Fedor?

Bigger Stronger Leaner
81

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Replace white with Coker?
[/quote]

I’d like to replace White with anyone. He reminds of the story of the fast gun who takes a job as Sheriff in the old west, does a good job and cleans up the town. The only problem is he stays too long and becomes the town bully. And now the townspeople need to replace him. So, Dana White came around at the right time and was great for MMA. But that time has long passed and he should be replaced by just about anyone.

White is a greedy manipulator of the highest order who has manipulated the sport, paid good fighters peanuts and has generally come as close to fixing (but not fixing) fights as anyone possibly can…yes I know I’ve already said that :)[/quote]

I agree with this … and man I hate saying that when Zeb is the poster.

But yea, White is a crook. I hate the way boxing is split up into a million warring factions with opposite interests … until I see what happens when a sport like that isn’t.

82

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Replace white with Coker?
[/quote]

I’d like to replace White with anyone. He reminds of the story of the fast gun who takes a job as Sheriff in the old west, does a good job and cleans up the town. The only problem is he stays too long and becomes the town bully. And now the townspeople need to replace him. So, Dana White came around at the right time and was great for MMA. But that time has long passed and he should be replaced by just about anyone.

White is a greedy manipulator of the highest order who has manipulated the sport, paid good fighters peanuts and has generally come as close to fixing (but not fixing) fights as anyone possibly can…yes I know I’ve already said that :)[/quote]

I agree with this … and man I hate saying that when Zeb is the poster.

But yea, White is a crook. I hate the way boxing is split up into a million warring factions with opposite interests … until I see what happens when a sport like that isn’t. [/quote]

You hate saying it when I am the poster? But you and I have always agreed on everything :wink:

83

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Replace white with Coker?
[/quote]

I’d like to replace White with anyone. He reminds of the story of the fast gun who takes a job as Sheriff in the old west, does a good job and cleans up the town. The only problem is he stays too long and becomes the town bully. And now the townspeople need to replace him. So, Dana White came around at the right time and was great for MMA. But that time has long passed and he should be replaced by just about anyone.

White is a greedy manipulator of the highest order who has manipulated the sport, paid good fighters peanuts and has generally come as close to fixing (but not fixing) fights as anyone possibly can…yes I know I’ve already said that :)[/quote]

I agree with this … and man I hate saying that when Zeb is the poster.

But yea, White is a crook. I hate the way boxing is split up into a million warring factions with opposite interests … until I see what happens when a sport like that isn’t. [/quote]

the Factions of WBC, WBA ETC. ETC. is killing Boxing because of the fights NOT being made

84

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Replace white with Coker?
[/quote]

I’d like to replace White with anyone. He reminds of the story of the fast gun who takes a job as Sheriff in the old west, does a good job and cleans up the town. The only problem is he stays too long and becomes the town bully. And now the townspeople need to replace him. So, Dana White came around at the right time and was great for MMA. But that time has long passed and he should be replaced by just about anyone.

White is a greedy manipulator of the highest order who has manipulated the sport, paid good fighters peanuts and has generally come as close to fixing (but not fixing) fights as anyone possibly can…yes I know I’ve already said that :)[/quote]

I agree with this … and man I hate saying that when Zeb is the poster.

But yea, White is a crook. I hate the way boxing is split up into a million warring factions with opposite interests … until I see what happens when a sport like that isn’t. [/quote]

the Factions of WBC, WBA ETC. ETC. is killing Boxing because of the fights NOT being made [/quote]

The sanctioning bodies have nothing to do with it. It’s actually the individual fighters/managers/promoters that fuck it all up.

85

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Replace white with Coker?
[/quote]

I’d like to replace White with anyone. He reminds of the story of the fast gun who takes a job as Sheriff in the old west, does a good job and cleans up the town. The only problem is he stays too long and becomes the town bully. And now the townspeople need to replace him. So, Dana White came around at the right time and was great for MMA. But that time has long passed and he should be replaced by just about anyone.

White is a greedy manipulator of the highest order who has manipulated the sport, paid good fighters peanuts and has generally come as close to fixing (but not fixing) fights as anyone possibly can…yes I know I’ve already said that :)[/quote]

I agree with this … and man I hate saying that when Zeb is the poster.

But yea, White is a crook. I hate the way boxing is split up into a million warring factions with opposite interests … until I see what happens when a sport like that isn’t. [/quote]

the Factions of WBC, WBA ETC. ETC. is killing Boxing because of the fights NOT being made [/quote]

The sanctioning bodies have nothing to do with it. It’s actually the individual fighters/managers/promoters that fuck it all up.

