Chris Leben Is A Punk

Off Topic
41

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:

People who actually practice MMA and related sports usually find old fights more exciting. the technicalities of fighting are more pronounced, even if they are not as flashy as a knock out.

But the people who pay and make the sport a viable enterprise don’t. I can certainly enjoy 90 minutes of Sakuraba-Gracie every once in awhile, but for entertainment value the sport is way better now. I would like to see, at the very least, knees to the head of a grounded opponent added back in. I think that is coming with NJSAC hearings on the matter and a generally positive vibe I get from CSAC and NSAC regarding the issue.

At the end of the day MMA is entertainment and sport. Once the novelty wore off the NHB days were boring as hell. Give me Fedor-Cro Cop over any match from 10 years ago.

At the end of the day MMA is entertainment and sport. You are right. I personally just miss the days when it was sport that happened to be entertaining.

It currently has quite a bandwagon of followers and i can’t blame the promoters for making financial profit out of that, but it does suck that the sport is being bastardized to a bout of showmanship.

I’d like to see the 10 minute first round as was in Pride as it gave ground fighters a better chance. Glad to hear knees to the head of a grounded opponent may be allowed soon.

I agree that longer rounds would be best. The way fights are set up now definately gives the upper hand to strikers.

It takes a while for a grappler to work in to position, put his opponent in a hold and work his opponent to a tap. There are way too many fights where the submission fighter “wins” by putting his opponent in a hold but the guy knows he only has to grit his teeth and bear it for 20 seconds as his corner counts down the clock. so he does and the grappler is screwed out of a victory.

Ten more seconds and he would have had a tap. The grappler did his job but it didn’t count due to a technicality.

Knock a guy out even 1 second before the bell rings and it’s over.

I’m sure it’s by design as striking fights are more exciting to watch, especially for new fans who don’t really know what they are watching and just want to see a brawl.

It sucks though because the fighting just isn’t as pure.

I think they should at least give grapplers an automatic round victory for setting up a successful submission hold at the end of the round that is only broken up by the bell, regardless of how the rest of the round went. They would still be getting short changed, but not as badly.

[/quote]

To add to the bottom of my own post, maybe another option would be to hold the end of the round.

If a fighter is in a hold, the fighting continues. Like an instant over time. If the round ends on neutral ground let it end, refresh the fighters and have them go at it again.

If the round ends in the middle of a hold or set up, let it continue until the attack/defense plays itself out.

42

[quote]texasguy1 wrote:

To add to the bottom of my own post, maybe another option would be to hold the end of the round.

If a fighter is in a hold, the fighting continues. Like an instant over time. If the round ends on neutral ground let it end, refresh the fighters and have them go at it again.

If the round ends in the middle of a hold or set up, let it continue until the attack/defense plays itself out. [/quote]

Now this is an interesting idea. Kind of like a “saved by the bell” addition in Queensbury rules you sometimes see. The only problem is that execution of said rule would be highly subjective.

Referees already have a major burden of protecting the fighters and ending a fight during regulation time, adding to their agenda the responsilibility of extending regulation time on the fly seems like a recipie for certain controversy.

A very good argument for this rule would be Jens Pulver-BJ Penn I, where Pulver was clearly armbarred but didn’t tap until a split second after the round ended. Pulver went on to win that fight which had a dramatic effect on the lightweight division.

43

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
texasguy1 wrote:

To add to the bottom of my own post, maybe another option would be to hold the end of the round.

If a fighter is in a hold, the fighting continues. Like an instant over time. If the round ends on neutral ground let it end, refresh the fighters and have them go at it again.

If the round ends in the middle of a hold or set up, let it continue until the attack/defense plays itself out.

Now this is an interesting idea. Kind of like a “saved by the bell” addition in Queensbury rules you sometimes see. The only problem is that execution of said rule would be highly subjective.

Referees already have a major burden of protecting the fighters and ending a fight during regulation time, adding to their agenda the responsilibility of extending regulation time on the fly seems like a recipie for certain controversy.

A very good argument for this rule would be Jens Pulver-BJ Penn I, where Pulver was clearly armbarred but didn’t tap until a split second after the round ended. Pulver went on to win that fight which had a dramatic effect on the lightweight division.
[/quote]

The Pulver/Penn fight is a perfect example of the bullshit.

You are right, extra time would be very subjective. Surely moderately objective system could be worked out that would make things more fair than they are now at least.

Or they could grant the grappler automatic round victory, regardless of the over all round, for finishing in a submission hold as the bell rings.

This wouldn’t do much for him if he was knocked out in the following round after he should have already been the rightful winner though.