MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) Thread: UFC/Strikeforce

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='Maklershed']For those of you that didn't see it yet - Diaz vs GSP Oct 29th. I'm thinking about heading out to Vegas for that one.[/QUOTE]

I'm torn on this fight, GSP has been a great but boring fighter the last few years and I can't remember the last boring fight Diaz has been in. I think GSP should work him over but I have to pull for the jackass out of the 209.
 
In Diaz's last run in the UFC he got dominated by wrestlers with submission defense, guys kinda like GSP (Diet GSP's). But Diaz has improved his striking substancially since then and will undoubtedly smack GSP around if the fight were a pure striking match. As well, GSP doesn't have much heart and would break under Diaz's pressure quickly.

BUT, this is an MMA match and I think the fight will be decided by Nick's Jiu-Jitsu skills alone. Diaz won't be able to stop the takedowns, but there is a VERY, VERY good chance Diaz can pull out a submission off of his back. Diaz fights well off of his back and has submitted better BJJ fighters then GSP.

If GSP is scared to take Diaz down (which is possible), I think he gets outstruck, pressured, broken down and stopped. GSP won't be able to jab, jab, jab his way to another decision against Diaz like he does to guys like Koscheck and Shields.
 
GSP punches wrestlers and wrestles punchers. Diaz is long and lanky which usually makes him easy takedown bait. I see this one getting ground out barring a big surprise hit from Diaz.

I don't care what is "best for a fighter". Fighters are here to entertain the fans and nothing more. If they can't deliver on that, please go do something else. Nelson is a well-respected grappler, and has a great chin. I give him credit for always pushing until the bell even if he doesn't always have the skills/energy to win.
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']GSP punches wrestlers and wrestles punchers. Diaz is long and lanky which usually makes him easy takedown bait. I see this one getting ground out barring a big surprise hit from Diaz.

I don't care what is "best for a fighter". Fighters are here to entertain the fans and nothing more. If they can't deliver on that, please go do something else. Nelson is a well-respected grappler, and has a great chin. I give him credit for always pushing until the bell even if he doesn't always have the skills/energy to win.[/QUOTE]

On the Nelson note, he was deathly sick for the fight with Mir. He shouldn't have fought, that was his problem, but props for fighting it out for three rounds. Although Mir did gas in one round too...what does that say about Frank?
 
How about Grispi is just not very good. Getting KO'd with a liver shot is out of his control, but Roop is a B- level fighter at best and Grispi didn't do anything to him on the ground. I think Grispi is one loss away from being cut, but his poor performance against a turd that was on the chopping block does not look good at all.
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']How about Grispi is just not very good. Getting KO'd with a liver shot is out of his control, but Roop is a B- level fighter at best and Grispi didn't do anything to him on the ground. I think Grispi is one loss away from being cut, but his poor performance against a turd that was on the chopping block does not look good at all.[/QUOTE]

he is not very good due to mental issues, same thing in his last fight. He gives up, you can tell its a known problem from what his corner was telling him. I think he should be cut.

he should take some notes on heart from downes.
 
Guida decisions Pettis....Pettis had nothing but to attempt Triangles and completely BLEW his chance in the last minute of the fight when he takes Guida's back and attempts neither a RNC or armbar. Pettis stock burst into flames, he loses his title shot, everyone will be looking to wrestle him and avoid the Triangle and Pettis will have a hard road ahead of him now that he's not in title contention now.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']For those of you that didn't see it yet - Diaz vs GSP Oct 29th. I'm thinking about heading out to Vegas for that one.[/QUOTE]

All I can say is WOW!!!!!!! That's a fight!
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Guida decisions Pettis....Pettis had nothing but to attempt Triangles and completely BLEW his chance in the last minute of the fight when he takes Guida's back and attempts neither a RNC or armbar. Pettis stock burst into flames, he loses his title shot, everyone will be looking to wrestle him and avoid the Triangle and Pettis will have a hard road ahead of him now that he's not in title contention now.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Pettis fought a bad fight. I just think he was beaten by a cagey veteran who fought a perfect fight. You're kidding yourself if you don't think Guida had his hands full. But he fought smart and was able to impose his will on Pettis while staying out of danger at the same time. His cardio also looked great (Greg Jackson really has him moving in the right direction). I guess Pettis wasn't worried about being taken down because he's so dangerous off his back (which he was). Guida just outworked him. Before that fight, I was practically falling asleep with the slew of boring ass TUF rejects they trodded out there. Pettis vs. Guida was a straight up professional fight.