[/quote]

IN THEORY… All of the sanctioning bodies champions COULD fight one another unlike the larger MMA Organizations that prohibit guys from the UFC to fight for any other company to vilify who is the best over a large sample size.

86

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Replace white with Coker?
[/quote]

I’d like to replace White with anyone. He reminds of the story of the fast gun who takes a job as Sheriff in the old west, does a good job and cleans up the town. The only problem is he stays too long and becomes the town bully. And now the townspeople need to replace him. So, Dana White came around at the right time and was great for MMA. But that time has long passed and he should be replaced by just about anyone.

White is a greedy manipulator of the highest order who has manipulated the sport, paid good fighters peanuts and has generally come as close to fixing (but not fixing) fights as anyone possibly can…yes I know I’ve already said that :)[/quote]

I agree with this … and man I hate saying that when Zeb is the poster.

But yea, White is a crook. I hate the way boxing is split up into a million warring factions with opposite interests … until I see what happens when a sport like that isn’t. [/quote]

the Factions of WBC, WBA ETC. ETC. is killing Boxing because of the fights NOT being made [/quote]

The sanctioning bodies have nothing to do with it. It’s actually the individual fighters/managers/promoters that fuck it all up.

[/quote]

IN THEORY… All of the sanctioning bodies champions COULD fight one another unlike the larger MMA Organizations that prohibit guys from the UFC to fight for any other company to vilify who is the best over a large sample size.
[/quote]

I don’t think you understand what sanctioning bodies do …

87

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Well, a great deal of Dana’s power is the UFC’s reputation, I believe. When JBJ was widely known, every MMA fan knew him, the LHW champ of Bellator was someone who was anonymous to anyone except the most hardcore fans.

Most organisations are just a stepping stone for getting people in the UFC, and Bellator is getting pretty much the home of the also-ran and elderly. Everyone who likes to fight, wants to fight in the UFC. It has a rich history, which is well documented, it has the best PR team in all of combat sports, and only the top crop is recruited.

If you are mostly responsible for such a monster succes, you will have a lot of power.[/quote]

But its just that the Money is the main reason why most choice the UFC not the outlier. Prime example. UFC cuts Cro-cop and when he decides to fight MMA again Bellator brings him back and similar to Rampage’s situation. Did they become better fighters as they got older? Probably not, but Viacom didn’t pay as much as the UFC did in Cro-cops case and White swallowed Pride with Jackson so it’s not about PR and fighting the best of the best
[/quote]

Comparing fighters from different organizations is tough to do. A similar problem arises when people try to predict how collegiate athletes will fair in the Pros. Someone can look like an absolute beast when up against weak competition, but choke or crumble when they are put up against better competition under “the big lights.” How often have we seen fighters from other organizations who were experienced MMA fighters look like shadows of themselves during their UFC debut? Some of them are eventually able to get it together and excel, but there are quite a few others who never do. Performance is not simply about physical capacity, and some people just aren’t able to handle emotional and mental pressure as well as others.

Whether we like it or not, the UFC is the “big leagues” of current MMA, so until someone gets in it and actually wins a belt, we actually can kind of day that the best fighters are in the UFC.

88

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Well, a great deal of Dana’s power is the UFC’s reputation, I believe. When JBJ was widely known, every MMA fan knew him, the LHW champ of Bellator was someone who was anonymous to anyone except the most hardcore fans.

Most organisations are just a stepping stone for getting people in the UFC, and Bellator is getting pretty much the home of the also-ran and elderly. Everyone who likes to fight, wants to fight in the UFC. It has a rich history, which is well documented, it has the best PR team in all of combat sports, and only the top crop is recruited.

If you are mostly responsible for such a monster succes, you will have a lot of power.[/quote]

But its just that the Money is the main reason why most choice the UFC not the outlier. Prime example. UFC cuts Cro-cop and when he decides to fight MMA again Bellator brings him back and similar to Rampage’s situation. Did they become better fighters as they got older? Probably not, but Viacom didn’t pay as much as the UFC did in Cro-cops case and White swallowed Pride with Jackson so it’s not about PR and fighting the best of the best
[/quote]

Comparing fighters from different organizations is tough to do. A similar problem arises when people try to predict how collegiate athletes will fair in the Pros. Someone can look like an absolute beast when up against weak competition, but choke or crumble when they are put up against better competition under “the big lights.” How often have we seen fighters from other organizations who were experienced MMA fighters look like shadows of themselves during their UFC debut? Some of them are eventually able to get it together and excel, but there are quite a few others who never do. Performance is not simply about physical capacity, and some people just aren’t able to handle emotional and mental pressure as well as others.

