Wrestling in the ufc...

[HAD0K3N]

okay a change from the usual Brock Fedor GSP Anderson.;. threads, who's for a little discussion ?

 

Joe Rogan States wrestling is the best "base" for MMA,

 

I can't help but feel that the octagon and the rules of the UFC go in the favor of wrestlers and maybe this is part of the reason that they are able to dominate.

 

1. The cage, The octagon allows for wrestlers to push hold and trap opponents against it,

 

2 The scoring, (although responsibility of the NSAC) gives points for gaining take downs and points for holding position even tho you may not be causing damage.

 

they are not equal point when defending a take down.

 

3. Weight, wrestling is the only sport i can think of which the athletes do massive weight cuts for weigh ins then pile it back on for competition , most martial artist and boxers I know stay around there natural weight, which is the weight they fight at maybe cutting a few pounds. where as wrestlers from an early stage of their career are cutting large amounts and putting it back on for fights. which is why they weigh in at one weight and fight at another. (although this seems to be more frequent with all UFC fighters recently)

 

4. Rules, the absence of being able to kick or knee an opponent to the head whilst they are on the floor or have there hands on the ground, which is taking possibility of some of the more effective strikes from the ground position away from the strikers.

 

 

 

you will all have something to say. just remember we are discussing it not arguing it.

 

i have my opinions lets here yours.

 

i think my biggest fear is that the UFC will be dominated by wrestlers / kick boxers and become boring ........

[Ichigo]

i think they score takedowns too much

 

sure score them if they are able to hold the opponent down for some time and work

 

but if they get the takedown and the opponent manages to get up right away as the wrestler is not able to hold him down that should be scored a hell of a lot less

 

ive seen quite a few fights won this way and i dont think its fair and i think people should get scored for being able to return to there feet right after the takedown

[Soze]

This Is A Good Thread - I Think You Have A Very God Point - But As An MMA Dude I Would Think that If Your Getting Taken Down Alot( A La Hardy) Then You Must Improve.

[kyokushin4life]

i think they score takedowns too much

 

sure score them if they are able to hold the opponent down for some time and work

 

but if they get the takedown and the opponent manages to get up right away as the wrestler is not able to hold him down that should be scored a hell of a lot less

 

ive seen quite a few fights won this way and i dont think its fair and i think people should get scored for being able to return to there feet right after the takedown

 

+1 i agree with this. Same as if someone reverses the position the take down shouldnt really be counted i think.

[Jamhet]

okay a change from the usual...

 

[Ichigo]

+1 i agree with this. Same as if someone reverses the position the take down shouldnt really be counted i think.

 

yeah that too

 

i think you should also get scored more for trying for subs from your back too i dont think they get enough credit either

[kyokushin4life]

yeah that too

 

i think you should also get scored more for trying for subs from your back too i dont think they get enough credit either

 

Yeah i agree as long as its a proper sub attempt and not a set up to stop someone from working on the ground. LIke so many fighters grab an arm for a kimura to tie up the guy from trying anything for fear of getting subbed. BUt a guy on his back with a really active guard should be maked so much higher.

[HAD0K3N]

i have discussed it with many friends, and there is no easy solution for this one,

 

maybe scoring take downs less each time you do one was an idea.

 

so was not scoring take downs at all, that will stop the lay and prey point scorers from scoring out a fight.

 

The pride green/ yellow card worked, but there must be a fair solution for this problem,

 

any ideas?

[danfitz07]

The old Pride rules were good in this respect, most weight was given to effort to finish the fight and damage, and takedowns and takedown defense we're scored equally.

[kyokushin4life]

the pride idea worked but its very dependant on the referees. In japan the crowd like the ground game and have a much better knowledge of the ground game. I wouldnt want fighters getting cards or their purses docked when there working on the ground and the crowd is booing so the ref gets influenced by the crowd.

[Ichigo]

Yeah i agree as long as its a proper sub attempt and not a set up to stop someone from working on the ground. LIke so many fighters grab an arm for a kimura to tie up the guy from trying anything for fear of getting subbed. BUt a guy on his back with a really active guard should be maked so much higher.

