Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 17:06:12 GMT -5
One thing I would like to see instituted is the use of enforceable warnings for stalling, evading and inactivity. In Pride, there was no incentive to 'point fight'. A fighter would be warned outright for not 'fighting with an intent to finish'. A second warning would be a 10% hit to their purse. A third warning would be an outright disqualification, netting the losers purse. Changing the incentives would move away from encouraging point fighting and deter the problems that foster unentertaining fights, such as wall and stall (pushing the opponent against the fence with no intent to advance), lay and pray (gaining top position through a takedown and then not attempting to advance) and strike and bike (counter striking an advancing opponent without an intent to finish, and then running away to reset and repeat the pattern all fight long). Under the current rules, those are 'smart tactics' that usually win the favor of the judges. You haven't seen many Pride undercards, have you? They're full of fights where its just dudes locking and bolting on the ground, standing back up, locking and bolting again with no warning whatsoever from the referee. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 8, 2012 20:05:20 GMT -5
You haven't seen many Pride undercards, have you? I've seen just about every Pride event, from the Takada worked days on. They're full of fights where its just dudes locking and bolting on the ground, standing back up, locking and bolting again with no warning whatsoever from the referee. With the exception of an illegal action, I don't recall a Pride referee ever issuing a warning to fighters involved in an active grappling exchange that ended in an escape. I would never expect it to occur in any MMA organization. If one fighter is actively attempting to lock in a submission, and the other fighter actively (and successfully) defends his opponent's attempt to finish the fight, where in that sequence are you expecting a referee warning to occur? What are a few of the most egregious examples of Pride officials turning a blind eye to this locking and bolting phenomena? |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Feb 9, 2012 0:38:38 GMT -5
I would be in favor of Pride type penalties.
The bigger issue is scoring though. The 10 point must system just doesn't work. Almost every round is judged to be a 10-9 round. If one round is more dominant than another the score should reflect that. The judges also need to know exactly how to judge. Is "Octagon Control" or aggression more important than striking? The judges need to be told what is what.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 11:09:51 GMT -5
With the exception of an illegal action, I don't recall a Pride referee ever issuing a warning to fighters involved in an active grappling exchange that ended in an escape. I would never expect it to occur in any MMA organization. If one fighter is actively attempting to lock in a submission, and the other fighter actively (and successfully) defends his opponent's attempt to finish the fight, where in that sequence are you expecting a referee warning to occur? What are a few of the most egregious examples of Pride officials turning a blind eye to this locking and bolting phenomena? Locking and bolting is another way of saying "laying and praying" (at least it was on the Pride video game boards back in 03/04 and I've seen it used in that context as recently as a few months ago so by all means if I'm using an incorrect term tell me, but the fact remains what I'm about to follow up with is right.). I have just about every numbered Pride event ever (Don't have the Bushido or most of the GPs) on DVD, and I can count at least three fights per event where it's two dudes laying on the mat with not a damn thing going on, no strikes or submission attempts (maybe an attempt to advance position but this is only in extreme situations when they feel like actually giving the fans a fight) and the referee issues no warning at all. He just stands them up and lets them get right back to the ground, no warning yet again. Pride is my favorite MMA promotion ever, but to act like "There were no boring fights where all that happened were takedown, rest, takedown, rest (or would the term 'GSP fight' work better in this situation?) because there was a penalty system in place" is kind of ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 9, 2012 20:31:49 GMT -5
Locking and bolting is another way of saying "laying and praying" (at least it was on the Pride video game boards back in 03/04 and I've seen it used in that context as recently as a few months ago so by all means if I'm using an incorrect term tell me, That's an interesting source. If you want a point of reference that will be broadly understood by most MMA fans, it would probably be best to avoid that term as it isn't commonly used. I have just about every numbered Pride event ever (Don't have the Bushido or most of the GPs) on DVD, and I can count at least three fights per event where it's two dudes laying on the mat with not a damn thing going on, no strikes or submission attempts (maybe an attempt to advance position but this is only in extreme situations when they feel like actually giving the fans a fight) That's quite an indictment on Pride and its fighters! and the referee issues no warning at all. He just stands them up and lets them get right back to the ground, no warning yet again. Context of these hypothetical stand ups aside, its logically impossible for a referee to warn two fighters to stand up from a grounded position, and at the same time not be initiating any form of warning during the course of said fight. If you have an example of this in action, I'd love to see it. Pride is my favorite MMA promotion ever, but to act like "There were no boring fights where all that happened were takedown, rest, takedown, rest (or would the term 'GSP fight' work better in this situation?) because there was a penalty system in place" is kind of ridiculous. I don't think even the most hardcore of Pride fans would claim there were never any 'boring' (which is subjective) fights during its run. Many fans do appreciate that there was a higher finish and submission ratio than in UFC. Fighters (like Nick Diaz) have also stated that they preferred the system because even fights that went to decisions tended to involve more of an emphasis on both fighters attempting to finish due to the incentives involved. YMMV |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Feb 9, 2012 20:36:50 GMT -5
I would be in favor of Pride type penalties. I suspect many of the fighters would hate it!  Yet it would probably be better for the fans and the product. The bigger issue is scoring though. The 10 point must system just doesn't work. Almost every round is judged to be a 10-9 round. If one round is more dominant than another the score should reflect that. The judges also need to know exactly how to judge. Is "Octagon Control" or aggression more important than striking? The judges need to be told what is what. The biggest problem I have with the 10 Point Must System is that there is built in pressure on the judges to avoid scoring anything outside of a 10-9. Athletic commissions will negatively access job performance where scores deviate outside the norm. For that reason, rounds that 'should possibly score' a 10-8 or 10-10 will usually get lumped into the 10-9 box. It's to the point where I was shocked that all three judges scored Edgar/Maynard II Round 1 a 10-8, even though it was fairly obvious from popular fan perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Feb 9, 2012 23:08:32 GMT -5
And what about 10-7 or 10-6. In their minds those would basically be knock outs but how messed up is this system. It might as well be a 3 point must system and every fight is either a 3-2 or 3-1.
|
|
Yet it would probably be better for the fans and the product.