Start them on the ground!!

roadwarrior357 · 03-12-2007, 05:09 PM

I thought it may be fun to reverse the trend of everyone talking about standing fighters up, and flip it around.

What about two fighters who are standing that don't fight? For example Tim Sylvia vs. AA in their 3rd fight. We stand the fighters up off the ground when they are not fighting, so hey why not make them start off in a grappling position when they are not fighting while standing. This is fighting is it not? And stalling is stalling is it not?

Of course you would have to flip a coin to see who gets the top postition, or you could start them in a clinch, but it would make some fights a whole lot more interesting, and also give fighters something to think about while they are not trying to finish the fight.

Thoughts?

Blood Python · 03-12-2007, 05:11 PM

Meh, I can't see that happening

Harrison · 03-12-2007, 05:12 PM

ah...you stole my idea...you bastard!!!!

lol..seriously though

im sick and tired of these kids saying that if i dont like stand ups go watch a grappling match...

i dont understand how fewer rules should favor one style...and if it does.."tough balls"

DEVILSREJECT · 03-12-2007, 05:12 PM

I laughed at first, but this is one hell of an idea. In a striker vs grappler fight, it would force the striker to finish instead of just sprawling every once and a while.

stevobevo · 03-12-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadwarrior357

I thought it may be fun to reverse the trend of everyone talking about standing fighters up, and flip it around.

What about two fighters who are standing that don't fight? For example Tim Sylvia vs. AA in their 3rd fight. We stand the fighters up off the ground when they are not fighting, so hey why not make them start off in a grappling position when they are not fighting while standing. This is fighting is it not? And stalling is stalling is it not?

Of course you would have to flip a coin to see who gets the top postition, or you could start them in a clinch, but it would make some fights a whole lot more interesting, and also give fighters something to think about while they are not trying to finish the fight.

Thoughts?

That's funny, but the problem is that most people feel like standing a fight up is a good way to open things up because fighters have no excuse for being tied up or stuck in a position. If they're not initiating action, the crowd can more easily identify stalling and boooooo!!!!

jmac98 · 03-12-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harrison

ah...you stole my idea...you bastard!!!!

lol..seriously though

im sick and tired of these kids saying that if i dont like stand ups go watch a grappling match...

i dont understand how fewer rules should favor one style...and if it does.."tough balls"

Ya, but even grapplers begin on their feet to start the actual match. Then they work for position from there.

RoyalFlushSpade · 03-12-2007, 05:14 PM

Nope, stupid idea. Most real fights start on the feat anyway. Part of being a good ground person is getting them there.

screaminleeman · 03-12-2007, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadwarrior357

I thought it may be fun to reverse the trend of everyone talking about standing fighters up, and flip it around.

What about two fighters who are standing that don't fight? For example Tim Sylvia vs. AA in their 3rd fight. We stand the fighters up off the ground when they are not fighting, so hey why not make them start off in a grappling position when they are not fighting while standing. This is fighting is it not? And stalling is stalling is it not?

Of course you would have to flip a coin to see who gets the top postition, or you could start them in a clinch, but it would make some fights a whole lot more interesting, and also give fighters something to think about while they are not trying to finish the fight.

Thoughts?

I agree.

NCAA Basketball has an alternating possesion rule for jump ball situations. As I posted earlier, MMA could utilize an alternating closed guard rule for BORING STAND-UP contests.