 

yeah i agree with this

[x2sasa]

i think they score takedowns too much

 

sure score them if they are able to hold the opponent down for some time and work

 

but if they get the takedown and the opponent manages to get up right away as the wrestler is not able to hold him down that should be scored a hell of a lot less

 

ive seen quite a few fights won this way and i dont think its fair and i think people should get scored for being able to return to there feet right after the takedown

 

like ****y evans vs Silva

[FerociousKO]

takedowns should only be scored if the wrestler causes damage or attempts submissions on the ground

[Ichigo]

like ****y evans vs Silva

 

yes sort of but evans did manage to hold silva a few times

[HAD0K3N]

the pride idea worked but its very dependant on the referees. In japan the crowd like the ground game and have a much better knowledge of the ground game. I wouldnt want fighters getting cards or their purses docked when there working on the ground and the crowd is booing so the ref gets influenced by the crowd.

 

i think not scoring take downs at all, and just be reliant on damage caused, if the take down causes damage then a point, if not, then its the fighters job to use it to gain a position where he can, if he cant then the points should go to the other person for defending. and if the person on top isn't causing damage for a set period of time then the fighters are stood up.

 

just an idea but will stop lay and prey and push wrestlers to try and finish fights.

 

the trouble with scoring wrestling in MMA is that it is scored on control and position not effective damage as with all other martial arts.

[Ichigo]

i think not scoring take downs at all' date=' and just be reliant on damage caused, if the take down causes damage then a point, if not, then its the fighters job to use it to gain a position where he can, if he cant then the points should go to the other person for defending. and if the person on top isn't causing damage for a set period of time then the fighters are stood up.

 

just an idea but will stop lay and prey and push wrestlers to try and finish fights.

 

the trouble with scoring wrestling in MMA is that it is scored on control and position not effective damage as with all other martial arts.[/quote']

 

hmm i think you would really have to score takedowns as you are pushing the pace and decideing where the fight takes place

 

but as i said before if the opponent gets right back up straight afterr the takedown it should be scored a hell of alot less

[HAD0K3N]

hmm i think you would really have to score takedowns as you are pushing the pace and decideing where the fight takes place

 

but as i said before if the opponent gets right back up straight afterr the takedown it should be scored a hell of alot less

 

True..

 

so if you choose to stand you wouldn't get the same points for deciding where the fight takes place unless you can stop or gain a take down,

 

to me that's another advantage to the wrestlers within the scoring.

[Ichigo]

True..

 

so if you choose to stand you wouldn't get the same points for deciding where the fight takes place unless you can stop or gain a take down' date='

 

to me that's another advantage to the wrestlers within the scoring.[/quote']

 

yeah thats true but they do get points for moving forward and really pushing the pace and octagon control

[HAD0K3N]

i am in agreement with you,

 

There is no easy solution for this problem which goes past the UFC and involves the NSAC ,

 

trouble is over time i fear that the ufc will be dominated by wrestling, which would leave other good fighters at a disadvantage as many factors in the UFC favor wrestlers.

[kyokushin4life]

Taking a guy to the ground is taking him from where he wants the fight to be. Getting back up means your putting the fight where you want it to be not the guy taking you down so it should be scored evenly. Its just so hard to work out a good scoring system.

[No_1_Contender]

my personal opinion is that people rag on good wrestlers for being boring but no one ever complains that wrestlers opponents have **** takedown defense... wrestlers will take u to the ground if they can, thats what they do, the same way muay thai guys will pin u to the cage and work the clinch or leg kick u until u cant stand. I dont believe the rules "favour" wrestlers but i do believe that with a wrestling base, u can manipulate to rules a little easier.... we need to give wrestlers a break and start looking at these fighters who have little to no takedown defense..... being an MMA fighter myself, the last time i fought a wrestler i spent the 10 weeks leading up to the fight working on my takedown defense.... i finished the fight with a knee from the clinch at 2:30 of the 2nd round. Im no UFC fighter, but think about it guys.... really.

