MMA stalling for stand ups v.Scoring

Discussion in 'OT Bar' started by adrenalin112, Nov 24, 2009.

  1. adrenalin112

    adrenalin112 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal --> Tempe
    all this debate about scoring really has me confused on how to score certain aspects of the ground game.

    alot of times we'll see the guy on bottom tie up and hang on for life (with full guard to create a stall and get the fight stood up.

    on the positive side the guy that was on top did no damage & scored no 'points' (other than the takedown or sweep).
    another positive is that the guy on bottom may also be getting the fight to take place where he wants as a result of the stand up.

    but on the negative side, because of the stall. the guy on bottom created a boring fight while his opponent on top may have been actively trying to attack and create action in the fight.

    i really think judges should keep stalling in mind and score against fighters that stall. :hsd:
     
  2. HouseLing

    HouseLing When masturbations lost its fun you'r fucking lazy

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal
    i think the onus is on the person going for the takedowns/on top to advance their position. stalling is a valid tactic to get the fight back to where you want it. someone with little to no ground game would be stupid to do something risky against a decent bjj guy or wrestler.
     
  3. Kuet

    Kuet New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    9,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    pride judging criteria with the 10 point must system in place>>>

    the most important thing i believe in Pride criteria was effort to finish the fight.
     
  4. adrenalin112

    adrenalin112 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal --> Tempe
    i agree. however, there is a continual demand for action packed fights. and the john q american audience's prefers striking at this point because of the amount of action they think theyll be getting.
    so the majority of ufc fighters strike, and then stall on the floor.

    a stalling penalty would:
    -cause us to see more subs
    -penalize a boring fighter that stalls
    -force fighters to focus training their ground game to avoid the need to stall or receive a penalty.
    :wiggle:
     
  5. adrenalin112

    adrenalin112 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal --> Tempe
    but they cant dock their check in america. neither would i want them to.
    maybe something like advantages or "possession arrows" where the close round goes to the guy that wasnt stalling.
     
  6. kroneX

    kroneX New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would make more exciting fights, but as a bjj competitor I can see the temptation to just stall (especially if you are up on points). I won't lie I have stalled on matches by holding onto guard or by just being gay inside someones guard for the last minute of so of a match just to get the win. I mean i 'try for things' so I don't get penalised for stalling but i dont really commit to it.

    Stalling is a part of every martial art, get used to it. Having said that I would love for UFC to put in place that points are scored on 'attempting to finish the fight'
     
  7. HouseLing

    HouseLing When masturbations lost its fun you'r fucking lazy

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    9,330
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal
    I agree with you and understand what your saying. I just dint think it's a fighters job to have an "exciteing" fight. It's a fighters job to win the fight.
     
  8. Kenny Dalglish

    Kenny Dalglish New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Queens
    i think a fighter should be awarded for a takedown.. however if all they do is takedown after takedown with no damage no advance of position.. it shouldnt be awarded
     
  9. adrenalin112

    adrenalin112 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal --> Tempe
    well then why stand it up at all then?
     
  10. bpa00

    bpa00 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Messages:
    5,792
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City
    IMHO, judging should be based on effective offense only. A takedown which results in almost no damage or submission attempts shouldn't count for much more than a jab or two (unless it is a huge Rampage style slam or something). A submission attempt that is actually locked on should be scored highly, even if the guy eventually gets out (no points for getting out since you shouldn't have gotten stuck in the first place).
     
  11. Sylva

    Sylva New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    5,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    They shouldn't imo. If you can't get up b/c of your lack of skill and ability. You shouldn't be rewarded just b/c you can hang on like a retard for dear life.
     
  12. GreatDeceiver

    GreatDeceiver OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    28,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland/Chicago
    I beg to differ. If you get taken down, but completely contain the fighter on top and nullify any offense they try to mount, then you should be stood up and the fight 'reset'. It's not much different to me than a guy like Randy clinching Vera against the fence for a long time. Sure, nothing really got accomplished but it was a means to nullify Vera's striking and clearly the judges saw something of value there in order to give the nod to Randy in their scores. I think they should have been broken up more, just like if a stall happens on the ground, but it's still a legit defense imo.
     
  13. adrenalin112

    adrenalin112 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal --> Tempe
    :nono:
    takedowns should definitely be scored. its your fault for not having adequate takedown defense. however, i definitely feel that takedowns are scored much too highly. it seems more & more prevalent that a fighter will get marginally beaten on the feet in a round, then get a takedown in the last 90 seconds, do nothing with it and the judges clearly give that round away to the fighter that scored a takedown. (again, another reason to have a 10-10 round).

    the couture v vera against the fence match is a whole different animal to judge. on randy's side, yeah he was appearing as the aggressor because he was pushing brandon into the fence. he was doing some striking.
    but on vera's end, he was stuffing randy's takedown attempts, the strikes from randy were not damaging, and in essence randy was just stalling from brandon creating an exciting fight. :hs:
     
  14. GreatDeceiver

    GreatDeceiver OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    28,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cleveland/Chicago

    Um, so are you disagreeing with anything I said here or what? I see pretty much the same thing I was saying. I think the whole 'exciting fight' aspect is bullshit. All MMA fans are not drunken fools who want action action action. A fighter's number one goal going into any fight should be to win, and move up until you are champion. The rest just depends on gameplan and style/matchup and I think it's stupid as hell to throw a potential game-winning plan out the window because there is not enough action or excitement, which is relative anyway. Some people enjoy technical ground wars, while others boo just because its two guys rolling around.

    Some guys like Wanderlei are rewarded for putting on great fights even though they lose. But honestly, I think Wandy's style will always lend to a good fight if the other guy is game. While I'm sure a large part of him wants to put on an 'exciting' performance, his ultimate goal is still to win and his striking game is a means to that end.

    And regarding stalling when you're on your back, I think you nullifying the game of the dude on top, even if you just tie them up and don't let go, is just perfectly legitimate because if the other guy was good or better, he would figure out a way to break free and work GnP or a sub. It goes both ways.
     
  15. adrenalin112

    adrenalin112 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    28,498
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SoCal --> Tempe
    i think we're agreeing on most levels. :hs:

    the ufc's need for "exciting fights" is bullshit and guys are getting cut before their 3 & out because of their "boring" styles.
     

Share This Page