As for the main event, I was pulling for Ramsey, but he fought a dumb fight. He TKO's Chris and all of a sudden he thinks he's a boxer? The second he came out swinging for the fences, I knew it was over. I was surprised to see Tony take him down, but that was a good strategy to keep Ramsey off balance. It was just dumb for a wrestler to think he's going to KO a guy who won all three of his fights in the house by KO. Tony seems like a douche, but he's got a lot of speed, power, and overall talent. Probably one of the most dangerous guys to come out of TUF the last few seasons. I could see him winning some fights at 170.
 
Guida always has good stamina and when he takes somebody down is always looking to lay on them for a decision, or if he is fighting a stiff, attempt a submission or two (laid on Dos Anjos, but subbed Guergety). Guida is a decent fringe contender but his submission defense isn't great and while I agree Greg Jackson is helping him (obviously), I think he is turning Guida into a boring fighter who has top control like St. Pierre (with worse submission defense).

Pettis fought a decent fight, trying subs off his back but I didn't like that he didn't try anything when he took Guida's back and didn't attempt any subs except for the Triangle.

Pettis is an excellent and talented fighter, but apparently if you can avoid the Triangle attempts you can beat Pettis from top position? Of course, Pettis is still a Purple Belt so maybe they will be teaching him some other subs off his back from now on.
 
Rumors on the mma sites today say UFC is looking to buy G4. If that goes through I met cry tears of joy. Especially if they keep X-Play and E3 coverage and get other mma shows and broadcast foreign events and such a la HDNET.
 
If that is true, then I might be able to watch G4 again. Reruns of Cops, that shitty Campus PD and those old shitty movies have kept me pretty far away from the channel
 
Big doins today .. all future UFC non title fight main events to be 5 rounds, 125 fly weight division is going to be added soon, and Nick Diaz is vacating his SF welterweight title.
 
[quote name='qualityman13']If anyone watcxhes UFC, WWE, or even TNa check out this site. They stream all PPVs for about 8 bucks a month PPV and its HQ they also stream all weekly wrestling and ufc shows. This is a video stream not audio. Just go to the site and check it out its a great deal. They also have a lifetime membership. It saves you money in the long run. http://wsnwrestling.com/index.php [/QUOTE]
Pretty sure thats illegal,plus you could just always watch it for free on other websites if you wanted to go down that route.

Its been a bad last two fights for Grispi.Once he was the #1 even before Mark Hominck, even having a win over him as well.Might just be as his nickname suggest sadly "The Fluke".

I was surprised a bit by Pettis.I knew he had a good bottom game but damn he was just shooting off submission after submission in that fight and nearly had him in some submissions,notably the ending of the 2nd round if only it was longer looked like maybe he could have had a chance at finishing.Guida had trouble holding him down which was also pretty much his only shot at winning the fight.

I prefer the 3 round main event fights just for the reason of it separating it from title fights.I know at one time Dana was wanting 5 round non title fights and 7 round title fights but its already been established so I wouldn't quite change it and just leave it as is.

Happy that the UFC is going to be streaming prelim fights on Youtube.Facebook seemed to have bandwidth issues as it seemed to not be working for like half of the people.

Not that excited for GSP vs. Diaz since it'll be the same as GSP's past fights but it makes sense with there being no fresh face up for contention.The biggest crossover fight I'd like to see would be the Heavyweight champs battling it out.Somewhat disappointed it was announced recently that the Strikeforce HW GP won't be finished this year being pushed back from delays.Good Strikeforce card coming up next week.
 