[kyokushin4life]

my personal opinion is that people rag on good wrestlers for being boring but no one ever complains that wrestlers opponents have **** takedown defense... wrestlers will take u to the ground if they can' date=' thats what they do, the same way muay thai guys will pin u to the cage and work the clinch or leg kick u until u cant stand. I dont believe the rules "favour" wrestlers but i do believe that with a wrestling base, u can manipulate to rules a little easier.... we need to give wrestlers a break and start looking at these fighters who have little to no takedown defense..... being an MMA fighter myself, the last time i fought a wrestler i spent the 10 weeks leading up to the fight working on my takedown defense.... i finished the fight with a knee from the clinch at 2:30 of the 2nd round. Im no UFC fighter, but think about it guys.... really.[/quote']

 

Really? im guessing you didnt read everything. Were not blaming wrestlers were talking about it being scored more fairly mainly.

[HAD0K3N]

would you rate control over effective damage ?

[HAD0K3N]

really? Im guessing you didnt read everything. Were not blaming wrestlers were talking about it being scored more fairly mainly.

 

+100000000000

[HAD0K3N]

my personal opinion is that people rag on good wrestlers for being boring but no one ever complains that wrestlers opponents have **** takedown defense... wrestlers will take u to the ground if they can' date=' thats what they do, the same way muay thai guys will pin u to the cage and work the clinch or leg kick u until u cant stand. I dont believe the rules "favour" wrestlers but i do believe that with a wrestling base, u can manipulate to rules a little easier.... we need to give wrestlers a break and start looking at these fighters who have little to no takedown defense..... being an MMA fighter myself, the last time i fought a wrestler i spent the 10 weeks leading up to the fight working on my takedown defense.... i finished the fight with a knee from the clinch at 2:30 of the 2nd round. Im no UFC fighter, but think about it guys.... really.[/quote']

 

Dude i love to watch matt huges, rampage jackson, chale sonnin, darth bader.

 

as these guys all know how to use there wrestling to finish fights.

[HAD0K3N]

takedowns should only be scored if the wrestler causes damage or attempts submissions on the ground

 

this is my thinking.

[Kazurai]

True..

 

so if you choose to stand you wouldn't get the same points for deciding where the fight takes place unless you can stop or gain a take down' date='

 

to me that's another advantage to the wrestlers within the scoring.[/quote']

I think in MMA, escaping to your feet should equal the takedown especially in situations where no clear control is established like a few of Rashad's takedowns on Thiago. The time it took Thiago to get back to his feet on a few of those was really quick, technically making them scrambles. I also beleive that near finished subs should count for alot more as well. Oh and since we're talking about changing things, how about every fight that goes to split decision instead goes to round 4?

[daweedy]

okay a change from the usual Brock Fedor GSP Anderson.;. threads' date=' who's for a little discussion ?

 

Joe Rogan States wrestling is the best "base" for MMA,

 

I can't help but feel that the octagon and the rules of the UFC go in the favor of wrestlers and maybe this is part of the reason that they are able to dominate.

 

1. The cage, The octagon allows for wrestlers to push hold and trap opponents against it,

 

2 The scoring, (although responsibility of the NSAC) gives points for gaining take downs and points for holding position even tho you may not be causing damage.

 

they are not equal point when defending a take down.

 

3. Weight, wrestling is the only sport i can think of which the athletes do massive weight cuts for weigh ins then pile it back on for competition , most martial artist and boxers I know stay around there natural weight, which is the weight they fight at maybe cutting a few pounds. where as wrestlers from an early stage of their career are cutting large amounts and putting it back on for fights. which is why they weigh in at one weight and fight at another. (although this seems to be more frequent with all UFC fighters recently)

 

4. Rules, the absence of being able to kick or knee an opponent to the head whilst they are on the floor or have there hands on the ground, which is taking possibility of some of the more effective strikes from the ground position away from the strikers.

 

 

 

you will all have something to say. just remember we are discussing it not arguing it.

 

i have my opinions lets here yours.

 

i think my biggest fear is that the UFC will be dominated by wrestlers / kick boxers and become boring ........[/quote']

 

Agreed with everything you wrote. My solution to this would be allow to kicks and knees to the head of the downed opponent, and that fights should be scored as a whole just like they scored them in Pride. I would love to have UFC with Pride rules infact. I dont like the idea of yellow cards though.

