[quitcrying]

I think it all comes down to if damage is being done or not. Most people that complain about wrestlers, are complaining about the ones who lay and pray. Sure, some are just idiots worried about it being the "gay" portion of the game, which is retarded, but nevertheless those people exist. Its when you watch a match like Hughes Vs Lytle, and you feel as though you waisted 15 minutes of your life that people start to complain. MMA is a sport, but many people look at it as a fight, not a sport. In real life, holding a person down doesn't win a fight. In a real fight, if you don't do damage, and gas, you get your head kicked in on the ground. I'm a jits competitor and I'll tell you this, from my standpoint, I would rather be subbed than win on points. There is no doubt that its a sport, but I (just a personal preference here) would like it to be at least somewhat related to a fight, in that there should be a finish. Rounds exist so we don't have 45 minute dance sessions where nobody does anything, but the current problem does exist that people are realizing that if they avoid any damage for 15 minutes, and inflict a little damage, they therefor, by sport standards, have won...but they finished nobody, which kills the similarity to a real fight. That is the very reason why so many people are disliking Machida, he makes it look like its not a fight. At the sport of MMA, Machida's awesome...at a real fight, if he was in a hall way where he couldn't evade his opponents, we have no clue...and after all, isn't the beauty of MMA that we get to see who would rule the playground after all?

and yeah, sorry thats all so long

[quitcrying]

oh yeah, and sorry for bringing Machida into the post

[Dpeng]

Originally Posted by blackthorne

I asked the question- purely ironic- in another thread as to why Maia didn't stand with Herman and the most typical (and correct) response was:
-Maia is a great BJJ expert
-Herman isn't as good on the ground and should have therefore exploited Ed's deficiency

I wasn't being serious with the question of course. But it's a question that's been sincerely posed to GSP in the wake of his Serra fight by some posters. That anyone is actually dumb enough to qualify it as a criticism is beyond dispute.

What I don't understand though is how these principles- fighters capitalizing on their advantages, exploiting opponents' weakness- are often disregarded when it comes to wrestlers? Some people complain "so and so doesn't mix it up enough/he should have at least stood with his opponent for a bit/etc"

What makes what Maia did, in principle, any different from say, someone like Ishida exploiting his opponents' inability to defend the takedown, and likewise for others like Fitch and Sherk? The "wrestling doesn't finish fights" defense holds little weight IMO. If you get outpointed in boxing but don't get KO'ed you're still a beaten man, and likewise in a typical ADCC contest.

For the record, I prefer when fighters mix it up, but that's only because it usually makes the fight more enjoyable, and this isn't to say there's no such thing as "lay and pray" either. Alavarez' fight with Dida is a perfect example of someone using wrestling to finish a fight (switching position to more effectively ground and pound), more or less. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate craft and ability. I realize it would make Sean Sherk more cool if after every victory his opponent could be dropped 100 feet into a pit filled with spikes or a pool of acid, but let's be fair and avoid the stereotype people have of "us" as bloodthirsty savages.

If wrestling is as much a part of MMA as striking and BJJ, why should there be any less emphasis on one particular component than the other?

Because wrestling is less complete than BJJ imo. BJJ emphasizes top control, bottom control, takedowns, and finishing submissions. I agree that if wrestlers are trying to finish their opponents, its right, but if they just sit their on top, using their wrestling skills to hold their opponent en route to a decision, thats bullshit.

[Dpeng]

Originally Posted by blackthorne

I asked the question- purely ironic- in another thread as to why Maia didn't stand with Herman and the most typical (and correct) response was:
-Maia is a great BJJ expert
-Herman isn't as good on the ground and should have therefore exploited Ed's deficiency

I wasn't being serious with the question of course. But it's a question that's been sincerely posed to GSP in the wake of his Serra fight by some posters. That anyone is actually dumb enough to qualify it as a criticism is beyond dispute.

What I don't understand though is how these principles- fighters capitalizing on their advantages, exploiting opponents' weakness- are often disregarded when it comes to wrestlers? Some people complain "so and so doesn't mix it up enough/he should have at least stood with his opponent for a bit/etc"

What makes what Maia did, in principle, any different from say, someone like Ishida exploiting his opponents' inability to defend the takedown, and likewise for others like Fitch and Sherk? The "wrestling doesn't finish fights" defense holds little weight IMO. If you get outpointed in boxing but don't get KO'ed you're still a beaten man, and likewise in a typical ADCC contest.

