|
The unified rules encourage lay and pray - here's how.
Whether you like the unified rules or not, I think everyone can agree that preference of rules was a major factor which seperated those who preferred pride to the UFC. Now, much of the complaining about the unified rules now that pride is going to be following them is overblown, but this is one point in particular where I think the unified rules really need to be re-examined for the benefit of all MMA.
The unified rules encourage lay and pray due to the combination of a few factors:
1. The weight that takedowns carry on the judges scorecards.
2. The weight that time spent "controlling" an opponent carries on the judges scorecards (regardless of damage).
3. The fact that there is no penalty for stalling on the ground.
This affects both the fighter on the top, and on the bottom in a wide variety of circumstances. Take, for example, a striker who does not want to go to the ground. Well, if his opponent does take him down, then the unified rules encourage him to do everything he can in order to stall the ground game out and force the referee to restart the fight on their feet.
If the fighter on the bottom can just hold his opponent as tightly as possible and prevent him from doing much damage in order to get back to his feet via the referee, then what is the motivation for him to try to get back to his feet on his own, possibly giving his opponent more and better opportunities to advance position, or apply submissions or meaningful gnp?
The answer is, aside from getting to their feet possibly a little faster, there is no motivation, because stalling is not only not penalized in this case, it's rewarded (by putting the fighter back on his feet, which is what he wants).
Stalling from the top position can also occur for the reason that, if you are on top, then you are considered to be "controlling" your opponent (regardless of whether or not you're actually doing anything other than creating a stalemate - a tactic rarely used by someone who is in "control") and every few seconds you spend "controlling" your opponent, you're accumulating favor with the judges and limiting your opponents' chances to score, or even finish the fight. Now, the more aggressive the top position fighter is on the ground, the more openings there are likely to be for the fighter on the bottom to escape to his feet, sweep his opponent, or apply a submission. So since the top position fighter can get an advantage for doing nothing (or very little) and since there is no risk of penalty for this behavior, there is very little motivation for the fighter on top to fight aggressively. It is, quite simply, an unnecessary risk.
Now, this is far less true if the fighter on top has great difficulty getting his opponent to the ground - in this case, a stand-up is a form of penalty, and therefore the fighter on top has more encouragement to be active (although, they still only have motivation to be "just active enough not to get stood up" - anything beyond that would still be unnecessarily risky, unless, say, they're already down 2 rounds and need to finish the fight).
If one fighter is enough of a better wrestler that he can take his opponent down consistently, then a stand-up is not really a penalty for him. In fact, it's arguably a bonus, because he is likely to score another takedown in short order, and takedowns score a lot of points on the scorecards.
Due to the way the rules and judging are set up, the strategy "take down your opponent, stall until there is a standup, repeat" is an excellent one if you have a considerable advantage in wrestling. The fighter on the bottom will need to have considerably superior ground skills in order to pose a serious threat to an opponent who, rather than trying to secure a real advantage, is only playing for the stalemate.
Without getting into a fruitless argument about pride sucks or the ufc sucks, or knees vs stomps vs elbows and the like, can we at least agree that this represents a problem for the sport, and one that all organizations and the athletic commission ought to work constructively towards solving?
|