5 round main event non-title fights won't be happening for a little while, but once it gets put into effect I think it can only help. Guys who lay and pray for 3 rounds will now be forced to do it for 5 rounds and it will give more guys more opportunities to finish.

Sure, there will be plenty of boring fighters who will hump for 5 rounds no problem, but this round number change will help in finishes, give more opportunities to make a comeback and test these fighters' conditioning. You think Anthony Johnson will be winning any 5 round fights? No, because he will have to quit in the corner due to exhaustion haha.
 
"Someone's getting knocked out...and it's not gonna be me."

Yeah, sure thing, Shane. I give him credit for not being a gas can in this fight, but he was down two rounds to none, and coasted to a loss in the final round. Personally, it looked like he WAS afraid of getting knocked out. Also, stopping to bring in the doctor was a joke. Pretty much all of that damage was done in the first round. If it wasn't enough to stop the fight then, it's not enough to stop it now.

And speaking of the first round, I was pretty surprised that Herb Dean didn't stop it. Some people might compare it to what Carwin did to Lesnar, but Lesnar was at least covering up. Carwin took at least 15 clean shots to the face before he finally turned and covered up. He did prove afterward that he could continue fighting, so that's good. But we've definitely seen fights stopped for less.

I have to say though, Junior makes me nervous with how low he keeps his hands and the way he tends to lean in with his head. It was like he was begging Carwin to hit him. Against a quicker Cain Velazquez, I don't see that ending well for him.
 
I don't think the fight should have been stopped, but I certainly think Dos Santos should have ended the fight. He didn't even try to finish after the first round and I think he tired himself out a bit, because he could have easily stopped the gassed out Carwin.

Stout was an amazing KO for sure, Weidman looks like a good prospect but his striking is bad, Munoz 30-27 score is IMPOSSIBLE, as is the Florian 30-27 score. No way that they shut out their opponents, and I think Nunes beat Florian to be honest.

Einemo/Herman was a good fight but I think Einemo destoys Herman without the big layoff. He already almost did it.
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']I don't think the fight should have been stopped, but I certainly think Dos Santos should have ended the fight. He didn't even try to finish after the first round and I think he tired himself out a bit, because he could have easily stopped the gassed out Carwin.[/QUOTE]

I'll just repeat what I've been saying about these situations. There is no logical reason for the winning fighter to be taking chances and being overly aggressive in the final round. Carwin was clearly losing and did nothing in round three. If that's the way guys who are losing are going to approach it, they might as well throw in the towel.

[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Stout was an amazing KO for sure, Weidman looks like a good prospect but his striking is bad, Munoz 30-27 score is IMPOSSIBLE, as is the Florian 30-27 score. No way that they shut out their opponents, and I think Nunes beat Florian to be honest.

Einemo/Herman was a good fight but I think Einemo destoys Herman without the big layoff. He already almost did it.[/QUOTE]

Stout: agree
Munoz and Florian scores: agree
Nunes beating Florian: GTFO. He won the first round, for sure. But Kenny completely controlled him in rounds two and three and laid down some good ground and pound. I'm not convinced that 145 is right for him, but at 35 years old, he's just trying to make something of the time he has left. Can't really blame him for that.
 
Really good night of fights last night. I agree with you guys on the two 30-27 decisions, that was a joke. 29-28 was the only way it should've been scored for both of those fights. On the Nunes/Florian fight clearly Florian won that 29-28 taking the last 2 rounds. I really don't like Kenny at all (he just annoys the shit out of me) but he won that fight for sure.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']
Stout: agree
Munoz and Florian scores: agree
Nunes beating Florian: GTFO. He won the first round, for sure. But Kenny completely controlled him in rounds two and three and laid down some good ground and pound. I'm not convinced that 145 is right for him, but at 35 years old, he's just trying to make something of the time he has left. Can't really blame him for that.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying Nunes 100% should have gotten the win, I'm just saying its possible and I wouldn't have argued heavily against it. Florian got taken down in the second round and outstruck, losing the first 4 minutes of the round before laying on Nunes for the next 1 minute. I'm no math master, but doesn't that sound like Nunes controlled the 2nd round enough to win it?

