Quote of the Day: Jorge Ortiz Helped Andrei Arlovski

by Luke Thomas on Oct 5, 2008 2:55 PM EDT in News Comment 21 comments

"I honestly think we shouldn't have them at all. You get a stand up if you can survive the round and make it to the next. If a guy can force you to stand up with him by avoiding the take downs, a guy should be able to force you to fight on the ground by holding you down. It's mixed martial arts, and that's a part of the game. I think these stand ups are incredibly unfair for grapplers. Like I'm quoted earlier in this thread, 5 minutes isn't that long a time.

If a guy can hold you down and give you nuggies for 5 minutes, that's life.

If a fighter is boring they won't be popular, and that lack of popularity will affect the way they're paid.

I think that's what should motivate fighters to be active, not a referee stand up."

-- Joe Rogan, commeting on the atrocious stand up during the bout between Andrei Arlovski and Roy Nelson.

0 recs | Comment 21 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Partially agree

I agree with him in theory but let’s be honest – if a guy is just laying on someone, and not trying to do anything, then I don’t mind a standup. And I think people who would pay $50 for a PVP might agree.

That said, the AA standup was pure and utter bullsh..

by mythbuster on Oct 5, 2008 3:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the AA standup was pure and utter bullsh..

Truth…

by Tonley on Oct 5, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This was not PPV... More at stake on Primetime TV

I think there should be uniform standards in MMA, but let’s be honest. Live primetime network tv changes the game a little. Everyone involved, even the refs, feel a little pressure to provide a show that will make viewers want to tune back in (see previous controversial ref stuff on CBS). While I loved Nelson’s strategy (and Kobald’s, for that matter), you can’t expect casual fans to grasp grappling or long clinches against the cage. The clock is ticking in the fight and in millions of living rooms. The advertising promised action and the fighters are expected to deliver.

by Jaydoggydog on Oct 6, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been converted by this argument - thanks for posting

It’s a bias towards the strikers much like NFL defensive penalties have been worked to favor passing offenses. It’s bullshit, it compromises the integrity of the sport and has the added detriment of hurting fighters whose only crime was majoring in something other than boxing, karate or Muay Thai. Roy Nelson showed oodles of composure by not screaming at that ref after that standup – a lot of people would’ve.

I agree with Joe Rogan here – eliminate the standup. If you don’t like getting mathumped, get out of it. If you don’t like Lyoto’s hit and run strategy, find a guy who’ll beat it. Until then, stop yer bitchin.

by subo on Oct 5, 2008 4:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It’s difficult to disagree from any other outlook than that it would reduce the standup part – premise – and that is more exciting. I think that this is how I feel, at least.

by ununkvadrium on Oct 5, 2008 4:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This is all BS! Fighters should be stood up.

Perfect example is Nick Serra and his butt scoot. Fighters need to fight or stand them up so it can be restarted. Simple.

by poopooplatter on Oct 5, 2008 4:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Um

Makowski was standing up by choice and Serra wouldn’t get up. This situation has nothing to do with changing perceived ground stalemate’s into a stand-up battle.

by Luke Thomas on Oct 5, 2008 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My problem is that if you tilt rules like this so in favor of stand up fighters, you eventually find yourself with a completely different sport. For the viewers sake, I think you’re not going to get rid of stand ups altogether. Not all fighters are well rounded enough to keep it standing if that’s their desire. That’s really not the case with Arlovski/Nelson, however. Some of these guys can’t get a guy who is a good wrestler off them if the wrestler is really conservative. With that said, I think if the fighter on top is working for a submission, working for better position, or doing some damage with strikes it shouldn’t be stood up. In theory, I feel that Rogan’s analysis is correct. In practice, I think occasional stand ups are probably necessary for action’s sake.

by Cannon Jacques on Oct 5, 2008 5:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rogan takes the classic Gracie perspective. But the fact is this isn’t a “mix of martial arts” it’s “mixed martial arts.” The qualities and standards are different.
I say this as someone who would rather there be no stand ups and who is fine with buttscooting.

by Simco on Oct 5, 2008 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

and not only that...

but thanks to the guys who recomended the movie ‘Rec’. I’m not much of a horror movie guy, but that was a pretty good one. And the main actress was fun to watch. Ole!

Sorry for Off-Topic-ness :)

by mythbuster on Oct 5, 2008 5:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ok fine... No standups.

so when a guy just lays on top for the entire fight, why does he get the win? If you want to eliminate stand ups then change the scoring. Also let’s change the rules—if you wanna lay on your back the whole fight then you should risk getting kicked in the head. I’m with rogan, let’s go back to the good ole days.

I told you I can't build your candy house! It will fall apart, the sun will melt the candy, it won't work!

by mma_dude on Oct 5, 2008 5:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re-introduce knees to the head of a downed opponent and

this entire discussion disappears. Wrestlers would no longer need to “lay’n’pray,” because they’d work to side-mount and then crush their opponent. That would be plenty of incentive for guys to learn better takedown defense, or improve their wrestling scrambles.