[Meekie01]

i think you have a great point here fella and i honestly think that the reason wrestling is scored so high in the ufc is because it gives america an advantage, now im not trying to start a race war etc here this is just my opinion... lets look at some of americas top fighters lesnar, carwin, tito, chuck, sonnen, hendo, couture, coleman, fitch, rashad, j jones, bader, matt hughes etc etc etc, all these have a strong base in wresting and have used this to win fights, granted chuck uses his to keep the fight on his feet but where some fighters would of got taken down by tito and probably owned on the ground chuck was able to keep it on the feet and knock him out.now if chuck didnt have such good westling we probably would of seen an earlier version of gsp v hardy when he fought tito, my point being ( and i dont mean to be offensive here) but america dont have too many martial artists (wrestling being an olympic sport not a martial art) atleast not ones that could challenge for a title, and as the ufc is american and its biggest audience is america they need big name american fighters that they can "sell" otherwise pride would of been bigger than it was in the usa.therefor they change the rules from the prides original ruling to favour the wrestler and point take downs and contol allowing the wrestlers to compete with the top level mma stars.

 

if i got my comment wrong and america does have title contender challenger that arnt based in wrestling then please submit ther names im always in to seeing new fighters and would love to youtube them

 

ps- nate the great, mir etc arnt title contenders they both got owned in their last fights... funny enough by wrestlers!

[HAD0K3N]

Agreed with everything you wrote. My solution to this would be allow to kicks and knees to the head of the downed opponent' date=' and that fights should be scored as a whole just like they scored them in Pride. I would love to have UFC with Pride rules infact. I dont like the idea of yellow cards though.[/quote']

 

cage rage had a marking that was a distance away from the cage if the fight went to the ground here the ref would signal the use of kicks an knees to the head, outside the markings would be illegal , you can imagine the problems caused.

 

the rule is banned because of the cage can trap a fighter head and a kick to the head that cant move can kill someone,

 

pride had a ring which is why they had kicks to a downed opponents head,

 

the ring is a disadvantage to wrestlers as the cant trap fighters against it.

[Strokerman]

Your # 3 is a bit off. Boxers cut tremendous amounts of weight as well. One thing to remember is that boxers are generally only given 24 hrs or less to rehydrate where as MMA fighters are given 48 - 72 hrs. That's a huge difference. Still, there are plenty of top boxers that come down 30 lbs from their natural weight to fight.

 

Wrestlers can control where the fight takes place better than other backgrounds. With the exception of Machida, whose take down defense is uncanny despite his karate background, and BJ (flexibility) the top fighters are almost all wrestlers who can control where the fight takes place - feet or ground. I'll give special consideration to Silva, since he has shown a slight weakness to being taken down yet his clinch game is so devastating most people don't even try.

 

There aren't many people who get into boxing and then cross over to MMA. Most "boxer experience" people are MMA/BJJ guys that got into boxing for a while and then came back to MMA. So, over the majority of fighters wrestlers have the most experience with weight cutting. They know the tips/tricks etc. Plus, it's a lifestyle and they are already used to that life.

 

Mental toughness. I wrestled in JH and some in HS. It's not what one might call "fun".

 

As a BJJ player I like the ground game more than the striking in MMA. I would rather they never stand people up or break apart a clinch. I'm with Rogan on this one. Yes, there are the occassional boring fight when a bum gets on top and does nothing. But, in these cases is should be up to Dana White not to give that person any more matches. Otherwise, I think Couture's fights and the last Evans fight were exciting.

 

I think one solution is to have a TUF cast with only BJJ guys. This show is filled with brawling losers, so the average joe fans watch this and expect every fight to be an amateurish spectacle like on the show. Put some guys with real skill in there and let the average joe's see some technical fighting. Maybe they'll start to get a better appreciation for the ground game.

 

Fire people like Kongo, Leben, Houston Alexander, Herring etc.. 1) they suck 2) not a single one of them has a chance to be a champion ever 3) they only reinforce the notion that people who can strike only are "exciting" and ground gamers are "boring".