In ANY case though, Florian 30-27 is just, purely, insane. No possible way he won the first round and the second round I think he could have certainly lost (on a legit card). Of course, Nunes would have needed to dominate as heavily in the first round in the whole fight to win a split decision, so he had little chance to win on the judges' scorecards.
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']5 round main event non-title fights won't be happening for a little while, but once it gets put into effect I think it can only help. Guys who lay and pray for 3 rounds will now be forced to do it for 5 rounds and it will give more guys more opportunities to finish.

Sure, there will be plenty of boring fighters who will hump for 5 rounds no problem, but this round number change will help in finishes, give more opportunities to make a comeback and test these fighters' conditioning. You think Anthony Johnson will be winning any 5 round fights? No, because he will have to quit in the corner due to exhaustion haha.[/QUOTE]

They aren't that far out dude. Evans vs Davis should be the last 3 round main event.
 
Good Strikeforce card tonight, but I swear to God, Mauro Ranallo is the dumbest fucking announcer ever. I just can't stand that guy. He calls a 10-8 in the Masvidal - Noons fight basically because of one knockdown. Then, he goes on to say that getting up from a takedown should cancel out the takedown (apparently, he can't distinguish between an offensive action and a defensive action). He points out that "despite Rogers' supposed striking advantage", Barnett outstruck him 40 to 2...in a round that saw Barnett have mount for over four minutes...derrrr!!! :dunce: And then, to top it off, he calls Frank Shamrock "Ken". I can't wait till Dana White has full rule control of Strikeforce so he can fire this tool.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']Good Strikeforce card tonight, but I swear to God, Mauro Ranallo is the dumbest fucking announcer ever. I just can't stand that guy. He calls a 10-8 in the Masvidal - Noons fight basically because of one knockdown. Then, he goes on to say that getting up from a takedown should cancel out the takedown (apparently, he can't distinguish between an offensive action and a defensive action). He points out that "despite Rogers' supposed striking advantage", Barnett outstruck him 40 to 2...in a round that saw Barnett have mount for over four minutes...derrrr!!! :dunce: And then, to top it off, he calls Frank Shamrock "Ken". I can't wait till Dana White has full rule control of Strikeforce so he can fire this tool.[/QUOTE]

agreed.
 
I liked how he called someone going for wrist control a top wrist lock. And what was with him repeating "catch wrestler" over and over during the Barnett fight?
 
[quote name='Maklershed']I liked how he called someone going for wrist control a top wrist lock. And what was with him repeating "catch wrestler" over and over during the Barnett fight?[/QUOTE]

barnett is a catchwrestler. ranallo is a moron, I dont recall him as bad previously as hes been the last few years.
 
It just sounded like Frank kept having to bite his tongue because you could tell he disagreed with him on a lot of issues (the takedown one in particular). Then, when he called him "Ken", Frank just stopped talking. I'd love to see the look Ranallo got for that one, haha. I really don't even know why Ranallo is there. Gus Johnson does fine with the blow by blow and Shamrock does color. If they need a third man, just bring in Bas. He may be crazy as hell, but at least he knows what he's talking about.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']It just sounded like Frank kept having to bite his tongue because you could tell he disagreed with him on a lot of issues (the takedown one in particular). Then, when he called him "Ken", Frank just stopped talking. I'd love to see the look Ranallo got for that one, haha. I really don't even know why Ranallo is there. Gus Johnson does fine with the blow by blow and Shamrock does color. If they need a third man, just bring in Bas. He may be crazy as hell, but at least he knows what he's talking about.[/QUOTE]

bas is fucking awesome. id love to see him do fill in work with the ufc.
 
[quote name='Maklershed']If we're shaking up the announce team lets just get rid of em all and bring in Schiavello and Bas/Trigg/Metzger[/QUOTE]

I have no idea why strikeforce didnt do that a long time ago.
 
