Ecellent point. So long as the rules permit certain attacks, there will always be somebody who tries them. If somebody forgets one aspect of the game, they're asking for a rude awakening
Couture couldnt be more wrong in my opinion. According to this logic, there should be no submissions in BJJ tournaments, because all the fighters in their respective divisions are almost equals in submission abilities. Couture is not proficient at submissions himself, and the division he fights in has virtually no submission specialists. The LHW division of the UFC consists mainly of Tito Ortiz, Chuck Liddell, Randy Couture, Vitor Belfort, and Mike VanArsedale- there have not been many submission oriented fighters in that division. Belfort is decent on the ground, and while hes labeled as a BJJ fighter, has a BJJ black belt, and trains with Brazilian Top Team, Belfort is a striker through and through and he got his black belt as a result of his MMA achievements- not his grappling achievements. UFC is heavily bias against submissions, with the rather fast standups they have as soon as the fight hits the ground- thats one reason in particular that the best skilled submission fighters fight in Japan and not in the UFC. All one needs to do is hold if they get caught in a bad position, and the ref will stand them back up (which is rather lame). UFC needs to incorporate a yellow card system like Pride does, so that it can fine fighters (such as Baroni and Lindland) who attempt to do this.
I disagree with that a lot. If anything guys aren't seperated often enough. When you pin someone but can't pass to mount or submit or close guard but can't sweep, do a reversal, or submit you are just stalling. They are just waiting for their opponent to do something, this is fine if that was what you had to do in a street fight but in a prizefight that's just waiting. Its not like wrestlers are the only ones who do stall, strikers often dance around each other too long but unfortunately it's more practical seperate stalling wrestlers than it is to make stalling strikers fight.
If they separate the fighters anymore, UFC will just be kickboxing with slams. The problem with standup's occurs when you take someone down who's afraid of being on the bottom (fighter's I've mentioned before). They know that all they need to do is hold on to someone long enough (stall) and they'll be reset back on their feet- it doesnt take much skill to hold on for dear life- its not that the jiu jitsu fighters are waiting- its that the other fighters are stalling. Exactly- if you do nothing when you're on the ground, you should be penalized- the BJJ fighters are the ones who are always trying to improve their positions or look for submission opportunities, but the guy on the bottom isnt doing anything because hes just trying to hold the fight. I've seen fights stood up when one guy is on another's back (which is absolutely insane). Turn the tables around to see just how ridiculous this sounds- imagine if fighters spent too much time running and not engaging each other on the feet, referees would stop the match and start them on the ground- Now I dont need to know how to strike or how to take someone down- I can go fight Mirko Cro Cop and all I have to do is run away long enough for them to start me on the ground. In the words of Eddie Bravo, without BJJ, MMA is just bad kickboxing.
That's an good analogy. Foul 29 listed on the UFC website "29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. " If you are intentionally seeking not to fight in whatever position you find yourself in...then that needs to be classified as a foul. To take a stereotypical "grappler v striker" match...If a grappler seeks not to engage in stand-up, and backs away, that is timidity. If a striker holds on for dear life because he's in a disadvantageous position and doesn't have the skills to advance his position ie he stalls and fails to fight, why is that not a foul? Instead, due to his negativity he gets reset in a position of superiority. If you train and WORK to get back up to a position of dominance, that is the sign of a skilled fighter (ala Chuck) and is part of the game, but just holding on for the stand up is wrong.
Its incredibly biased against grapplers. As soon as the fighters are on the ground, the crowd boes them, the referee gets pressured, and stands them back up. Typical Americans, not understanding a sport yet pretending they do. You wouldnt see an Australian doing that.
