So, linking this back to the discussion I was having with Pitfighter...if (as an example only, I'm not saying this is what happened in this specific fight) Wanderlei is getting beat in the stand up but succeeds in getting Hunt to the floor (as this is somewhere he believes he can take the advantage) Hunt then uses the old "koala bear" tactic of wrapping around and holding on while everyone sleeps. Would it be fair for the referee to restart them from standing, to a position where Hunt had a distinct advantage? Despite the fact that he is failing to fight on the floor? Or should another option be found? (after all...if Wanderlei gets tagged by Hunt and then clinches/holds on doing nothing other than get some time to recover, the referee is unlikely to reset them on the floor because Wanderlei is failing to engage in stand-up) Actually, perhaps two better examples would have been Hunt v Yoshida where it was a distinct Grappler v Striker
I believe the fight should be put back to standup. Not because any one of the two fighters has an "advantage" but simply because there is no progress being made. For me, putting people back on their feet is not about - returning things to a "striking game". It's about pushing the "reset button". MMA fights start on their feet. When a fight reaches a point of in activity, it's "reset". However, in the event that the fight is inactive in the "start position" (the standing position), then we start talking about yellow cards etc. I agree. Hence my belief that reset to standup is/should not be about returning to standup. It's about "restarting the fight". Inactivity should be penalised. Full stop. Regardless of where (ground or standup). This is the "objective" of the Bushido rules (Pride) but of course they are not fully (and more importanly FAIRLY) enforced. In simplest terms: - The job of the pure striker is to knock out his opponent (Crocop). - The job of the pure grappler is to takedown AND submit his opponent (Nogueira Sr.) - The grappler however, should be able to make sufficient account of himself in the standup range to allow for "fightflow" and to ensure that he stays concious long enough to take his opponent to ground (Nogueira Sr.) - The striker however, should be able to make sufficient account of himself in the ground game to allow for "fightflow" and to ensure that he stays concious (or unsubmitted) long enought to return himself (and the fight) to striking terms. (Crocop - but perhaps to a limited extent) - The striker that simply "koala's himself on the ground" and does not "engage" in the ground game (whether his objective be submission or return to standup) should be penalised. - The grappler that simply "continuously shoots for takedowns and fails to capitalise" (due to unsuccessful takedown attempts or failure to follow through with submission attempts) and during the same bout fails to engage in the standup range of his opponent (whether his objective be knockout or weakening his opponent into a state allowing for successful takedowns) should be penalised. If the striker refuses to engage in grappling, then the grappler can still continue and will likely succeed in achieving a submission (ie. fighting a passive target INCREASES his chances of getting a sub). However, if the grappler refuses to engage in standup/striking, the the striker cannot really continue (by the nature of the game, the opponents must remain in striking range and not "nullify each striking engagement with a clinch or takedown") and likely will fail to achieve a knockout (nullifying/passive actions REDUCE the chances of getting a knockout). This adds credance to the argument that "grappling" arts can be useful in a streetfight since the opponents strikes are nullified. However, this is not a street fight, it is a sport. The sport of mixed martial arts was previously known as "all round fighting". In the way that strikers are now EXPECTED to be able to hold some account of themselves as grapplers. Grapplers should be EXPECTED to hold some account of themselves as strikers. Sadly, this is not the case. -V-
That's the crux of my points in this discussion. How do you penalise them? Standing a striker who is not active on the ground is clearly not a penalisation. I appreciate the points about resetting, and I think that's how its looked upon at the moment. And it does keep it exciting. What I hate is people who do nothing to engage on the ground and hold on for the stand-up. They are the ones making it boring, not the attacker! People like cro-cop and especially Chuck do attempt to defend and work to restand to regain the advantage, so why allow the same benefit to a "koala"? But is there an alternative to keep the excitement on the ground? Even if you take two all rounders, and for whatever reason one is losing the stand-up game and suceeds in taking the match to the ground to work his subs, surely he is being penalised by the stand-up rule if his opponent just "koalas" (TM)2006 Garibaldi
You could always penalize the "koala" after a standup, either with a card (decrease in pay) or point deduction from the scorecard. I remember seeing Gomi getting penalized for doing nothing more than hold on in his fight against Azerado. Of course, the standup still puts the fight in favor of the better striker.
I agree. But, here I think I'd go back to my point concerning passivity on the ground. Where a striker is passive, this is not necessarily a disadvantage for the grappler. We've already determined that if the standup skills of a grappler are so poor that the only place he can compete is on the ground, he should be in a grappling competition, not an MMA event. Additionally, if he is so poor a striker that he lives on the ground and is also so poor a grappler that he cannot capitalise against a Koala (you fully deserve the TM rights there by the way!! ), then he should return to the gym and get some training in. I would suggest that BOTH should be penalised in a prolonged/stagnant koala situation. Why? Inactivity. Plain and Simple. The striker that holds on for dear life is as bad as the grappler that blocks a striker (without ever returning the compliment) and shoots over and over to no avail. The grappler that cannot capitalise and take control (get out of the Koala situation and create submission opportunities) is 50% responsible for the stalemate. Although, the striker should be making efforts to return to his feet (at the very least). In terms of penalty; Scenario 1 - Inactivity on the ground; restart the fight both parties yellow carded (financial penalty) Scenario 2 - Stalemate on the ground (activity but neither party able to capitalise); restart the fight, no penalties incurred. Scenario 3 - Onesided inactivity (ie. striker doing the koala because he knows he'll be stood up in 3 mins); DO NOT STAND UP THE FIGHT; use the yellow card (and financially penalise, deduct points but the fight CONTINUES ON THE GROUND (forcing the striker to attempt to regain control). We know it takes two to tango but I think we forget that it takes two to koala! At least, to the point of inactivity! However, in a one sided case of inactivity, if the grappler is trying to handle the koala and the striker is not attempting to submit his opponent (at best) or return to his feet (as a minimum) the striker should be penalised (financially AND in terms of points). The striker is not "fighting" he is simply "nullifying submission attempts". But, the fight should continue from the grounded position. Why do people think that the fighters have to be standing to get carded? Card them on the ground! Same applies to stand up, if the grappler is continuously blocking and/or offering ineffective attempts at takedown - he should be penalised financially and in terms of points - since he is not "fighting" he is simply "nullifying striking attempts". -V-
Absolutely agree. And restart the fight in a neutral position on the ground which allows for attack and defence from both positions. Not sure what the wrestling position someone referred to before is? I think several organisations make better use of this than others, and the UFC is probably the worst for penalising inactive fighters. Look at Kevin Jordan v whoever-it-was recently (UFC56?) 3 rounds of no contact, and not one attempt at penalising the fighters...yawn...