Shamrock is solid as a commentator, but Renallo is just plain terrible. He sounds as clueless as Goldburg does and I don't like Gus Johnson either, who obviously doesn't know much about the sport either.

On a related note though, the card was pretty good but the main event was boring. Barnett dominated like expected with grappling and takedowns, and Masvidal looked outstanding. He won't beat Melendez (he will be outwrestled and pounded on the ground), but Masvidal is an elite guy at LW. Top 5 in Strikeforce's LW division.
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Renallo is just plain terrible. He sounds as clueless as Goldburg does and I don't like Gus Johnson either, who obviously doesn't know much about the sport either.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but Ranallo makes Mike Goldberg sound like a stud. Goldberg isn't the coolest guy around, but he finally learned the sport and figured out how to (mostly) not get on everyone's nerves all the damn time. And you can tell he truly enjoys being there and is accepted as one of the guys. I respect him. I doubt anybody talks to/hangs out with Ranallo when they're off the air.
 
I agree, Goldberg is 500 X better than Mauro. I did chuckle at one point in the proceedings on Saturday though, either Mauro or Gus Johnson said "the winner of this tournament is the best HW in the World". My response was like "When the hell did Cain Velasquez enter the tournament?" :lol:

Don't get me wrong Overeem is a good fighter, Barnett maybe even a little better than Overeem, but the majority of the other fighters in the tourney are above average HW's at this point (stares at Fedor).
 
[quote name='cgarb84']I agree, Goldberg is 500 X better than Mauro. I did chuckle at one point in the proceedings on Saturday though, either Mauro or Gus Johnson said "the winner of this tournament is the best HW in the World". [/QUOTE]


That was Ranallo. I remember that clearly and the reason why is because the way he said it. He paused as if he realized what he was saying and couldn't even believe his own hype. "The winner of this tournament ... is the best heavyweight in the world".

BTW - Its gonna be Barnett vs Overeem in the finals and I think Reem will probably win but I would not be at all surprised to see Barnett take it. As a matter of fact the more I think about it the more I'm leaning towards Barnett.
 
Overeem showed piss-poor striking defense getting lit up by Werdum over and over again. I was completely shocked how bad he looked and honestly getting out struck and out finish-attempted that bad...I'm not really sure he deserved a win at all.

The most damage he did is when he did that takedown that obliterated Werdum's left knee. If you didn't notice when Werdum hit the ground from it he was holding his knee immediately. From that point on he had to get up in a way that only used his right leg. Without that injury the fight would have been more intriguing.

Barnett looked fantastic out there and I hope he keeps it up. I always thought he was a really tough match for Fedor and was sad it never happened.

Masvidal looked great in there.

Also, MMA scoring blows and I'm actually with Mauro on this. If you get taken down and then just immediately get back up then it should just be zero points. This is why boring wrestlers are ruining MMA. Why reward a takedown if it doesn't hurt his opponent at all? Do we reward checked leg kicks too?
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']Also, MMA scoring blows and I'm actually with Mauro on this. If you get taken down and then just immediately get back up then it should just be zero points. This is why boring wrestlers are ruining MMA. Why reward a takedown if it doesn't hurt his opponent at all? Do we reward checked leg kicks too?[/QUOTE]

I understand what you're saying, but even with checked leg kicks, I think you have to look at it as one fighter being the aggressor. It's nice that you checked the kick or got back up after being taken down, but what are you doing after that? If everything else in the round is even, and the only thing defining the round is one guy taking the other guy down, I'm sorry, I'd give the round to him. If you don't want matches with "boring wrestlers" learn how to stuff a takedown. Getting back up is recovering after something was done TO you. Stuffing a takedown is STOPPING your opponent from doing something. In my opinion, there's a huge difference.
 
that's great theory but in practice a guy will shrug off like 4 takedowns and then finally after along battle against the cage goes down for about 20 seconds and gets back up with no damage. you'd still give the other guy the whole round? :\
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']that's great theory but in practice a guy will shrug off like 4 takedowns and then finally after along battle against the cage goes down for about 20 seconds and gets back up with no damage. you'd still give the other guy the whole round? :\[/QUOTE]

He clearly stated with everything being equal the deciding factor would be the takedown. With everything else being equal, is the key statement. I agree with nate, the problem is it just isnt scored like that, takedowns are very heavily weighted, as is top position.

