Are Dan Hardy, Shinya Aoki and Paul Daley Right? Is There "Too Much Wrestling in the UFC" and a Case for Changing the Scoring of MMA Bouts?

MMA is a sport, or it claims to be, in a sport, you compete to WIN. If you can win with a decision, then do it. It’s as simple as that. No one complains about the point fighters on the feet. The guys up just punch and punch and never finish anyone. But oh no a wrestler.

Learn enough wrestling to stop a takedown. Ask Mirko how well that works.

Paul Daly nailed it! I agree 100% with what he said. It’s not about hating on wrestlers or wrestling. It’s got to be about finishing the fight, beating your opponent.

Are Dan Hardy, Shinya Aoki and Paul Daley Right? Is There “Too Much Wrestling in the UFC” and a Case for Changing the Scoring of MMA Bouts?

No.

There isn’t too much wrestling, but far too much credit is given too a fighter with top control.

That is the problem.

If a fighter couldn’t win a fight by laying on top and doing nothing, they would move. Simple as that.

I think takedowns should have less weight in the scoring and I think refs should be more proactive in separating fighters locked in the clinch against the fence.

That said there’s always going to be boring fights and in the absence of offense by either fighter, you really have to defer to the fight who was best able to control the fight.

This fool notion that some people push that you have to “take at least some of the wrestling out” of MMA just isn’t going to happen. The biggest pipeline of talent into the sport right now is American collegiate wrestlers and as long as we keep getting more fighters from that realm, they’ll keep shaping the evolution of the sport.

-just appear to attempt finishing fights.
-judging guidelines need fixing. maybe restructure payscales.

and finally, cage-humping like Nik Lentz did against Andre Winner should result in immediate termination of contract.

link

It’s a perspective I think a lot of people share, too. If Mousasi (discounting the deducted point for illegal upkick) had damaged King Mo more than vice versa, why should he lose simply because it was done from his back? Let me say, though, that I think Lawal deserved the decision even without a deducted point since he did more damage in the last three rounds. But let me deal hypothetically for a moment.

If Mousasi had an exact repeat of his 2nd round in the 3rd round, he should have been victorious in the fight (again, deducted point aside). I don’t think he would have been declared the winner, though. Why? Because perspective often has a wide chasm between itself and reality. The fact is, being on top of the other fighter grants itself to looking like you are winning; you are keeping him where you would have him therefore it’s impossible for your opponent to be winning.

Positional dominance has its merits, but to me the primary objective in a fight is to damage your opponent more than they damage you. Positional dominance is often the means to this end but rarely is the end itself. St. Pierre’s domination of Dan Hardy is criticized because we never witnessed said end, yet Hardy offered absolutely nothing to consider for him winning the fight. If Hardy had, say, unleashed some Kenny Florian-style elbows and some hammerfists like Mousasi, the fight would undoubtedly be viewed closer than the blowout it was. But this hypothetical Hardy would still be facing an uphill battle because of the credence given to top control and takedowns.

Takedowns, to me, are the equivalent of walks in baseball. They are positives and should go on the stat sheet but shouldn’t allow you to win if you can’t do anything with them (cough, cough—my Braves—cough, cough). That is, unless the guy you are taking down does absolutely nothing in the fight.

In a landscape where decisions like the Bas Rutten-Kevin Randleman fight seem almost mythically impossible, I worry how the “casuals”, upon whom MMA’s development and growth crucially rely, will view the second Era of the Wrestler (following Mark Coleman, et. al). I’ve lately heard, “If you don’t want to be taken down, learn takedown defense.” But a great kickboxer could drill TDD for two, maybe three years and would still be at the mercy of a GSP or King Mo. While I don’t accuse the aforementioned of doing so, what’s to stop world-class wrestlers from coming into MMA and laying on top of well-rounded, elite athletes who just don’t have the same wrestling and still taking victories?

Could this discredit the sport? I don’t think so, but it would certainly regress the action-packed reputation that has facilitated MMA’s growth. People might say wrestling can be dynamic and exciting, which I won’t dispute, but I would add that you certainly don’t see the NCAA Wrestling Championships doing gangbusters on PPV. GSP vs. Hardy could never have done for MMA what Griffin vs. Bonnar did, despite the exponentially higher skills on display in the former matchup.

Nary a striking-oriented fighter can be Anderson Silva, who keeps even the most accomplished wrestlers at bay with his lethal kickboxing. He is simply unnatural, and it was God—not training or genetics—that allowed that much fury into the human body. Thus, I think there has to be some sort of rule or a refined understanding that “positional dominance” is far from the most important aspect of a fight. This would eliminate any trend toward fighters who would commonly lay-and-pray; “riding time” doesn’t count in this sport. I also think the “ten-round must system” is detrimental to accurate judging of a fight; with as much as can happen in MMA, the boxing system just doesn’t translate well. If, in a title fight, Fighter A busts up Fighter B for two rounds and then, through sheer force of will, Fighter B keeps Fighter A on the ground for most of the last three rounds, Fighter B will likely win. I’ve been a strong advocate of the PRIDE system in which the fight is scored as a whole.

Thankfully, we have Fedor, Machida, Shogun, and Silva today. But all those guys in Nebraska at the NCAA’s a few weeks ago are well aware of this new sport that allows them to become wealthy and continue using the wrestling skills that, once upon a time, most would discard after college. There could be a time when Ultimate Wrestling is the order of the day. I doubt the sport will ever get there, but the window for this exists. An MMA landscape without victorious strikers will be irrelevant.

Wrestling is the strawberry daiquiri of MMA; it can fuck you up just the same, but there’s just something more exciting about a shot of Cuervo

I’m with the camp that thinks there are a few rules (some mentioned, no soccer kicking left out) that give an edge to wrestlers. So the rules need to be swung back to equalize.

I’m all for the fact a complete fighter should have to learn wrestling as much as anything else and should have to figure out ways to escape or hold off wrestlers… but I don’t think a wrestler should get some huge point swing for scoring a takedown. Personally I think it should be treated as fight control or octagon control and not given anymore credit than that. Or at most, score it the same as a good strike.

They also seem to be getting better and standing up fighters who stall on the ground, but watching out for that always helps.

I also wish they would give heavy scoring toward attempting to finish the fight.