Garibaldi, I just wanted to add a final 2p worth here. Since "stalling" is the thing that is to be penalised, I also believe that an inactive, guard loving, grappler should also be penalised. For example, there is NOTHING worse than seeing a grappler lying on his back holding a strong striker in the guard (I'm referring to what has sadly become known as the "ground n pound" situation). Simply because; a) They are attempting to do nothing more than hold the striker at bay and render the strikes ineffective, and b) They are not able to engage in an effective submission game due to the strikers pressure I agree that the "koalas" should be penalised as stallers. I agree that strikers of limited ground often capitalise on the "koala". However, I firmly believe that the "koala" was, in fact, invented by grapplers. It was established by the grappling masses as a means of defense against dominant ground striking opponents (i.e. Coleman, Couture, Fedor). The Sakuraba v. Gracie marathon of a "fight" is a classic example of the grappler using an "inactive koala" to great effect as a tool for nullifying the efforts of a striking opponent. When grapplers simply hold on for dear life against a ground striker, I hear no complaints. I seem to hear complaints only when a striker holds on for dear life to defend against a grappler. Odd but sadly very true! New Rule Suggestion; Pointlessly holding on for dear life, standing or grounded, no matter what the reason, no matter what the style of the fighter is to be penalised. It's a nice and simple rule. Let's hope someone brings it into the ring/cage and onto the mat. -V-
Nah, still got several in my pocket yet (about 8p I reckon) Yes, and that is why the stand up rule was brought into place, to avoid the boring 15-min-nothing-happening-on-the-ground fight. And it worked really well, until people realised that when they were grounded they could use this rule to stall and bring themselves back into a position of advantage. The tactics can be adapted to suit the rules, and the rules need a change again to make the ground game as exciting as the stand-up Yes indeedy
if people would get on there job and up their sub game this thread would not be here! :bang: subs will allways be around
I think the truth is that everyone is trying to bring the other guy down. Submission specialists are trying to takedown to setup a submission. Strikers are trying to knock the other guy down or ground and pound. No one is being penalized once a clinch has been reached that stops both guys from moving. I think a guy is only being penalized on the ground if he's started to pass guard, trying to secure a submission, has just mounted or is in the process of reversing or sweeping. It's just easier to deal with. I think when guys just stand around or dance around they should be forced in the wrestler's neutral hold like they do in olympic wrestling (though they do it to break a tie). I just approve of policies that stop stalling, breaking up clinches are just easier to do than other stuff which ain't fair but is more feasible. Just hope the two grapplers can actually grapple well, a good match that comes to mind was the Nick Diaz v. Diego Sanchez fight, good mounted attacks from Diego good fighting from the guard by Diaz. I think also Karo Paryisan and Nick Diaz had good grapples lots of reversals (or am I still thinking the Diego/Diaz fight?). I think everyone thinks that the guy who made the takedown is automatically in a position to submit or something. Once he's tied up in the clinch that's no longer true in my opinion, realizing when the clinch has become INTRACTABLE is key to deciding when to break it up. When the clinch is intractable and then is stood up the attacker gets another chance to takedown and this time may have better chance to setup a mount to submit or ground and pound. I think the real prob is there is no real solution to ending the stalling between two strikers to scared to engage or when one guy outright runs away and the attacker can't hit. This is what I think makes pro-grappling guys feel shafted by the clinch breakup. Like I said earlier breaking up clinches is just more feasible, the wrestling neutral position is the only thing I can think of to force two strikers who are stalling to engage but I don't think it will catch on.
Forgive my ignorance in all matters wrestling, but being from the UK I have no idea what the "wrestling neutral position" is? Can anybody clear this up for me? p.s it was Parisyan v Diaz
Neutral Position - The match starts with both contestants standing opposite each other with their lead foot on the green or red area of the starting lines and their other foot even with or behind the lead foot. In the neutral position, neither wrestler has control. This is used when there is a tie in olympic wrestling and is used to score a sudden death tie breaker. Maybe it could be used to force to stalling "dancers" in MMA by forcing them to do something besides run.
Is that it! isn't that what happens when the ref stands up the fighters anyway? Is there a difference? (other than the starting line bit)
I was trying to find a more accurate description but I believe that each wrestler also has one underhook and overhook. They're locked in a grappling position a clinch as opposed to being just stood up, I usually interpret stand up position to mean both fighters are both standing and are not clinching at all. So no it's not the same as what the UFC does to stop grapple stalling.
I'm extremely doubtful of that. I think the trend these days is for guys to be less submission orientated, but there are still some extremely talented submission guys out there who have sweet setups and combinations to go into.
man u serious....LOL tell that to the Gracie family lol. Submission is not gonna disappear. If people are getting good at countering...the art of submissison fighting will evolve.
