Wrestling Dominance: In the Cage, In the Rules
by Dallas Winston on Sep 1, 2010 5:25 PM EDT
Email
Print
Wrestling Dominance: In the Cage, In the Rules
Wednesday, 01 September 2010 16:14 | Written by Dallas Winston
UFC 118 triggered another wave of fan outcry about the dominance of wrestling. Even the most elite of MMA purists would probably admit that watching Joe Lauzon devour Gabe Reudiger was more entertaining to behold than Gray Maynard muffling Kenny Florian. The sporting aspect of MMA rarely coalesces with business and entertainment, yet the triumvirate shares a symbiotic relationship and blossoms a variety of flavors for the consumer. Customers love options.
Pride FC was both adored and pilloried for “freakshow fights”; a hook the UFC has twice cast this year with Kimbo Slice and James Toney. Genki Sudo was celebrated for his creative individuality outside of the ring just as much as within it. Commanding 24-3 lightweight Antonio McKee, flawless since 2003 despite a soporific 25% finishing percentage, has prophesied retirement if he's unable to finish upcoming foe Luciano Azevedo.
Fiery aggressors who take risks and let the guns blaze enchant onlookers in almost any competition, while conservative strategists who instead opt to nullify their enemy’s weapons do not. However, both approaches can lead to victory—the paramount avidity of athletics.
In MMA, some things will never change. The fossilized term "hybrid fighting" is the timeless backbone of mixed martial arts philosophy, and was based on proficiency in all areas to induce advantages and exploit weaknesses. Anytime a fighter can impose superior control and vitiate the potency of their opponent, that fighter deserves to win. The same stifling properties of guarded engagement can take place standing as well: Anderson Silva forced Thales Leites and Demian Maia to fight standing by dictating the pace and location of combat with calculated footwork and a hesitant trigger-finger, while Brandon Vera fell prey to a double-dose of clinch control against Randy Couture and Tim Sylvia.
FULL ARTICLE HERE
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree completely with your conclusions.
However, the article itself is blurred by an ambiguous title and a number of meandering opening paragraphs (that lede is buried). Those two distractors, plus a big picture, comprise the entirety of what you’ve actually posted here, and there’s really nothing to comment on regarding those things, beyond my own petty criticisms of them.
I followed the link because I’m aware that The Garv often is an interesting source, but really, if I wanted to comment on the meat of your article I would be better served doing it at the original blog post.
I don’t have a blog, and I don’t know what is proper etiquette or what is better for traffic, but it seems to me that it might be better to just post the conclusion and link back to the whole article for the rationale.
Thanks
I realize my approach does not appeal to all audiences. The “meanderings” were an attempt to establish a baseline for the complaints about wrestling in the cage and how it’s always been a part of MMA, always will be, and is ultimately up to the fighters to solve. Or, basically, that I’m not “against wrestling” or “complaining about wrestling” as some still falsely assume.
After addressing the entertainment aspect, from a pure sporting perspective, wrestling also dominates the scoring criteria. I see no reason why a takedown should count for effective offense unless it does damage, as it is literally the exact definition of control. Everyone has been complaining about wrestling and blaming judges, when the unified rules are what puts wrestling on a lofty pedestal.
I don’t really understand why the title is “ambiguous” when it examines the power of wrestling in the cage and then in the rules; but I don’t like to argue with or convince people on how they should perceive my articles.
Finally, the reason I started posting my work here is simply for intelligent debate and discussion. The Garv has only been pushing forward for about a year, and we just brought back the comments section, so we’re simply trying to get to the stage where we can discuss things on the site.
by Dallas Winston on Sep 2, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
People need to stop complaining about wrestling
Everyone is absolutely fine with the jab counting for scoring, even though it does little damage, will never finish a fight (unless the guy is already borderline KO’d, like Griffin), and is used to set up further damage for a fraction of a second, so why not takedowns which set you up for possibly minutes at a time?
Everyone bitching about the way fights are scored needs to take a step back and figure out why the fighters getting layed on by boring opponents deserve to win rounds before they get on their high horse and rant about the scoring sytem. Very rarely do the fighters on the bottom do anything significant, and when they do, they will often get a submission attempt or sweep that scores points too.
In all the fights I’ve watched, the only time I’ve seen the fighter on the back do anything useful without submissions or reversals is round 2 of Mousasi-Lawal. What Mousasi did would never finish a fight, but the sheer volume of strikes should have won him that round.
The real problem is when a LnP round cancels out a good striking round, and the culprit there is the 10-9 must system, not the existence of takedowns as a scoring criterion. This not only compels judges to avoid 10-10 rounds, but also tells them that everything from doing marginally more than your opponent to being just short of dominating is given the same 10-9. For example, I’ll agree that Couture could be seen as winning rounds 1 and 3 vs. Vera, because Vera barely did anything, but to have those score the same for Couture as Vera’s second round is ludicrous. We need 10-8 or 10-7 to be the standard, with 10-9 and 10-10 going to close rounds or those with no action, and 10-7 or 10-6 going to dominating rounds. Alternatively, just scrap the 10 point must system altogether.
The difference with your "jab" example...
is that it’s offense in it’s most purest state, along with submissions. Striking and submissions win fights. If that jab “does little damage”, why would a takedown that does NO damage count the same? For offense AND control?
I understand your point about how a takedown is “used to set up further damage”, but that’s the entire point: effective offense isn’t “setting up” opportunities for offense, it’s OFFENSE. Setting up opportunities is the exact definition of control, which is secondary to offense: “creating striking opportunities and dictating the pace and location of the fight”.
The hierarchy of priorities is more than adequate (I’m a proponent of the 10 Point if it’s ever used properly, which it hasn’t), but I feel we simply have one action that’s inherently control-based in the wrong category (offense), which doesn’t fit the definitions provided.
Also, you can say everything “sets up further damage”: footwork, defense, aggression, etc. Again, the point is that the rules are structured to clearly separate “things that lead to” offense and the offense itself.
Past your first paragraph, you sound quite upset. It’s funny; one person bitches that it’s too meandering, when the meandering was specifically to cater toward those who would mindlessly assume I’m just “bitching about the rules”, and the next comment is… well, you get it. I would guess if you had read the article, you would see that I clearly echoed your sentiments about sweeping and submitting being the best defense to wrestling, and the fighter on top deserving to win if their opponent can’t mount any offense.
In fact, that’s the entire point of the article: offense over-rides everything, and if a takedown is more significant and/or neutralizes the bottom-fighter’s offense, the top fighter deserves the nod.
I also write an entire article about your opinions on using more than just 10-9 for 90% of rounds, which I agree with.
by Dallas Winston on Sep 2, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, so...
…the offense generated by each fighter would overshadow control.
That way, if the wrestler neutralizes offense with control, he’d win the round; but IMO the takedown should be viewed as control ONLY for forcing a change of position instead of notching points for control AND offense.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