I find it unfair when a dangerous fighter wants to work from their back and the scoring system automatically handicaps them. The claim that the fighter completing the takedown is dictating the pace and position of the fight is inaccurate in my opinion. This isnt applicable to every fight obviously, but when you have a guy who clearly wants to work from their back, those takedowns that are followed by the fighter on top laying in their guard for a few seconds or getting immediately up should not be scored. The most recent example is werdum/reem.

In response to the situation in the post, if the fight was even in all other aspects I would clearly give that round to the fighter that defended 4 takedowns before giving up the last.
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']that's great theory but in practice a guy will shrug off like 4 takedowns and then finally after along battle against the cage goes down for about 20 seconds and gets back up with no damage. you'd still give the other guy the whole round? :\[/QUOTE]

Matt Hamill vs Rampage Jackson. Rampage stuffed every single takedown attempt and broke Hamill's will in that fight. That's how you beat a wrestler. Hamill tired out, and Rampage's superior striking prevailed. If the guy really has the gas tank to just shoot for takedowns for 15 minutes, then it's unfortunate, but he's a freaking pest, and you'll have to just deal with it. A good example of this is the Guida/Pettis fight. Guida is a god damned pest with his wrestling, and even Pettis's ridiculously active guard couldn't handle it. I used to despise wrestlers, but the more fluke knockouts and serious injuries I see, the more I get it.

If you want to stand up and punch me in the face, then prevent me from getting you to the ground, and do it. But if I can dominate you and prevent you from being able to hurt me in any way, then guess what? I win the fight. MMA (or NHB in the early days) has always been about "real world fighting" to me. So, if you can hit like a mack truck, I'd have to be out of my damn mind to stand in front of you and take punches. You can call it "boring" as much as you want, but it's being practical. I know you train and you know your stuff, Kuroi. Most real fights end up on the ground. Anybody who can't prevent that is in for a long night. Just the way it is.

[quote name='paz9x']I find it unfair when a dangerous fighter wants to work from their back and the scoring system automatically handicaps them. The claim that the fighter completing the takedown is dictating the pace and position of the fight is inaccurate in my opinion. This isnt applicable to every fight obviously, but when you have a guy who clearly wants to work from their back, those takedowns that are followed by the fighter on top laying in their guard for a few seconds or getting immediately up should not be scored. The most recent example is werdum/reem.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this mostly, but I think the bigger issue is control. Just because a fighter is on top doesn't always mean he's in control. I go back to the Guida/Pettis fight again because although Guida was on top, I felt like any second, Pettis could catch him and end the fight. In that instance, Guida was the one defending. But he wasn't just laying on top of him either. He was working his ground and pound and trying to advance his position. To me, there's a difference between strictly defending, and defending and countering with an attack of your own.

If a fighter gets taken down and immediately gets up, then acts timid and doesn't do anything, then I can't give him any credit. You can't win a fight just by being defensive. At some point you have to do something yourself.
 
I wouldn't say Ranallo sucks but if you had to say someone does then that man certainly is Gus Johnson.He doesn't seem to know what hes talking about sometimes and has to ask for confirmation from Frank or Ranallo to see if hes not in the wrong at times.Not sure whats up with the ways hes been looking like for the past 2 years.Almost as if he was undergoing a sex change.

I'd say the finals will still be Overeem vs. Barnnet despite how the fight with Werdum went down.He may be a great K-1 striker,but striking in mma is a different thing with having to worry about the ground game.I don't think the fight was that bad or anything unlike the majority but with all of the hype it seemed a bit hard to live up to unless Overeem won in a dominant KO finish.I had the fight 29-28 Overeem with Alistair starting to gas in the 3rd.Its a fight I would have really loved to see go 5 rounds,if it did I think theres a good possibility Werdum could get a win with the extra two rounds.

