Nate Marquardt: 'Dan Hardy shouldn't complain about wrestling, he should learn how to do it'

until we get to a point where everyone is truely well rounded as they come up and the rest of the globe catches up to training in the US – it won’t change,

Stop bitching about wrestlers!!!!! Fucking excuse making clowns. Go watch/do kick boxing or straight Muy Thai.

had some great comments also on the inactivity of these Wrestlers.

i think hes looking past Harris and there seems to be a load of cockiness running around that camp at the moment!

I’d be happy to see refs break apart the clinches against the fence where nobody is doing anything e.g. Couture-Vera, Lentz-Winner just like they do in boxing when the guys clinch and negate each others offense. Guys shouldn’t be given unlimited time to hold against the fence failing at a takedown attempt as they’re not actually doing anything and never even succeeded in the takedown.

However I don’t agree at all with the ref standing guys up after a takedown, like magic said below that involves the ref becoming a factor in the fight and dictating where the fight takes place (and subsequently who has the advantage) simply because fans find that style of fighting boring. If a guy can’t get back to his feet then it’s his own fault and he should have trained sweeps or submissions off his back so that he could mount some offense or get the fight back to his feet himself, or even learn better sprawls and reversals to avoid being taken down in the first place. It’s not the refs job to decide who should have an advantage in a fight or what constitutes an exciting fight, all he should be there to do is enforce the rules and protect the fighters.

This whole situation would be fixed if judges gave more points for offense than position so that if a guy is on his back but is landing more strikes and attempting more submissions then he wins the round instead of the guy on top, that way dominant wrestlers would have to attempt more offense and equally guys who lay on their back doing nothing deservedly lose the fight and aren’t gifted a needless stand-up.

The thing is though, that Frank Edgar hasn’t used takedowns to win a fight since 2008. He got to and won the title by being a wrestler that worked his ass off on striking knowing he could use wrestling to keep it there, just like Chuck made famous. GSP may not have finished Hardy, but nobody can say he wasn’t going for the finish. Brock as gotten a stoppage in every one of his title fights, as you mentioned.

So, yeah, three of the champs are very strong wrestlers, but one of them is a champ thanks to lay and pray, or “isn’t a fighter” like Hardy and Cole Miller, two guys who couldn’t carry any of those fighters’ jock straps, wants to claim.

you don’t win in MMA by "pinning" anyone

That’s exactly right and why I don’t agree with takedowns scoring points. If you’re not working toward a KO or submission you are stalling.

Have you seen more than one Lentz fight? Everybody is labeling him as a guy that should be cut and can’t be interesting and is the worst, but how many people have really seen more than 1 performance of his in his entire career. I haven’t, so I can’t speak from first hand, but I can say that in listening to a bunch of radio in the days that followed, I have heard multiple MMA journalists who have said all of his fights until now have been entertaining bouts. Sometimes things shake down where it’s not a barn burner. Winner had good enough hands he didn’t want to mess with them. He had good enough TD defense and escapes to not be held down for any significant time, but also not enough defense to keep from continually getting tied up. That all added up to a lot of position jockeying on the cage. It sucked. It wasn’t entertaining. But, sometimes, shit happens.

Also, I don’t mean to single you out, as you are hardly the first to do it, and for all I know you may have seen them all, but it’s something that I wanted to put out there and this seemed as apt a comment as any.

Usually it’s a bunch of drunk idiots with more money than sense who only seem to want to watch a brawl and actually know very little about the technical side of the sport.

Lentz-Winner round 1 should have been a 10-10. Judging would be a lot better if the judges didn’t always try to score a round 10-9, as it’s unfair to favour one fighter in an even round (especially if nothing happens) just as it’s not fair for a guy to get the same points for dominating a round as he would for squeaking it. Until the scoring is used properly by judges we’ll continue to see controversial decisions and an emphasis on control winning fights.

NNR and I have already figured this out.

By the way the Misaki/Santiago fight in the last Sengoku perfectly illustrated some 10-8 rounds.

I laughed.

Reminds me of the kid I used to kick around the playground when I was a school kid.

Cracking stand up

That’s ridiculous. Limit it to 3 takedowns? A fight can’t be regulated by assigning a certain amount of chances to make a move. The answer lies within the scoring system — or evolution of the sport itself — not in perverse mutilation of the rules.