I kinda think that if two strikers are only just dancing around they should be forced into the neutral position that they use in wrestling if only to make them do something. I don't like stalling whether it is endless circling or hugging clinches. Although I know most jujitsu or wrestler types will disagree with this I'll say this anyways. I still hold the attacking grappler accountable for stalling even if it is their opponent who is holding them in a neutralized position. If their opponent is able to hold them and prevent them from making a pass, mount, or submission I consider the attackers shoot attempt to be a failure. I still favor standing them up because it will end the stalling and if the attacking guy is truly better he may succeed with the next shoot.
Surely if a shoot gets the oppoent to the ground (to whatever position) it has worked? So, if a "jujitsu or wrestler type" runs away from a puncher, by your reasoning, it is the strikers failure to close the distance and land an effective strike that produces enough reason to allow the grappler to restart in an advantageous ground position?
No I consider most shoots a move used to setup either mounted strikes or submissions or even slams. Actually yes. A good striker has to find a way to close the distance and find an opening in my opinion just like a good grappler must make a pass to mount or submit. Evading and clinching are good tactics on the street but I don't wanna pay to watch stalling tactics. That's why I watch "prizeFIGHTING". The ring ain't the street, prizefighters should fight not stall.
A shoot is an entry to a takedown. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes I agree. But surely the person holding on and preventing the fighter "from making a pass, mount, or submission" is stalling, not the guy being held? If he isn't attempting to sweep, or sub his opponent, or make the effort to reverse or get out & stand up then he is stalling and evading fighting and not actively competing. Why should he be placed on his feet in an advantageous position?
Pardon me, I'll use the term takedown from now on. They both are. In grappling a guy who pins but can't setup to attack is stalling and a guy clinching who isn't reversing, countering, or sneaking in a submission is stalling. If both guys are standing and striking and one guy is running but only running he's stalling cause he's not countering or bating the other guy to attack, if the other guy can't find an opening he's stalling cause his striking sux.
This is great. I haven't been online for months and this is one of the first threads I've read on my return. I have to say, this is one of the most interesting discussions I've read in a long time. I've always been fascinated by the submissions heavy bias in the sport of MMA. It's interesting to note that strikers are indeed learning to defend submissions and cause great concern for the grapplers of poor striking ability. For the longest of time, I was of the opinion that; a) A person can learn to become effective in the submission game (if only defensively) very quickly. b) A person simply cannot learn to strike effectively quickly. It takes much, much longer. Of course, as with every rule, there are exceptions. I go with the "circular" theory that people are using here. But, I can't help thinking; In the past - people came from a "grappling world" and "added a bit of standup". Or, they came from the "standup world" and "added a bit of grappling". If this continues to be the case, then we will see the constant circle. But, if there is one single benefit (to the martial arts world as a whole) that has come out of the sport of MMA it's this: People are starting to learn that the all round fighters, comfortable in all ranges, are rising to dominate the sport. Wanderlei is a shining example of this. Therefore, I would like to see the circle end. I would like to see good "all round fighters" that have no real preference, be it striking or grappling, standup or ground. For the allrounder, it's just a part of the game. So, will the "pure grappler" with a bit of stand up start to be phased out of MMA? Yes, I believe so. But, submissions and grappling as an art won't. The all rounders will dominate (case in point: Wanderlei) and I have no idea what'll come next... ...can't wait to find out though! -V-
Agreed. But that is down to the referee to ascertain and decide who is responsible for the stalling. Once again though, and a point you haven't answered, if it is the "striker" underneath pulls guard and is holding on to stop any offence from the better grappler, why should he be allowed to return to an advantageous position? In this case he is only stalling cos his groundwork sucks. Venrix, I also agree that there are "all round fighters" developing now, but what you use will generally be dependant on the ability of your opponent and where you feel you have the advantage. I personally believe that due to the nature of the sport, the circle will never end. Very few successful fighters come from an MMA background (in fact I can't think of any) They generally have the experience after years of studying a "base" art and this will inevitably lead their preference. Although Wanderlei can fight on the ground, he has only ever won one fight by a sub (vs Bob schrieber in the Pride GP in 2000) out of something like 35 fights, I would hardly call that an all rounder? In fact the only time I remember that he actively sought to take a fight to the ground was against Mark Hunt...
