Who benifits the most from the rules and point system in mma?? And how can it be more fair??
by thesickness on Mar 18, 2010 5:38 PM EDT
Email
Print
What a week we have ahead of us!! This month kicks ass for mma fans!!!! lots of smoking goin on thats for sure.. no not cigs. gross ewe gross, but you can throw a fat dip of grizzly in your lip, i approve. time to get to the point, we see many match ups in mma where it is the striker vs. the grappler. Many people believe the grappler has the advantage over the striker because of getting point for takedowns. the rest of the people believe the striker has the advantage because the fight starts standing and the fight is brought back to the standing posistion if there is a lack of movement and a lack of ground n pound. this is always good for the stand up fighter. i personally hate it when the ref stands the fighters up because the ground fighter has worked his ass off to get the fight to the ground, and usually has taken a few nice shots to the dome for his efforts. If the striker cannot get back to his feet bummer for him looks like he looses that round and better be on point with his sprawl in the next round. But mma is for entertainment and the fans want a slug fest. understandable but it just aint right. Nobody wants to watch a boring ass fight with a wrestler who cant inflict damage and just hugs his opponent. But thats MMA this isnt K-1 !!! or muay thai tournys... You never see the ref say well you guys are not hitting each other enough go to the ground and fight now, sounds dumb but it should go both ways. if the grappler cant do anything on the ground its stood up, Back in the strikers world. If the striker cant do anything on his feet then what happens?? we watch them circle eachother and paw at each other.. nope there is no bring it to the ground back in the grapplers world. How can this be fair?? what needs to change about the rules?? should a fight be determined by take downs?? cuz that's what happens all the time. should we be OK with that? Do the mma fans have a say?? will the rules and point system ever change?? and should they change anyways? The fighter on his back doesn't get points for not allowing the fighter on top to advance and not allowing him to do damage, Should he get points? i think so. its just as hard if not harder to stop somone from submitting you as it is to submit someone. There are many different opinions on this.
here is a little poll for those who dont like to post and only vote.. u know who u r.
Stay Sic
Thesickness
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The facial expressions on the fighter's face before the fight begins should be worth at least a point.
That way Diego, Clay Guida and Nate Diaz would have better chances of winning.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. - Herm Albright
i think i saw somewhere that nelson doc hamilton(i think that is his correct name) a judge for the ufc wants to come out with some new rules.
he mentioned facial lacerations, bruises and lumps as one of the criteria. i agree with that. b.j. penn would have easily won that first fight with gsp if that was the case. penn had no facial injuries while gsp face was the worst i have ever seen in the octagon.
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood"
by wolfmanshowlforever on Mar 18, 2010 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
The worst you have ever seen? Are you kidding? He had a bloody nose, that's it.
I think I’ve seen worse. Here let me expand…
You think GSP looks like the worse off in these pics?
canadians cheat and lie…whereas americans are fair and respectul in sports…--HellaHectic the funniest MF'er on Mania
what i menat to say is the worst gsp has ever looked. my apologies. sanchez looks much worse
and was done in by the same man (b.j. penn.)
I'm all about covering the spread and moneylines. I was building a house, I don't deserve this, deserves have nothing to do with it. Bang. "Unforgiven" I drink your milkshake. I drink it up! "There Will BE Blood"
by wolfmanshowlforever on Mar 19, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Hence, why people chose wrestling as the most important MMA background to have in the other poll. The UFC rewards TD's even if they do not result in any damage.
Friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty. Only enemies speak the truth.
-Stephen King
Taking a man down against his will should count as points and does.
If the fighter that takes his opponent down lands in a dominat position, but I also beleive if the fighter does little damage with his dominate position his opponent should get awarded some points, and if his opponent gets up either by himself or the ref should be awarded even more points. Now a grappler that throws many strikes when he has his opponent down like GSP will get many points as if he was striking standing and have little agaqinst, I think that is were the biggest advantage is for a grappler. When you have dominat position you should be scoring at least 4 to 1 against your opponent.
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson
Good post. It looks like we agree in principle.
Friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty. Only enemies speak the truth.
-Stephen King
TD should be points, but not if it's immediately reversed
If a guy bounces right back up before top position can be secured, then the TD really didn’t mean anything. Unless it was a SLAM. SLAMs do damage on their own. Whether any positional advantage is gained or not, dropping a guy on his head or back takes more out of him than 99% of punches or kicks do. But for regular takedowns, I think if no positional advantage is gained, no points should be awarded. But if he gets him down and can keep him there, that’s obviously a point-worthy success.
There are just so many grey areas in scoring. For example, when a GnP guy goes for a TD and instead of trying to defend it, the BJJ bottom-dweller guy throws his legs into the air and pulls the wrestler down into his guard…how do you award points? Both fighters are taking the fight exactly where they want it to go.
Who benefits most? The SPECTATORS!
Lets face it, the rules about standing fights up at a stall or even after every round…even having round breaks, has nothing to do with fairness or safety and everything to do with making the fight more ENTERTAINING
Dude…that write up is unbearable to read lol. Sorry not trying to be mean.
Anderson Silva is p4p the greatest fighter of all time, Fedor and GSP fear the mighty Spider
I NEVER SAID I WAS A WRITER
i only care if the point gets across.. and i like to hear others opinions. i dont try to hard just simple.
YOUR BJJ WILL DO NOTHING FOR YOU WHEN IM FEEDING YOU KNEES AND ELBOWS FOR LUNCH SON!!!
by thesickness on Mar 18, 2010 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought you made great points, Sickness
You raised a very legitimate question and tried to cover both sides of the argument. (So much so, that you left little to be said.) I do think the way you worded your Poll biased the results. Grapplers do have a clear tactical advantage, but as was clearly demonstrated when there were no rules or points, this advantage is inherent to the nature of fighting and not artificially imposed by the rules of the sport.
I don't know about the grappler
The wrestler for sure though, not sure if they are the same. Wrestlers easily are favored in all mma fights as far as scoring goes.
i said striking
because fights get stood up if nothing happens on the ground. if nothing happens on the feet, they dont get sent down.
My breakout fighter for this coming year: Terry Etim
Upset of the Year: John Hathaway over Diego Sanchez
That is true
But in a fight that goes the distance it is unlikely more often than not that the fight was a standing fight, so with saying that most likely it was a grappling match were the suppier grappler would have the advantage.
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth - Mike Tyson
EXACTLY, Syn!
Like Sickness pointed out (and I have said many times) we would be appalled at the injustice if a kickboxer who wasn’t landing any clean strikes were forced to go to the ground with a Jits guy. So why don’t we cry foul when a wrestler or Jits guy has to go back into the striker’s world on the whim of the ref or the crowd, regardless of the fact that the striker couldn’t get to his feet on his own. I’m not longing for a return of 30 minute snoozefests like Royce/Shamrock, but I think we ought to at least acknowledge this injustice and admit our prejudice for standup action.
Gotta be the Grappler.
Case in Point: Couture v Vera
but if you really want to get in to who benefits the most from scoring, look no further than the TUF winner.
Loyality before Reality
Couture v Vera is a really bad example
because Vera is also a wrestler, Randy never got a TD, and Couture landed more strikes than Vera in every category.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