For the record, I prefer when fighters mix it up, but that's only because it usually makes the fight more enjoyable, and this isn't to say there's no such thing as "lay and pray" either. Alavarez' fight with Dida is a perfect example of someone using wrestling to finish a fight (switching position to more effectively ground and pound), more or less. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate craft and ability. I realize it would make Sean Sherk more cool if after every victory his opponent could be dropped 100 feet into a pit filled with spikes or a pool of acid, but let's be fair and avoid the stereotype people have of "us" as bloodthirsty savages.

If wrestling is as much a part of MMA as striking and BJJ, why should there be any less emphasis on one particular component than the other?

Because wrestling is less complete than BJJ imo. BJJ emphasizes top control, bottom control, takedowns, and finishing submissions. I agree that if wrestlers are trying to finish their opponents, its right, but if they just sit their on top, using their wrestling skills to hold their opponent en route to a decision, thats bullshit.

[gpop727]

Originally Posted by blackthorne

I asked the question- purely ironic- in another thread as to why Maia didn't stand with Herman and the most typical (and correct) response was:
-Maia is a great BJJ expert
-Herman isn't as good on the ground and should have therefore exploited Ed's deficiency

I wasn't being serious with the question of course. But it's a question that's been sincerely posed to GSP in the wake of his Serra fight by some posters. That anyone is actually dumb enough to qualify it as a criticism is beyond dispute.

What I don't understand though is how these principles- fighters capitalizing on their advantages, exploiting opponents' weakness- are often disregarded when it comes to wrestlers? Some people complain "so and so doesn't mix it up enough/he should have at least stood with his opponent for a bit/etc"

What makes what Maia did, in principle, any different from say, someone like Ishida exploiting his opponents' inability to defend the takedown, and likewise for others like Fitch and Sherk? The "wrestling doesn't finish fights" defense holds little weight IMO. If you get outpointed in boxing but don't get KO'ed you're still a beaten man, and likewise in a typical ADCC contest.

For the record, I prefer when fighters mix it up, but that's only because it usually makes the fight more enjoyable, and this isn't to say there's no such thing as "lay and pray" either. Alavarez' fight with Dida is a perfect example of someone using wrestling to finish a fight (switching position to more effectively ground and pound), more or less. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate craft and ability. I realize it would make Sean Sherk more cool if after every victory his opponent could be dropped 100 feet into a pit filled with spikes or a pool of acid, but let's be fair and avoid the stereotype people have of "us" as bloodthirsty savages.

If wrestling is as much a part of MMA as striking and BJJ, why should there be any less emphasis on one particular component than the other?

The way I would explain the comments about the Serra vs GSP fight:
-They are combating the claim that GSP vs Serra 1 was a fluke. Many fans were saying that because GSP won the second fight in such a devastating manner that the first was pure luck. Even though GSP was simply sticking to an effective game plan, by pointing out that GSP didn’t stand with Serra, Serra keeps more respect because people can say that GSP was afraid to stand. In truth, its probably a form of comparative advantage in mma but there’s an explanation for ya.


Now I’m not sure why you think that there isn’t an emphasis on wrestling in MMA. Fighters with an impressive wrestling pedigree get more respect than a fighter with an equally impressive striking pedigree imo. People discount the best boxers in the world with the argument that they would get taken down and defeated easily. You get a guy like Brock Lesnar and people say that he is the future of the HW division. Cain V. too.

Wrestlers get respect as good fighters but give any fighter that doesn’t finish fights and the public will start to disrespect him. Tim Sylvia is a striker that got disrespect for not providing exciting finishes while he had the title. Sherk didn’t finish and give exciting fights so people hated on him too.

I think that was your question, correct me if I'm wrong

[dabix]

Originally Posted by blackthorne

What the hell are you babbling about?

Honestly I don't even know what you're trying to say but I'll take "damages are very low" to mean that wrestling is too neutral in the context of a points system (or any judging criteria for that matter). Yes?

Well, as my english is not that good, I will have another attempt to
"Why a double standard with regard to wrestlers ?"
- The goal of strikers is to KO.
- The goal of grapplers/BJJ guys is to sub.
In both cases, the result of a success is an out of order opponent.
- The goal of wrestler is to control (is this arguable ?)
In the case of a success, the opponent is not "all over" (ala Goldie)

When it comes to a decision, I guess that any system
is based more or less on the damages done and agressivity (I would say
something like : attempts to win the fight by stoppage). (*)

If we do not consider takedowns in this post (its mine !), there is nothing
in wrestling imho that really should enable to win a fight.