Whether we like it or not, the UFC is the “big leagues” of current MMA, so until someone gets in it and actually wins a belt, we actually can kind of day that the best fighters are in the UFC.[/quote]

this is sadly exactly the case

89

I think another MAJOR issue is that we over appreciate top control in the scoring system, if you truly believe the ability to only take a fighter down is enough to win a round then why is it that those so called “Lay and Pray” guys often have to repetitively go for take down after take down…If you want up to use your striking then get up don’t wait for the referee to stand you up because the fans boo

90

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
I think another MAJOR issue is that we over appreciate top control in the scoring system, if you truly believe the ability to only take a fighter down is enough to win a round then why is it that those so called “Lay and Pray” guys often have to repetitively go for take down after take down…If you want up to use your striking then get up don’t wait for the referee to stand you up because the fans boo [/quote]

I actually kind of like FILA’s scoring system in this regard as it does not (at least did not years ago when I refereed matches) award “points” for a takedown unless you land in a dominant position (mount, side control, or back control). IMO if you land in someone’s guard (or even half guard) you really haven’t demonstrated an improvement in regards to position.

Regarding standing fighters up…

From a strategic standpoint I understand just holding on and surviving when on the bottom. Not only are you not taking much if any damage, but you also force your opponent to create space to attack you, which opens up opportunity to escape. From a general fan’s perspective though this can make for a very “boring” fight if the person on bottom keeps getting put on their back, only to stall till they get stood up again.

I suppose you could create “passivity” penalties for the person on top so they would be consistently needing to go for the finish once they got to the ground (to encourage action and hopefully lead to more subs/finishes), but that would seem to unfairly favor the person getting put on their back constantly and encourage stalling.

In the end I don’t know that there really is an easy solution.

91

Well, I think it may make fights alot more enjoyable if there weren’t any points given for landing into guard, I believe it isn’t realistic to deny any points given for improving positions. You may not really be in a killer position in guard, you certainly are in a better position IMO than both standing up (if both fighters are fairly rounded). On FILA rules I totally get it that there are no points rewarded, since in pure grappling competition, you can’t do to much from there.

I know no man who can strike even remotely as effective from his back as from stand-up, spare some funky up kicks by some early freaks. And you are pretty much forcing your opponent to fight a defensive game that is pretty reactionary in nature. You aren’t really fighting on your terms when your on your back. Sure, you can be a bad man from there, just ask anybody who ever fought a BJJ ace there, but in the end, 99% chance you don’t wanna be there against a rounded opponent.

Landing in guard shouldn’t really be given a major reward point-wise IMO, but some credit should be given for getting your man down.
Besides that, being smacked to the ground on your back and geting up after a skirmish could suck pretty hard. I don’t know if I rather take a clean punch that doesn’t rock me too bad, or that.

Half/a third of the points of landing in side control seems pretty realistic to me.

92

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
I think another MAJOR issue is that we over appreciate top control in the scoring system, if you truly believe the ability to only take a fighter down is enough to win a round then why is it that those so called “Lay and Pray” guys often have to repetitively go for take down after take down…If you want up to use your striking then get up don’t wait for the referee to stand you up because the fans boo [/quote]

I actually kind of like FILA’s scoring system in this regard as it does not (at least did not years ago when I refereed matches) award “points” for a takedown unless you land in a dominant position (mount, side control, or back control). IMO if you land in someone’s guard (or even half guard) you really haven’t demonstrated an improvement in regards to position.

Regarding standing fighters up…

From a strategic standpoint I understand just holding on and surviving when on the bottom. Not only are you not taking much if any damage, but you also force your opponent to create space to attack you, which opens up opportunity to escape. From a general fan’s perspective though this can make for a very “boring” fight if the person on bottom keeps getting put on their back, only to stall till they get stood up again.

I suppose you could create “passivity” penalties for the person on top so they would be consistently needing to go for the finish once they got to the ground (to encourage action and hopefully lead to more subs/finishes), but that would seem to unfairly favor the person getting put on their back constantly and encourage stalling.

In the end I don’t know that there really is an easy solution.[/quote]

Having only watched but not participated in fight sports -
How are grapplers (wrestling,JJ,etc) “encouraged” to engage when fighting in their respective sports?

My untrained eye sees a lot more action in them than in the grappling portion of MMA. I get the point that susceptibility to strikes changes the risk taking, but I bet other fans (non participants) feel like I do - bored when watching wrestling in MMA.