 

Credit more "points" for submission attempts. If 1 guy is laying in guard just controlling and doing little hammerfists with an occassional "big" shot - but that shot only lands because the person on bottom is throwing up submissions over and over the bottom guy should win the round. There is something to be said about top position and control, but let's face it you can sit in someone's guard all day and neither be submitted nor let them up if you really wanted. So, if the guy on bottom is simply more active he should get credit for that. There's nothing he can do BUT be active in a futile manner if the other guy doesn't want to let him up or move to pass/punch.

[dfwGSP]

okay a change from the usual Brock Fedor GSP Anderson.;. threads' date=' who's for a little discussion ?

 

Joe Rogan States wrestling is the best "base" for MMA,

 

I can't help but feel that the octagon and the rules of the UFC go in the favor of wrestlers and maybe this is part of the reason that they are able to dominate.

 

1. The cage, The octagon allows for wrestlers to push hold and trap opponents against it,

 

2 The scoring, (although responsibility of the NSAC) gives points for gaining take downs and points for holding position even tho you may not be causing damage.

 

they are not equal point when defending a take down.

 

3. Weight, wrestling is the only sport i can think of which the athletes do massive weight cuts for weigh ins then pile it back on for competition , most martial artist and boxers I know stay around there natural weight, which is the weight they fight at maybe cutting a few pounds. where as wrestlers from an early stage of their career are cutting large amounts and putting it back on for fights. which is why they weigh in at one weight and fight at another. (although this seems to be more frequent with all UFC fighters recently)

 

4. Rules, the absence of being able to kick or knee an opponent to the head whilst they are on the floor or have there hands on the ground, which is taking possibility of some of the more effective strikes from the ground position away from the strikers.

 

 

 

you will all have something to say. just remember we are discussing it not arguing it.

 

i have my opinions lets here yours.

 

i think my biggest fear is that the UFC will be dominated by wrestlers / kick boxers and become boring ........[/quote']

 

I agree with some of this. I think they score takedowns high because they are harder to do than sub attempts amongst other things. Plus the standup rule hinders wrestlers. The weight loss thing is completely fair. They learned how to deal with weigh-ins at a young age.

[uaquin]

i am in agreement with you' date='

 

There is no easy solution for this problem which goes past the UFC and involves the NSAC ,

 

trouble is over time i fear that the ufc will be dominated by wrestling, which would leave other good fighters at a disadvantage as many factors in the UFC favor wrestlers.[/quote']

 

People thought the same thing about BJJ when it was king in the UFC. The fighters evolved.

 

Most successful MMA fighters now have some if not a lot of BJJ training. Give it some time and I think you will see the strikers training wrestling and developing better sprawls and take down defense to counter the wrestlers. They don;t have to be good enough wrestlers to shoot and double leg a wrestler and control them on the ground. Just good enough to stuff a TD.

 

More so than the actual wrestling that the top wrestlers do, wrestling is a good base for a MMA fighter for many reasons. To be a top wrestler in high school and university the training and discipline needed is insane. These guys are some of the hardest working athletes in any sport. As you also mentioned, they are pros at cutting weight. Most of them are freakishly strong due to the core training from a young age, explosive and quick on their feet.

 

As to the rules and scoring. Ya I agree it could use some tweaking. A take down that doesn't lead to a dominant position, serious sub attempt or damage from GnP shouldn't score. A stuffed take down should score the same for the defender as a take down does for the aggressor.

[Tim_A]

I think there are a few simple answers that will help the problem tremendously.

 

1. Takedowns should not score points unless they also do some damage. A slam gets a point sure, a trip or a single leg, no.

 

2. Stand them up after 30 seconds of inactivity, tiny little hammer fists do not count as "activity".

 

3. Stuffing a take down should be worth a point even though just trying the takedown is not. Watching wrestling is boring and it should be discouraged somewhat.

 

4. Allow knees to the head like pride did. No kicks but knees yes.

 

Seeing a few lay and pray guys LOSE on points from blocked takedowns or getting knocked out with a knee to the head will go a long way to sending that boring crap into being just another part of the an overall MMA game and the end all, be all of styles.

[dfwGSP]

I think there are a few simple answers that will help the problem tremendously.

