Imagine the scenario...you go out and a couple of guys have a fight in front of you. everyone is watching wanting to stop it but drawn to the violence. then guy A gets on top of guy B and lies there struggling for positional advantage for 5 minutes. Doormen break it up but further down the street it kicks off and again guy A gets on top and struggles for positional advantage for 5 minutes. and on and on and on... im not dissing wrestling btw and i realise the headbutt rule stopped a bloody acendancy of wrestlers via ko/tko. however im asking you seriously is LNP...points really victory. what does lnp without gnp/sub do except allow you to potentially ****/restrain someone. mma was meant to have a lineage back to street fighting. much as a admire wrestlers for their domination of the other styles except MT and BJJ...if all we have to look forward to is two guy trying to get positional advantage for points win via takedown/control...what the **** does that have to do with fighting. the real life equivelent would get you ****in stamped on.
lay and pray sucks, but the judges are to blame. being on top doesn't mean you're winning, but the old senile *******s are too lazy to learn that simple concept. more than one submission attempts from the bottom overides four minutes of being on top and ineffective punches.
im gonna get my self in trouble here but i can explain bjj to a boxing fan. lnp however just makes me ashamed to be watching the sport.
Is a boxer controlling a match off the backfoot by using quickness and footwork really fighting? At the end of the day if you're able to stop somebody hitting you either by holding them down or by staying out of reach you're doing more than they are. If they want to defeat you they have to step up either sweep you/block the initial takedown or trap you by cutting off the ring.
a boxer who slaps his opponents with no chance of a ko is a better example but really, ko's will happen if you connect and its not the same thing. its more like a boxer who clinches for 12 rounds and that wouldnt happen. but if it did id say no, its not fighting. what you are doing is decribing restraining someone and its not called the URC man.
Its the same argument - what's more important position vs. damage? The cliche is that the key to any fight is to hit without being hit. Lay and pray just like boxing at a distance off the backfoot allows a fighter to do that.
Wrong exemple. A boxer who is fighting at a distance from the backfoot is still boxing, he keep jabbing keep throwing punch. L'n'P( at least for me, MY definition of L'n'P) is when 2 guy's seems to have same ground skill(or one of them is superior) but the same dude doesn't have a good stand up game. So in the UFC(or any unified rule) the only thing that guy as to do is bring you down and lay on you. If he manage to do some transition and get a dominant position, in my eyes it's no longer L'n'P, the guy is actually doing something but if the only thing he is doing is laying on top of you without and can't pull a transition, not even trying to subb you of throw some kind of punch or elbow, then you arn't doing **** and even though you are on top you are ****in doing nothing. Best exemple is King Mo VS Moussassi That was a painful 25 minute, King Mo doing some takedown, getting them bu he couldn't switch to a dominant position while Moussassi just destroyed his face from the bottom...I understand why King Mo got the decision, but I think it was the wrong one and the only reason why he won is because of the stupid rules !
Yes, because he would still be landing shots. Boxing is more a match than a fight.. This is even one of the arguments of MMA. You can control a boxing match by fighting more defensively, but you cant win a fight by just making a guy miss.. You need to land shots yourself.. This isn't the case in MMA. You can be clearly, and cleanly out struck, but you can win a, "fight" on a scorecard by dominating the grappling alone. You don't have to land a single shot, or go for a single submission.
If somebody is literally holding you down, not only stopping you getting up or going for submission attempts or throw strikes off the back then they are legitmately dominating. Even if they all do that while staying in half guard, you can critcise them for not being more adventurous but you can't score the fight against them. Now the fight in question, yeah there was an argument that Moussassi deserved the nod due to ground striking. If I remember rightly he really only started taking most of the fight with strikes off his back when Mo tired in the championship rounds. But yeah the principle is sound, if somebody has space to do damage off his back then the guy on top has not properly established Octagon control.
Its MMA. If the telling difference in the match was grappling then what's the problem with the better grappler getting the nod?
lets put this in context in other sports you dont get rewarded for almosts. in football you dont get points for passes in rugby you dont get points for yards in golf you dont get points for hitting the green in mma it is a ''fighting sport'' the whole point of combining the martial arts through one big effectiveness test was too see which one was the best. it is not judo where it is assumed to get the guy down withought going down yourself is victory it is not wrestling where dominance is rewarded it is the fruition of these styles nothing but efficient disposal through unarmed combat was the way it started now to make it a sport you gotta have points i understand that however in boxing there are 12 rounds and many natural factors leading to the best guy winning lnp is not fighting it is a loophole il accept all arguments on wrestlers being disadvantaged by the no head butt rule just as il hear out the arguments for being allowed to knee/kick a downed opponent however the fact remains that in the space of 15 minutes ppl are winning by basically just getting their opponent down and doing as little as possible to risk their advantage in any other sport this is unacceptable the point of mma is not to win on points...it is to ko or tko. subs are a safety measure against serious injury. points however for a positive stalemate are what ruins the sport
I agree with you, but do you agree that if 1 fighter is focusing on prohibiting is opponent of either striking subbing or changing position, he isn't doing any damage he is not improving is position and he is not looking for a subb. I understand your point that if the guy is dominating on the ground should win but I honestly think there is a clear difference between a dominating someone on the ground (GSP) and trying not to get either subb or KTFO by holding your oppnonent on the ground and doing nothing(King Mo VS Moussassi)! Alot of people consider GSP L'n'P, I agree more or less...at least GSP is trying to go for a subb from time to time but if there is something nobody can argu is that GSP is DOMINATING on the ground.
someone should make a version of mma where a draw is a draw 0 points then we would have a serious competitor to ufc