If you ask me though I'd go with Alistair by TKO/KO over Barnnet.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']MMA (or NHB in the early days) has always been about "real world fighting" to me.

[/QUOTE]

this used to be more true but with all the rules i don't think it is very real world. punches/elbows to the back of the head and knees/kicks from any position would be much more realistic. hanging on to someone with their finger tips touching the ground so they can't be kneed is a clear indication we're in a "sport" situation here. once it is a given that were are talking sports, then the rules/scoring need to be constructed in such a way that stalling and other non-entertaining tactics need to be deincentivized much as they are in every professional sport. they all have rules changes and such in their history and MMA is really no exception.

if i could change anything about MMA it would be the following:

1. No referees that have not trained/passed an intensive instructional course that will help them make smart decisions in MMA fights.
2. No judges that have not passes same/similar course.
3. Knees (preferably kicks as well) are legal in any position (keep safety rules to back of the head/spine, though).

That's it. NSAC won't let any of these happen though. :(

Also, nobody said stuffing takedowns gets points, but rather the takedown is worth zero if you get right back up. That's all. On the street a takedown that does no damage or keeps you down isn't worth much either, right?
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']
if i could change anything about MMA it would be the following:

1. No referees that have not trained/passed an intensive instructional course that will help them make smart decisions in MMA fights.
2. No judges that have not passes same/similar course.
3. Knees (preferably kicks as well) are legal in any position (keep safety rules to back of the head/spine, though).

That's it. NSAC won't let any of these happen though. :(

Also, nobody said stuffing takedowns gets points, but rather the takedown is worth zero if you get right back up. That's all. On the street a takedown that does no damage or keeps you down isn't worth much either, right?[/QUOTE]

id like to see all of that.
 
[quote name='Kuroi Kaze']this used to be more true but with all the rules i don't think it is very real world. punches/elbows to the back of the head and knees/kicks from any position would be much more realistic. hanging on to someone with their finger tips touching the ground so they can't be kneed is a clear indication we're in a "sport" situation here. once it is a given that were are talking sports, then the rules/scoring need to be constructed in such a way that stalling and other non-entertaining tactics need to be deincentivized much as they are in every professional sport. they all have rules changes and such in their history and MMA is really no exception.

if i could change anything about MMA it would be the following:

1. No referees that have not trained/passed an intensive instructional course that will help them make smart decisions in MMA fights.
2. No judges that have not passes same/similar course.
3. Knees (preferably kicks as well) are legal in any position (keep safety rules to back of the head/spine, though).

That's it. NSAC won't let any of these happen though. :(

Also, nobody said stuffing takedowns gets points, but rather the takedown is worth zero if you get right back up. That's all. On the street a takedown that does no damage or keeps you down isn't worth much either, right?[/QUOTE]

I agree about knees. It's really no different than elbows. So, as long as you still prevent blows to the back of the head, it should be allowed. But generally, kicking a man while he's down is considered to be "dirty". I understand the merit it brings to the game, but we might as well argue for hair pulling and eye gouging too.

I agree that referees and judges need more training though. Even outside the issue of overvaluing takedowns, the fact that some judges can be so far apart on scores (one judge gives 30-27 for fighter A, another judge gives 29-28 for fighter B...which has happened several times recently), it's pretty clear they have no clear idea what they're looking for. Also, some referees listen to the crowd too much. They stand fighters up when they're obviously working, or stop a fight because the guy trying to end it is just swinging his arms wildly.

As for the "on the street" argument, I still say taking someone down, controlling them and preventing them from doing anything to you is winning a fight. It might not be the brawl you had envisioned, but it's physically dominating a person. It doesn't do damage, but it can break their spirit. I will admit, ideally though, it should lead to some kind of choke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top