 

1. Takedowns should not score points unless they also do some damage. A slam gets a point sure' date=' a trip or a single leg, no.

 

2. Stand them up after 30 seconds of inactivity, tiny little hammer fists do not count as "activity".

 

3. Stuffing a take down should be worth a point even though just trying the takedown is not. Watching wrestling is boring and it should be discouraged somewhat.

 

4. Allow knees to the head like pride did. No kicks but knees yes.

 

Seeing a few lay and pray guys LOSE on points from blocked takedowns or getting knocked out with a knee to the head will go a long way to sending that boring crap into being just another part of the an overall MMA game and the end all, be all of styles.[/quote']

 

Horrible solution. You're thinking, but just a little too drastically.

[PeaceBro]

I thought wrestling is some form of a Martial Art, which warrants it in MMA. GSP was busy, although it was boring in some people's eyes. What if the guy only knows wrestling right now but still kicks ****, don't hold it against him by taking away points. Remind them during the fight that they need to push action if they dont stand them up. If no action in the standup give warnings then start deducting points if no action on the feet. If the wrestler takes down opponents consistently and has no action deduct points from there.

 

Another solution althogh a far fetched one might be start first round standing, second round in guard, third round opposite guard or something along that line....i dunno just thinking out loud

[dfwGSP]

I thought wrestling is some form of a Martial Art' date=' which warrants it in MMA. GSP was busy, although it was boring in some people's eyes. What if the guy only knows wrestling right now but still kicks ****, don't hold it against him by taking away points. Remind them during the fight that they need to push action if they dont stand them up. If no action in the standup give warnings then start deducting points if no action on the feet. If the wrestler takes down opponents consistently and has no action deduct points from there.

 

Another solution althogh a far fetched one might be start first round standing, second round in guard, third round opposite guard or something along that line....i dunno just thinking out loud[/quote']

 

That's not a bad idea. It would force guys to learn all aspects of MMA.

[ShadowOverYou]

My long answer turned short for this question is too look at our champs.

Penn- Background in BJJ

GSP- Wrestling

Anderson- BJJ

Machida- BJJ

Brock- Wrestling

 

3/5 of the champs use BJJ as a main "ground" technique. I think BJJ is dominate if the Wrestler cant do anything once he takes you down

[V_Neck]

I think things should be left the way they are. One of the original purposes of the ufc was to see which was the best fighting style, and it looks like most of the time a good wrestler will dominate a good striker almost everytime. Fighters are just going to have to continue to improve there overall game if they want to compete at the top levels, like the good ones have been doing. If you start catering to strikers they will never improve, and we will not be watching true mma. If strikers dont want to learn how to fight on the ground I say tough **** to them and they can keep losing. Besides there are technical strikers like michael bisping who win fights without doing much damage, and arguably even lose, but win on the score cards because they threw more punches. Should we then say we should have a scoring system to based on how hard a punch lands? But then some guys can throw harder punches than others so do we change the rules to cater to the skinny guys, and so on and so on. In my opinion if you start changing the rules its only going to cause more problems, ****fi the sport, and your going to take away from the true nature of what mma is.

[V_Neck]

and if people dont like to watch a ground game, then maybe they should just watch boxing or whatever, I'm not knocking those people, just saying mma may not be for them and they shouldnt watch it.

[CarlLane]

i think they score takedowns too much

 

sure score them if they are able to hold the opponent down for some time and work

 

but if they get the takedown and the opponent manages to get up right away as the wrestler is not able to hold him down that should be scored a hell of a lot less

 

ive seen quite a few fights won this way and i dont think its fair and i think people should get scored for being able to return to there feet right after the takedown

 

Pride had it right, penalize guys for failed takedowns, you might see takedowns tried less thus more standup

[HAD0K3N]

I think things should be left the way they are. One of the original purposes of the ufc was to see which was the best fighting style' date=' and it looks like most of the time a good wrestler will dominate a good striker almost everytime. Fighters are just going to have to continue to improve there overall game if they want to compete at the top levels, like the good ones have been doing. If you start catering to strikers they will never improve, and we will not be watching true mma. If strikers dont want to learn how to fight on the ground I say tough **** to them and they can keep losing. Besides there are technical strikers like michael bisping who win fights without doing much damage, and arguably even lose, but win on the score cards because they threw more punches. Should we then say we should have a scoring system to based on how hard a punch lands? But then some guys can throw harder punches than others so do we change the rules to cater to the skinny guys, and so on and so on. In my opinion if you start changing the rules its only going to cause more problems, ****fi the sport, and your going to take away from the true nature of what mma is.[/quote']