93

[quote]treco wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
I think another MAJOR issue is that we over appreciate top control in the scoring system, if you truly believe the ability to only take a fighter down is enough to win a round then why is it that those so called “Lay and Pray” guys often have to repetitively go for take down after take down…If you want up to use your striking then get up don’t wait for the referee to stand you up because the fans boo [/quote]

I actually kind of like FILA’s scoring system in this regard as it does not (at least did not years ago when I refereed matches) award “points” for a takedown unless you land in a dominant position (mount, side control, or back control). IMO if you land in someone’s guard (or even half guard) you really haven’t demonstrated an improvement in regards to position.

Regarding standing fighters up…

From a strategic standpoint I understand just holding on and surviving when on the bottom. Not only are you not taking much if any damage, but you also force your opponent to create space to attack you, which opens up opportunity to escape. From a general fan’s perspective though this can make for a very “boring” fight if the person on bottom keeps getting put on their back, only to stall till they get stood up again.

I suppose you could create “passivity” penalties for the person on top so they would be consistently needing to go for the finish once they got to the ground (to encourage action and hopefully lead to more subs/finishes), but that would seem to unfairly favor the person getting put on their back constantly and encourage stalling.

In the end I don’t know that there really is an easy solution.[/quote]

Having only watched but not participated in fight sports -
How are grapplers (wrestling,JJ,etc) “encouraged” to engage when fighting in their respective sports?

My untrained eye sees a lot more action in them than in the grappling portion of MMA. I get the point that susceptibility to strikes changes the risk taking, but I bet other fans (non participants) feel like I do - bored when watching wrestling in MMA.
[/quote]

Im no BJJ Expert but as a former wrestler I can feel a greater appreciation in how much harder it is to take a grown man down and stop him from moving than it is to land a haymaker. Without understanding what’s being seen it just looks like two men in the missionary position.

94

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
I think another MAJOR issue is that we over appreciate top control in the scoring system, if you truly believe the ability to only take a fighter down is enough to win a round then why is it that those so called “Lay and Pray” guys often have to repetitively go for take down after take down…If you want up to use your striking then get up don’t wait for the referee to stand you up because the fans boo [/quote]

I actually kind of like FILA’s scoring system in this regard as it does not (at least did not years ago when I refereed matches) award “points” for a takedown unless you land in a dominant position (mount, side control, or back control). IMO if you land in someone’s guard (or even half guard) you really haven’t demonstrated an improvement in regards to position.

Regarding standing fighters up…

From a strategic standpoint I understand just holding on and surviving when on the bottom. Not only are you not taking much if any damage, but you also force your opponent to create space to attack you, which opens up opportunity to escape. From a general fan’s perspective though this can make for a very “boring” fight if the person on bottom keeps getting put on their back, only to stall till they get stood up again.

I suppose you could create “passivity” penalties for the person on top so they would be consistently needing to go for the finish once they got to the ground (to encourage action and hopefully lead to more subs/finishes), but that would seem to unfairly favor the person getting put on their back constantly and encourage stalling.

In the end I don’t know that there really is an easy solution.[/quote]

I disagree just on the facts that a lot of wrestlers would rather be in half guard so they can maintain a better control over mount or side control, so if FILA rules don’t believe having a man flat on his back in any guard is dominance then what is it if he jumps and pulls guard?

95

Guess my main point is I believe the takedown should have larger value than the 4 minutes of top time with NO damage or submission attempts

96

Takedown should be awarded, it’s pretty cool to smack your man down.
In the perspective of entertaining the people and being realistic, keeping a man down w/o real damage.

Keeping your man down gives you an edge anyway, because the man on his back prolly won’t be scoring anything.

97

I was watching old fights of Andy Hug and don’t understand why Glory after all the mergers and buyouts of other kickboxing organizations haven’t taken advantage of the anti wrestling sentiment yet. Go to MMA style loves adopt boxing’s longer rounds or 3 5 minutes and let people watch pure stand-up. surely the purist would be appose to my idea, but the new viewers would flock in

98

[quote]Panopticum wrote:
Well, I think it may make fights alot more enjoyable if there weren’t any points given for landing into guard, I believe it isn’t realistic to deny any points given for improving positions. You may not really be in a killer position in guard, you certainly are in a better position IMO than both standing up (if both fighters are fairly rounded). On FILA rules I totally get it that there are no points rewarded, since in pure grappling competition, you can’t do to much from there.

I know no man who can strike even remotely as effective from his back as from stand-up, spare some funky up kicks by some early freaks. And you are pretty much forcing your opponent to fight a defensive game that is pretty reactionary in nature. You aren’t really fighting on your terms when your on your back. Sure, you can be a bad man from there, just ask anybody who ever fought a BJJ ace there, but in the end, 99% chance you don’t wanna be there against a rounded opponent.

Landing in guard shouldn’t really be given a major reward point-wise IMO, but some credit should be given for getting your man down.
Besides that, being smacked to the ground on your back and geting up after a skirmish could suck pretty hard. I don’t know if I rather take a clean punch that doesn’t rock me too bad, or that.

Half/a third of the points of landing in side control seems pretty realistic to me.
[/quote]

I disagree. You can absolutely mess someone up from your back if you know what you are doing (elbows will still you you up, forearm smashes and punches can still be effective if you set them up right, and while MMA’s current rules do somewhat limit the up kicks with the whole “1 knee down equals no kicks to the head” thing you can definitely mess someone up with kicks if you have good gripping skills).

I would call guard a neutral position. The person on the top has a little better striking options (due to gravity being on their side), but not as many submission options. The person on bottom has slightly worse striking options, but more submission options. As such, taking someone down and landing in their guard is no improvement in position (or if it initially was they essentially negated that positional change) and therefore should not be given any points for the takedown.

Half guard? Ok, maybe I would award something for that (though less than side control, mount, or back control), but even then maybe only reward them the point of they progress from there and don’t get put back in full guard or the opponent doesn’t just stand back up.

99

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
I think another MAJOR issue is that we over appreciate top control in the scoring system, if you truly believe the ability to only take a fighter down is enough to win a round then why is it that those so called “Lay and Pray” guys often have to repetitively go for take down after take down…If you want up to use your striking then get up don’t wait for the referee to stand you up because the fans boo [/quote]

I actually kind of like FILA’s scoring system in this regard as it does not (at least did not years ago when I refereed matches) award “points” for a takedown unless you land in a dominant position (mount, side control, or back control). IMO if you land in someone’s guard (or even half guard) you really haven’t demonstrated an improvement in regards to position.

Regarding standing fighters up…

From a strategic standpoint I understand just holding on and surviving when on the bottom. Not only are you not taking much if any damage, but you also force your opponent to create space to attack you, which opens up opportunity to escape. From a general fan’s perspective though this can make for a very “boring” fight if the person on bottom keeps getting put on their back, only to stall till they get stood up again.

I suppose you could create “passivity” penalties for the person on top so they would be consistently needing to go for the finish once they got to the ground (to encourage action and hopefully lead to more subs/finishes), but that would seem to unfairly favor the person getting put on their back constantly and encourage stalling.

In the end I don’t know that there really is an easy solution.[/quote]

I disagree just on the facts that a lot of wrestlers would rather be in half guard so they can maintain a better control over mount or side control, so if FILA rules don’t believe having a man flat on his back in any guard is dominance then what is it if he jumps and pulls guard? [/quote]

That’s because a lot of wrestlers are too focused on just wrestling and don’t take the time to learn proper side control or mount positioning. If you know what you are doing you can keep someone under much better control and deliver much more damage and apply submissions from side control and mount variations of positions. Look at the wrestlers who have been the most successful in modern MMA (Hughes, GSP, Faber, Jones, etc…) and most of them humbled themselves to actually learn BJJ and try to pass their opponent’s guards and finishe them. Sure, guys like Fitch and Tito choose to just hang out in half guard, but they also rarely finish fights and are generally considered boring fighters by average fans. If you like them just because they are wrestlers (I have a friend like that), then cool, but it doesn’t make that strategy more effective.

Jumping/pulling guard is not dominance, it’s basically a desperation tactic or the only way someone who lacks any real takedown skills can get the fight to the ground. Under FILA rules you are only awarded points for takedowns that land you into side control (and it’s variations) or mount (and it’s variations), if you pass someone’s guard to side control, if you progress from side control to mount, if you progress from mount to the back (gotta have your hooks in though to get the points), and for legitimate submissions threats. You also have to show control and maintain a position (I believe it’s 3 seconds but it’s been a while and I usually use 3 seconds as a standard for showing positional control when having my students do grappling for position drills, so it may also be 5 seconds) in order to get the points.

100

[quote]BigEasy24 wrote:
Guess my main point is I believe the takedown should have larger value than the 4 minutes of top time with NO damage or submission attempts[/quote]

It depends on the takedown. A belly to back Suplex, Harai Goshi, Clean Double? Heck yeah! A just “leech myself onto you and drag you to the ground” ala Damien Maia’s recent WW fights? No, I don’t think those deserve many points.

I am also in agreement though that just being on top and not doing any damage or threatening any submissions is equally unimpressive and does not deserve much credit either.