Would also have the added benefit of getting rid of snarky “sloppy jits” comments, since wrestling actually teaches you to disengage from your opponent in an effort to re-gain superior position, rather than keeping firm control of something at all times like BJJ.

Bottom line: if MMA continues to progress as it has w/r/t submission defense, knees to the head of a downed opponent must be re-introduced, otherwise the ground game is literally a farce. Not too many high-level fights end via submission any more, at least not while both combatants are fully aware of their surroundings. So without a serious threat of submission on the ground, what else is there? As it is, wrestlers have been pretty handicapped and BJJ fighters are fairly well propped up.

Just my $0.02.

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Oct 5, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All right I have to say here, While I agree the stand up favored AA, I don’t think it decided the outcome. Think here about the stand up subject though. While sure no stand ups favor grapplers and satisfy mma purist, it doesn’t the average fan tuning into CBS. The refs, I’m sure, were told to make the action stay constant. As bad of a rating as they got last time, they couldn’t afford people changing the channel because the ground game was boring them. I don’t say I like it, just that it makes business sense. Myself, I see no problem with a stand up. If your not doing damage or setting something up, your just stalling the fight. We don’t have yellow cards, we have stand ups. I just wish all the refs were good enough to recognize when something is or isn’t actually going on on the ground.

by Tommy7 on Oct 5, 2008 5:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What really pissed me off was when that (and I hate to call him this) ref kept telling Nelson to “work for a better position”. The dude is in side control and working for a kimura, if you can’t realize than there is no place for you inside of an MMA ring or cage.

I’m not going to say that Nelson would or should have won but that was probably the single worst stand-up I’ve seen in a fight.

by ChillMike on Oct 5, 2008 6:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much. How does the referee want him to improve position? Does he want him to just attempt to go for full mount and risk being slid right back into half-guard? If so, he should have just yelled that out. When you are in side control, working for a submission and kneeing your opponent, your fight should never be stood up. Ever. It’s pretty bogus if you ask me. And it my personal opinion, it led to Nelson losing the fight. Arlovski was doing absolutely nothing on the ground whatsoever. Nothing. He couldn’t buck at all and couldn’t sweep. He was trapped, basically. Nelson had oodles of time to work for a submission, which he was. And the referee screwed him over by standing the fight back up because the fans (who are absolutely clueless, by the way) started booing. Would Nelson have won if the fight stays on the ground? Maybe, maybe not. But, that’s not the point. The point is that he got royally screwed over by a referee who catered to the audience because he was afraid that Jared Shaw would come into the cage and spank him. And that, my friends, is not right.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Sir Winston Churchill

by FlyByKnight on Oct 5, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Side control! It was side control! You don’t stand that up. Not unless the fighter is sitting there knitting a quilt. I don’t see how anyone can argue that the standup didn’t affect the outcome. And I don’t see how this wasn’t a pre-fight command to the ref from the CBS/EliteXC/Aflliction overseers. The think a mainstream audience will only respond to boxing/kickboxing. And they do a disservice to the sport (no to mention some guy named Nelson).

by mosesloaf on Oct 5, 2008 7:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t believe Roy would have subbed AA if he had the whole 15 minutes on top. It’s hard to buck and move with a man that fat on you, and you lose tons of energy. AA was simply defending until he had an opening that would work and not waste strength. I didn’t like the stand up and the ref should be told, but AA wins that fight 9/10 times anyway.

by Tommy7 on Oct 5, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if he kept landing knees to the side like that

he might very well have. Nelson was putting the hurt on AA.

by Kid Nate on Oct 6, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

because of the ref, it’s all speculation. Nelson was doing good but we will never know if AA was playing possum, or if Nelson really was close to getting something.

Thanks ref!

by mythbuster on Oct 6, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Was it just me

or did all of these refs seem way too involved in the matches? Before the Carano fight (just what I saw on TV) the ref talked to Gina for like 5 minutes straight right in her ear. I have never seen a ref talk personally to one fighter in the ring for that long! He did not (that they showed on tv) him doing the same to Kobald. Each ref gave some sort of promo speech prior to each fight, like “lets give the millions of fans watching a good fight” or something. These refs should be in a union of some sort just like professional sports so they are not individually involved.

by dnevil001 on Oct 6, 2008 9:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Before the Carano fight (just what I saw on TV) the ref talked to Gina for like 5 minutes straight right in her ear.

I noticed that too, but I don’t know if that’s normal or not. I do know that refs generally talk to the fighters backstage before the fight, going over instructions and the like. So I would imagine if he was telling her some secret that it would have been done earlier in private.

by mythbuster on Oct 6, 2008 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs