UFC overhypes striking - here is the solution

Zedlepln - 
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.

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.
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.

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.
 


I don't understand why everyone is so in love with Guida. I think he is one of the most boring fighters in the UFC and I'm never excited to see him in any fights. This is mostly because he uses his wrestling effectively but he can't finish fights imo.

HaMMerHouseFAN - 

I don't understand why everyone is so in love with Guida. I think he is one of the most boring fighters in the UFC and I'm never excited to see him in any fights. This is mostly because he uses his wrestling effectively but he can't finish fights imo.
He can finish guys. He has just chosen, since losing to Roger, to take play it safe. He became a fan favorite because he was so aggressive, but he lost a few very close fights and changed his style to take advantage of the scoring. All of this runs completely contrary to the original post of the thread.

THIS THREAD DOESNT EVEN MAKE SENSEthe biggest ppv draws in the UFC are NOT strikers (with an exception to griffin and liddell)lesnar, couture, ortiz, hughes, gsp are all HUGE in the US and none are strikersFranklin and Silva are not good ppv draws and they always keep it on the feetmost of the strikers and "brawls" were in japan at PRIDE

mikecard - eliminating clinch breaks is one of the worst recommendations i've heard in some time.


The clinch against the fence is one of the worst things to watch in MMA. But you will see less of that once takedowns dont count for points. Grapplers will be more willing to go to the ground by any means possible to win the fight.

And when strikes are worth very little points, strikers will hit to KO rather than just stuff takedowns, jab then run. Because if you get taken down once, then get swept or almost caught in a triangle then you are losing the fight.

Spaghetti Legs - The Problem :



1) American fans hate grappling because they dont understand it.





Maybe American fans don't like grappling simply because they don't like grappling? 



Teach 100 Americans everything there is to know about grappling, and 90 of them will still rather watch a guy get KOed than subbed.

Squared Circle - 
Spaghetti Legs - The Problem :

1) American fans hate grappling because they dont understand it.


Maybe American fans don't like grappling simply because they don't like grappling? 

Teach 100 Americans everything there is to know about grappling, and 90 of them will still rather watch a guy get KOed than subbed.



I disagree. Once people understand the countless number of techniques with ground fighting, their perception will change. Most people have no idea what kind of pressure can be applied or the balance required to control an opponent.

Strikers constantly get free passes to stand up and win by KO, and wrestlers have been abusing the takedown points rule to win in boring fashion because of the rules.

Anybody can get a lucky KO standing up. Submission are not lucky.

Spaghetti Legs - 
mikecard - eliminating clinch breaks is one of the worst recommendations i've heard in some time.


The clinch against the fence is one of the worst things to watch in MMA. But you will see less of that once takedowns dont count for points. Grapplers will be more willing to go to the ground by any means possible to win the fight.

And when strikes are worth very little points, strikers will hit to KO rather than just stuff takedowns, jab then run. Because if you get taken down once, then get swept or almost caught in a triangle then you are losing the fight.


Judging based on your system would induce so much artiface into the scoring system that it could only lead to even worse decisions than we see today. Take Machida/Ortiz, for example. Machida clearly dominated that fight, though Tito almost caught him with a triangle at the end. Does that triagnle attempt count for so much more than Machida's earlier knockdown that Ortiz wins the fight now? Can you imagine what a horrible decision that would have been?

Let's take another, hypothetical fight in which fighter A circles and controls the distance and pace of fight using his jab for 2 and a half rounds, with fighter B failing to land any significant offense. At the end of round three, fighter A takes B down, at which point B chains together a series of submission attempts, all of which fail, followed by a sweep at the end of the fight. Does fighter B win, even though fighter A controlled so much more of the fight? Seems like the kind of logic which gives us decisions like Bisping/Hamill, doesn't it?

You have proposed a system of changes, but you have not quantified those changes, making your proposal nothing more than a vague suggestion. You're going to have to define what "much more" means in terms of points if you want to be taken seriously at all.

Spaghetti Legs - All fights start standing not on the ground. So there is extra work involved in getting the fight to the ground.


That "work" is known as a takedown, yet you propose eliminating credit for takedowns.

Under your proposal, if somebody else takes you down and you get your face bashed in while attempting a bunch of failed sweeps, then you win, even though you've caused no damage and didn't do any of the "extra work involved in getting the fight to the ground."

Makes no sense.

Typical UG post that has point but then loses it after going over the edge.

Yes, the rules cater to striking over grappling but grapplers will not win every match without standups or breaks or even rounds esp when they arent able to get the fight to the ground in the first place.

Also, stalling would be insane without clinch breaks, standups and rounds. More realistic? Yes but....

TDs are a fundamental part of fight dictation and octagon control. What moron still doesnt realize this? Yes, they are scored too heavily upon the UFC judges however to not "score" them is idiotic.

Lol at the 2 zone concept. The problem is that the judges are just not MMA educated enough. You just judge fights overall by round or overall period. If you know the game, you understand the "zones" and take into account everything.

"Submission/Sweep attempts have much higher weighting than strikes"

- And huh?

And to give the UFC/Portland crowd credit, i was amazed when they cheered when Randy got his arm out of the arm triangle attempt even when he blocking the attempt. Pride fans had that on UFC fans before but the understanding is def improving in the UFC (though its about time).

ok no more standups from lay an pray wrestlers, let guys grab the fence, stomp, soccer kick headbutt ect... and institute yellow card rules for guys that arent "doing damage"

your idea of zones for scoring is just retarded, go watch a grappling match if thats what you want.

A lot of people seem to ignore that there is a huge difference between a stand up fighter landing jabs and a guy from the bottom making sub attempts.



How much credit should really be given for a sub attempt if you think about it objectively?? A submission is either a hit or miss thing. While I agree that if a fighter from the bottom is legitimitely attempting to land a submission you should give the fighter credit for trying to finish the fight, but the problem is that a sub attempt typically causes zero damage to the other fighter.



A striker who stands up and jabs is at least causing damage with those jabs. I'm not arguing that a jab is likely to win a fight but the accumulation of damage is still there.



Also if you want to give credit for sub attempts there has to be a more clear definition of what a sub attempt is.



If you listen to Frank Mir commentate WEC events he thinks everytime the guy on the bottom raises his legs in the air that he's "going for a triangle choke" or he's "going for an armbar" even though half the time he's not even close to having the guy in a position to finish him.



The other thing is that people tend to view a failed takedown attempt as a negative, but then want to turn around and give a fighter credit for attempting a sweep, even if it fails. They're both the same thing, an attempt to gain position on your opponent.

Screw this thread, the sport works as is. It's the fastest growing sport out there. Please don't listen to dumb ideas and screw it up.

 "He became a fan favorite because he was so aggressive, but he lost a few very close fights and changed his style to take advantage of the scoring"



Which close fights did he lose as a result of being aggressive/exciting? He lost in the Huerta fight as a direct result of being desperate to take Huerta down; he got caught with a knee on a shot. He wasn't trying to "stand and bang" at the time, nor was he posturing up for some sick GnP and got caught in a triangle or anything like that. His first fight in the UFC, against Din, was pretty boring, as was the Aurelio fight. The Tyson fight was exciting because he couldn't get or keep the takedown.



In other words Guida hasn't really changed what he's doing. He has just been fighting guys who are good enough wrestlers to keep him from getting the takedown, but not good enough to shrug him off and create some space, so the fight ends up stuck in a stalemate against the fence. In the Diego fight I think Guida was just trying to survive when he got the takedowns because he was badly rocked numerous times.

Spaghetti Legs - 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.


This is actually a very correct statement

Squared Circle - 
Spaghetti Legs - The Problem :

1) American fans hate grappling because they dont understand it.


Maybe American fans don't like grappling simply because they don't like grappling? 

Teach 100 Americans everything there is to know about grappling, and 90 of them will still rather watch a guy get KOed than subbed.


Thats not even remotely close to being true dude... what the hell?!

Didnt read the whole thread... But i don't think the casual fan is that opposed to grappling. Look at the Noguiera Couture fight, people went fucking nuts for that fight and for good reason, it was two awesome fighters going at it and giving their heart to the sport, not two assholes just trying to survive the round.

cdiorio13 - 

How much credit should really be given for a sub attempt if you think about it objectively?? A submission is either a hit or miss thing. While I agree that if a fighter from the bottom is legitimitely attempting to land a submission you should give the fighter credit for trying to finish the fight, but the problem is that a sub attempt typically causes zero damage to the other fighter.



Thats why judges need to be MMA educated to be MMA judges (imagine that).

Also, "damage" should not be the only criteria weighed. Grappling is a fundamental part of the sport so the technical aspect to it cannot be ignored. This doesnt mean that MMA judging criteria should mirror BJJ's or ADCC.

For example, if fighter A is in top guard and fighter B bottom guard, and fighter B is blitzing fighter A with sub and sweep attempts and controlling the actiong and fighter A is merely hanging by a thread, even though fighter B didnt do any damage, how can fighter B not be awarded the round?

Its gets more complicated if fighter A actually lands some GNP and makes some controlling or offensive posturing of his own or had some good offensive moments standing before the fight hit the ground. Thats were weighing things in the overall picture comes in. But any educated fan (and hopefully judges) will understand every facet of the sport so they can look at the overall picture and weight it in.

Also, it normally just comes down to who is the more aggressive or offensive fighter. Thats a subjective and often grey question in some fights but it a fighter that is merely surviving should never get the round or decision.

The problem with todays rule system is the fact that only certain criteria is attributed points which totally molds the way a fight is played out.

Standup fighting is encouraged with standups and clinch breaks. And takedowns are awarded points. This creates a scenario where fighters will only try to do these things to win.

Only brave fighters will try to end fights via submission. Going for the KO while standing is commendable but hardly fair since fighters get multiple chances to restart in that position. And the foolish concept that youre losing the fight because youre on your back has been nicely brainwashed into the publics mind now because of the terrible rules and point system.

Here is a sample of what the point system should look like. This system will encourage more KOs, submissions and sweeps. No more 10 point must system. Stats are counted for each round, so use the stats. And let new educated judges make the assessment of what a submission or sweep is.

Takedowns and positions are not awarded points. Since submssions and sweeps are far more complex than striking they are awarded more points. MMA should be about trying to finish the fight via strikes and submission. Your position helps achieve this goal, not win the fight on points.




standing strikes = 1 point

standing submission attempt = 10 points

knockdown from strikes = 50 points



takedown / pulling guard = 0 points

standing pin opponent against fence = -1 points



ground strikes = 1 points

ground submission attempt = 10 points

sweep = 50 points