 

Interesting, you hit the nail on the head with the bisping comment, the whole scoring system is wrong in the ufc, do you not agree that wrestling is the best base to start from in ufc ? is it best because the enviroment and scoring to allow you to have and advantage.

just by using control, (which is much the same as you described with bisping.)

 

what is the point of fighting .... Inflict more damage than you take.

 

wrestling as a sport is about control not effective damage unless you're talking catch wrestling which includes submissions,

 

so how can this be rated over effective damage, or how many times have you seen a fighter *cough rashad * use a take down to just score a point and keep himself safely ahead on the scorecard , i think the whole marking on control is one sided.

 

which brings me back to my point as we are discussing which is why wrestling is the best base to start from in ufc.

[daweedy]

Interesting' date=' you hit the nail on the head with the bisping comment, the whole scoring system is wrong in the ufc, do you not agree that wrestling is the best base to start from in ufc ? is it best because the enviroment and scoring to allow you to have and advantage.

just by using control, (which is much the same as you described with bisping.)

 

what is the point of fighting .... Inflict more damage than you take.

 

wrestling as a sport is about control not effective damage unless you're talking catch wrestling which includes submissions,

 

so how can this be rated over effective damage, or how many times have you seen a fighter *cough rashad * use a take down to just score a point and keep himself safely ahead on the scorecard , i think the whole marking on control is one sided.

 

which brings me back to my point as we are discussing which is why wrestling is the best base to start from in ufc.[/quote']

 

Agree with everything. You make a lot of sense. I do bealive that UFC rules favour wrestlers. But I still think that knees and soccer kicks wouldnt be as harmfull to fighters as you think. What if they would only allow them when opponents head is not directly against the cage beacuse in reallity wrestllers dont get punished for a failed takedown.

[Buttons]

UFC RULES AND JUDGES:

The US had two big "martial arts":

Boxing and wrestling..

So when the UFC started up in the US they favoured these sports..

 

The two biggest pointgivers in the UFC today is punching and takedowns..

 

If you look at Pride, finnfight or other non US MMA events you will see that the judges places more value on all sports and penalizes laying and praying.. This is the reason why most peole that has watched all pride fights usually thinks Pride is more exciting than the UFC in the same time period.

 

It really is that simple...

 

THE OCTAGON:

The octagon has nothign to do with wrestling.. I have no ide why the UFC started with the octagon, but i think the "cage-fight" mentality was the sellign point before UFC 1.

[HAD0K3N]

Agree with everything. You make a lot of sense. I do bealive that UFC rules favour wrestlers. But I still think that knees and soccer kicks wouldnt be as harmfull to fighters as you think. What if they would only allow them when opponents head is not directly against the cage beacuse in reallity wrestllers dont get punished for a failed takedown.

 

In cage rage in the uk there is an open guard rule where fights that hit the ground within the center marking on the octagon would be allowed to strike to a downed opponents head, but only within the marking this was noted by a signal from the ref.

 

I like the idea that control alone doesn't score until you cause damage then the damage is worth more as you have control as well.

just an idea. any thoughts

[Bubba_Pilks]

I think things should be left the way they are. One of the original purposes of the ufc was to see which was the best fighting style' date=' and it looks like most of the time a good wrestler will dominate a good striker almost everytime. Fighters are just going to have to continue to improve there overall game if they want to compete at the top levels, like the good ones have been doing. If you start catering to strikers they will never improve, and we will not be watching true mma. If strikers dont want to learn how to fight on the ground I say tough **** to them and they can keep losing. Besides there are technical strikers like michael bisping who win fights without doing much damage, and arguably even lose, but win on the score cards because they threw more punches. Should we then say we should have a scoring system to based on how hard a punch lands? But then some guys can throw harder punches than others so do we change the rules to cater to the skinny guys, and so on and so on. In my opinion if you start changing the rules its only going to cause more problems, ****fi the sport, and your going to take away from the true nature of what mma is.[/quote']

 

 

Well said.