(*) My notion of point system is definitely the most arguable part of
this post. Let's say that this version of the system is the one
that is shared by a huge majority of mma fans, whether you like it
or not, whether it is true or not (For example, "octogon control" doesn't
interest me, but is said to be part of the notation).

Please forgive all mis-spelling, grammatical curiosity. Hope I've
been clear.

And also, all my previous post apart the long one were just kinds of 'ttt'
cause I wanted some answers since I think my point is valid....

[blackthorne]

Originally Posted by dabix

Well, as my english is not that good, I will have another attempt to
"Why a double standard with regard to wrestlers ?"
- The goal of strikers is to KO.
- The goal of grapplers/BJJ guys is to sub.
In both cases, the result of a success is an out of order opponent.
- The goal of wrestler is to control (is this arguable ?)
In the case of a success, the opponent is not "all over" (ala Goldie)

When it comes to a decision, I guess that any system
is based more or less on the damages done and agressivity (I would say
something like : attempts to win the fight by stoppage). (*)

If we do not consider takedowns in this post (its mine !), there is nothing
in wrestling imho that really should enable to win a fight.

(*) My notion of point system is definitely the most arguable part of
this post. Let's say that this version of the system is the one
that is shared by a huge majority of mma fans, whether you like it
or not, whether it is true or not (For example, "octogon control" doesn't
interest me, but is said to be part of the notation).

Please forgive all mis-spelling, grammatical curiosity. Hope I've
been clear.

And also, all my previous post apart the long one were just kinds of 'ttt'
cause I wanted some answers since I think my point is valid....

First off, my apologies for making fun of your English. It's better than my French if nothing else.

Second, you say that the goal of the striker is to KO, while the goal of the submission fighter is to submit the opponent. I disagree. My opinion is that these are consequences, not objectives of these fighting styles.

The goal of the submission fighter, for example, is position. Not submission (these are even motto's). Look at a guy like Arona, and a guy like Machida.

Machida has never knocked a guy out, and Arona has only submitted two guys in his career. But despite the lack of KO's and submissions, they are both elite fighters. And in spite of that, most people are able to respect what they do. Contrast this to a wrestler like Sherk, and he gets shit on.

"Octogon control" is no different from "ring generalmanship"- just two different phrases of the same principle illustrating the importance of a fighter who is able to dictate where the fight takes place, and how it progresses. Yes, takedowns shouldn't count for much, but if you eliminate all aspects of your opponents' game through your own then that is absolutely a worthy accomplishment. A perfect example of this is the Aoki/JZ rematch. People dissed Aoki for stalling the fight, but he forced JZ to fight his fight- no matter how few submissions he attempted, JZ was fighting on Aoki's terms, and that's ultimately where the fight was judged; on the ground.

[thefyn]

I think 10 min first round has to be an option in the UFC. Because then you don't have to stand them up. Just let the fight play out as it would in the street. Without his girlfriend hitting you from behind with her keys.

[dabix]

Originally Posted by blackthorne

First off, my apologies for making fun of your English. It's better than my French if nothing else.

Second, you say that the goal of the striker is to KO, while the goal of the submission fighter is to submit the opponent. I disagree. My opinion is that these are consequences, not objectives of these fighting styles.

The goal of the submission fighter, for example, is position. Not submission (these are even motto's). Look at a guy like Arona, and a guy like Machida.

Machida has never knocked a guy out, and Arona has only submitted two guys in his career. But despite the lack of KO's and submissions, they are both elite fighters. And in spite of that, most people are able to respect what they do. Contrast this to a wrestler like Sherk, and he gets shit on.

"Octogon control" is no different from "ring generalmanship"- just two different phrases of the same principle illustrating the importance of a fighter who is able to dictate where the fight takes place, and how it progresses. Yes, takedowns shouldn't count for much, but if you eliminate all aspects of your opponents' game through your own then that is absolutely a worthy accomplishment. A perfect example of this is the Aoki/JZ rematch. People dissed Aoki for stalling the fight, but he forced JZ to fight his fight- no matter how few submissions he attempted, JZ was fighting on Aoki's terms, and that's ultimately where the fight was judged; on the ground.

Hi, no problem with some jokes on my english : I entered an english speaking forum
and it's Sherdog so i knew it would happen and I'm working to improve !

For your question, it seems that we just do not have the same opinion.
To stick to what I know (BJJ), I consider that position is the strategy and the goal
is to submit. I recognize that BJJ emphasize Position but not as a goal in itself.
It define a path to submissions...

Well, let's say that at least I gave you a different point of view.
I will think about it for a while and come as soon as I can do better...