We agree with eachother completely. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that I stressed that the allrounder does, and should, fight in the area where his opponent is weakest (by comparison). However, this should not be solely about the "strengths" of the allrounder. I would prefer this to be equally about the "strenghts and weaknesses" of the opponent. Indeed. Since his stand up is so strong and the fight starts standing up... ...why would he consider taking a grappler to the ground? The fight againt Hunt was a case-in-point. Whilst Hunt wasn't necessarily a "better" standup fighter than Wanderlei, he was a far "stronger" striker. The next logical step, for Wanderlei, was to take his opponent to an area where he is/was the weaker; grappling. His willingness to do so simply demonstrates his comfort level as an allrounder. I believe that the fact that he has almost never needed to, is simply a testimony to his skill as a striker. He is capable on the ground and, importantly, not afraid of it. But, of course, he remains standing in his fights. Why shouldn't he? He is knocking people out. Should he go to ground simply to demonstrate that he can grapple? His fights are not exhibitions, they are fights. As it stands, there are precious few who can stand up to his striking but this is not an indication of his skill level has a grappler. Rather, it's an indication of his strength as a striker. I refer to Wanderlei as an allrounder simply since, he executes the "all rounder" strategy to near perfection; "The fight starts standing, so dominate when standing (there are grappling competitions for those that wish to "exhibit" their grappling skills). If one is faltering in the standup range - consider taking the fight to the ground and dominate there. Or, if one is taken to the ground by an opponent that feels he is faltering in the standup range (as is the case for 90% of "pure grapplers"), engage in the grappling game and dominate there too." But, to go to ground simply because... a) It's the only thing you know how to do, or b) You're stand up is too poor (in general, not in a given bout), or c) You want to "show that you can grapple"... ...would, in my opinion, be a mistake. Those who are all rounders, will not simply "demonstrate a level of skill by fighting in each range in a bout". They will treat each range as the Holy Grail. They will refuse to give it up. They will attempt to dominate in each range until the fight is over. Since the fight starts standing up the "all rounder" will attempt to win; 1st - with a knock out 2nd - with a submission If an opponent fails to finish the fight with a submission and/or the allrounder cannot capitalise on the situation on the ground, he will return to his feet and the cycle will begin again... ...until the best allrounder wins. -V-
Good points. And I agree about your comments on strategy. I don't think that is in dispute. However, I actually think Wanderlei is not a great example of an all round fighter. IMO he's weak on the ground and the only reason he tried to take Hunt down was because he believed Hunt was weak there...not necessarily the same thing as Wanderlei being better. He still couldn't finish him. Not quite what happened to Wanderlei against Hunt though... Wanderlei is aggressive, I'll grant you but not the best example of a great all round fighter. Fedor on the other hand...
Garibaldi my friend, I am starting to like you. What happened with Hunt was, in fact, an example of two parts of the strategy: 1) "...take his opponent to an area where is is weaker.." In Hunts case, the ground. (Although, we certainly agree that this was indicative of Hunt's weakness, not necessarily Wanderlei's strength. However, Wanderlei's willingness to go down is indicative of a sound strategist. I believe this to be one of the most significants element of being and all round fighter.) 2) "...or the all rounder cannot capitalise on the situation on the ground, he will return to his feet and the circle will begin again..." (This is exactly what happened in the Hunt fight. Wanderlei took his opponent to an area of weakness, failed to capitlise, returned to his feet and continued the circle until the fight was won. Perfect all round strategy.) But, I think we could go on like this all day. For certain, I appear to have WAYYYYY to much time on my hands at work!!! As for Fedor... ...definitely an all rounder. But, in my opinion, where he in Wanderleis weight class, that would be THE FIGHT OF MY LIFETIME. Shame it's not to be really... :cry: -V-
