone's guard or when they are hugging up against the fence for too long without doing anything.
No one was booing when Nog nearly got Randy in that choke...people were going crazy!
truth
i agree that just about every rule in mma favors the striker but i think it is a much better sport the way it is