 

Each fighter has their own training camp and should plan their strategy, as in if you know your going to be taken down then train some f.cking takedown defense (Cough, Cough Hardy). Octagon control is one of the main points in MMA because you dictate where the fight takes place. If you can constantly take your opponent who his a striker and controlling him, GnP and attempting submission then your nullifying his strengths. If we take the last GSP/Hardy fight for example, Dan Hardy said he only needed to land one clean shot to knock out GSP and you know what, he never landed one punch standing, not one. I agree that stuffing a takedown should be worth points, maybe as much as the takedown itself, but you have to award points for a takedowns. This is not K-1, or a Muay Thai event, it encompasses all mixed martial arts, and yes there are going to be certain martial arts that are more condusive to dictating where the fight takes place. Each fighter has months to prepare for a fight and with video footage you can determine how your opponent generally fights and a fighter should train accordingly. If you can't stuff a takedown then that's your fault, practice. We all know it's hard to land a solid hook from your back and it makes sense why takedowns are worth so much when you can completely nullify your opponent.

[HAD0K3N]

Well said.

 

Each fighter has their own training camp and should plan their strategy' date=' as in if you know your going to be taken down then train some f.cking takedown defense (Cough, Cough Hardy). Octagon control is one of the main points in MMA because you dictate where the fight takes place. If you can constantly take your opponent who his a striker and controlling him, GnP and attempting submission then your nullifying his strengths. If we take the last GSP/Hardy fight for example, Dan Hardy said he only needed to land one clean shot to knock out GSP and you know what, he never landed one punch standing, not one. I agree that stuffing a takedown should be worth points, maybe as much as the takedown itself, but you have to award points for a takedowns. This is not K-1, or a Muay Thai event, it encompasses all mixed martial arts, and yes there are going to be certain martial arts that are more condusive to dictating where the fight takes place. Each fighter has months to prepare for a fight and with video footage you can determine how your opponent generally fights and a fighter should train accordingly. If you can't stuff a takedown then that's your fault, practice. We all know it's hard to land a solid hook from your back and it makes sense why takedowns are worth so much when you can completely nullify your opponent.[/quote']

 

so if someone gets a take down and can't do anything to cause damage they should still get points for nullifying the fighter on his back ? or should it go to the fighter on his back for nullifying the fighter on top preventing him from causing damage ?

 

the fighter on top right, as he has decided to take it to the ground, but then if he cant achieve damage off it should it go to the other guy for defending ? or if the guy gets back up straight away do they both get a point ?

 

the trouble with scoring is it relies on the judges opinion of whats going on. and not what actually happens in a fight.

 

this point doesn't change the fact that the ufc set up actually favors wrestling which is why it is the best "base" to start from, i wasn't talking about any fight in paticular here although for some reason people keep throwing gsp/ hardy into the mix, i don't know why,

 

it would it be different if all fighters were only given 24hrs (like boxers) to rehydrate after weigh ins, instead of the two days they get, which would stop the dramatic weight cut advantage for sure.

[HAD0K3N]

its harder to work out then you think.... if a take down isn't a means to and end then its a way of stalling for time and points.

[TheLoneOne]

easy fix. have the fighters without a wrestling background to get better at a takedown defense, if they don't have a great defense already. If something works consistently, why are the wrestlers gonna change tactics? you gotta make em evolve as fighters. but it won't happen as long as fighters allow a wrestler to consistantly put them to the ground and control the fight.

[HAD0K3N]

easy fix. have the fighters without a wrestling background to get better at a takedown defense' date=' if they don't have a great defense already. If something works consistently, why are the wrestlers gonna change tactics? you gotta make em evolve as fighters. but it won't happen as long as fighters allow a wrestler to consistantly put them to the ground and control the fight.[/quote']

 

exactly so the question is why does it work so effectively ?

 

the cage

the weight gain and size after weigh ins

the scoring

 

you have hit the nail on the head UFC will UWC before long.