And taking a guy down and being unable to do anything apart from a few shoulder strikes is supposed to be an accomplishment? It's miles away from a sub attempt as an actual finisher of the fight. Face it; Guida played it safe by doing the one thing he was most likely to be able to do and not get subbed/KOd with no regard to whether or not he had any hope of finishing the fight. Under the current rules, that's the way the game is played. However, that sure as hell doesn't translate into him being a better fighter than Pettis and I don't expect that the rules will remain this way forever as loads of people see it as bull**** vertical John Ruiz-ism. It's the same as his "clinch and don't let the guy get off, be a bit busier but don't risk anything that could lose you the fight even if it means you have no chance of stopping the guy".
I think you don't have the right outlook. You assume taking mount, or accomplishing a takedown equates to control. Sometimes it does, being in mount entails some very advantageous positioning for gnp and certain submissions. But, if the guy on the bottom is able to over-ride your mount with wrist control, THEN WHO IS BEING CONTROLLED BY WHOM? If takedowns by themselves are valuable, which they tend to be, that is fine. But, that doesn't automatically mean that the guy who has mount in controlling the guy from the bottom. Think of it this way.. Consider the likelihood of submitting a guy from full guard, you will have better success from half guard, even better success from side mount and even greater success from full mount. For some fighters this isn't exactly true but this is more a conceptual way to look at it.. The thing is going for submissions usually leaves you vulnerable to being reversed, or from losing an advantageous position you work for. If you lose from say half guard, you end up back in full guard and have to work back to more advantageous positions. From the guard, you want to keep a guy in full guard because that is where you are going to have the best opportunity to submit your opponent *if your a leg triangle wiz*. If you have wrist control from here, you are better able to manipulate your opponent to draw him into a triangle, catch him trying to pass and catch him in an armbar, or from half guard you might try to isolate an arm for a shoulder lock. The thing is going for these submissions entails risk of your opponent improving position. You can get guys back into full guard, or reverse or even escape to your feet by feigning a submission to improve positioning, or forcing a guy to retreat in order to prevent himself from falling into a trap and being submitted. So you understand this dynamic? If the guy on the bottom has a better guard than his opponents mount, then according to the current rules, he is ****ed unless he can pull off a full submission. Because he is going for, say a leg triangle he is taking a risk which allows Guida to pass. Then, he keeps attacking to try to get Guida back into full guard. Meanwhile, you believe Guida is winning because he has top position and is improving position, but in reality, the two fighters are having a back and forth positional exchange, where the guy who is active and attacking is the one going for submissions. *Guy on the bottom in this case* So by attacking from the bottom, unless you land a sub, you are constantly losing points because you get no credit for improving your own position, or laying traps for your opponent to fall into which I consider submission attempts. While the guy in mount is building up points and getting credit for passing. What you end up with are rules which actually encourage a guy who may be incredibly skilled from the bottom to tie up his opponent and stall, hoping for the ref to bring him to their feet, even though he is the one trying to end the fight with a submission. I'm sorry but this is backwards reasoning. We are punishing a guy for doing what he can to catch an opponent in a very slick submission and end a fight. Giving advantage to a guy who is literally trying to survive from the top credit, for the sake of being on top and being dominated and controlled via wrists.
I assume nothing and go simply by what I saw. If Guida had been in trouble from the subs then categorise it as a legitimate attempt - but when was Guida in trouble during the sub attempts? All I saw was one person completing techniques (takedowns and positioning) and the other unable to. No what if's or should of's enter in my scoring - just what was accomplished.
Calm down son... I've never picked against Clay and i'm not starting any time soon. arty GUIDA Lynchburg
In BJJ they put "mount" on everything. What Rogan calls "side control" is called "side mount". What Rogan calls "taking the back" is called "back mount". What I'm assuming you consider to be "the mount" is called "full mount".
I know that, but being in the guard is not a mounted position. Side, back and full mount are called those things for a reason. In guard you are not mounted on your opponent. I have never heard anyone refer to being inside your opponents guard as any kind of mount.
guida lay and prayed the win hopefully he can versus frankie edgar and get ktfo. Im sick of the lay and pray bull**** bring pride rules back.
Absolute rubbish. The guard is a defensive position full stop in which the guy on the bottom can mount a successful counter attack by pulling of a triangle for example whilst also limiting the opponants ability to strike with wrist control and using the legs to control posture. Pettis was successful in limiting Clay's striking posabilities, he didnt lauch a sucessful counter. I think Nog for example is a guard who can use he guard to attack, but the point is he was sucessful in his sub attempts, Pettis wasnt, so dont think that because guys like Nog can attack from guard that it is an offensive position. In guard, you are still reliant on the guy putting himself in a bad postion or being unschooled enough to defend a sub, Clay pass both those tests, so he deserves credit, just as Pettis does for stopping Clay striking and advancing postion, but he was still on the defensive. As weak as they were, you are just going to have to deal with the fact that Clay' shoulder strike were more sucessful in causing damage that ANY of Pettis sub attempts. Add to that Clay repeatedly too the fight to the ground when it was obvious Pettis didnt want to be there and you whole post about Anthony being in a better position in guard is laughably and absolutely moot and just a case of sour grapes It's like a boxer with a peak-a-boo style, you are mainly looking to counter. If Boxer A is employing that style and looking to counter with a big hook and missing the target repeatable, but boxer B is using a jab all night, forcing fighter A into the defensive do you score the fight to boxer A because the hooks are more likely to end a fight, even though the didnt land and were more likley to end a fight than Boxer B's jabs that did? Did you score the Mosely v Floyd fight for Shane because he threw more power shots with the intent to end the fight even you he was being constantly hit by Floyd? Absolute idiocy, if you dont like the result, write to the athletic commission
Logic fails when a guy you hate wins a fight and it's just a way of f trying to deal with it I hate Clay btw
They are actually being pretty logical, you just can't see it when you set the criterea for a submission attempt at 99% of a submission.
atsch For it to outscore Guida Id set a submission attempt as actually applying pressure to the joint, choke ect, which Pettis only managed once. Is that unreasonable? EDIT Id like to add that grabbing an arm/putting your legs on the other guys shoulders from guard for a few seconds arent really legitiamate sub attempts are they? And even if you think they are, they were shrugged off by Clay before they got anywhere ear to being locked in anyway, so the point as a case for winning a fight is laughable This will be my final say on the matter, been over the same points enough for one thread
