Dan Hardy: "There's Too Much Wrestling" in the UFC
by Nick Thomas on Sep 7, 2010 2:27 PM EDT
in UFC News
Email
Print
"Nik Lentz didn't come to fight Andre (Winner), he actually came to avoid one at all costs, like he'd be shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize and didn't want to mess up his chances of winning it."
"Lentz grabbed hold of Dre's leg for three coma-inducing rounds, which the ticket-paying public clearly didn't appreciate."
"Rather than saying 'oh, these guys can't wrestle', I think the problem is there's beginning to be too much wrestling in UFC Octagon, not too little of it in the gym. There are a lot of people out there calling themselves 'UFC fighters' who are nothing of the kind. In the UFC, you should go for finishes."
"You should work for 15 minutes to knock your opponent out, submit him, or improve your position to give yourself the best chance of doing either."
"But there's guys out there who just want to use wrestling to hold a stalemate for 15 minutes, without ever risking going for ground and pounds or attempting submissions."
"The Athletic Commissions need to look at the scoring and refereeing to stop this from becoming a problem. If a guy is in a dominant position, but not actually doing anything offensive – stand 'em back up."
"If he is consistently trying to tie the other guy up to avoid actual fighting – warn him and then start taking points. It is supposed to be a fight."
-- Check out Dan Hardy's full column at thisisnottingham.co.uk.
300 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So says the guy who’s complete inability to stop a takedown embarrassed himself for 25 minutes in his one shot at the gold.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
by Worldisart on Sep 7, 2010 8:57 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
To be fair
A GSP takedown isn’t exactly easy business to stop, and GSP was doing all kinds of stuff in their fight.
Rather, the issue I believe Hardy is perhaps hoping to make visible is the difficulty of deciding conclusively the winner of a fight when the entire fight was essentially… well, nothing but defending position vs. attacking for better position.
In my opinion the judges should just be like “Fuck it, 10-10 round” whenever there are no particularly damaging strikes thrown. Winner/Lentz? Draw to me. Nothing conclusive, nothing that says “Oh, this guy would win if this kept going”.
Wrestling is a goddamn effective way to control a fight, and it’s not going away. The problem is that wrestling – unlike striking and jiu-jitsu – doesn’t fit well with the 15-minute / 25-minute format… wrestling slowly grinds down an opponent. To really see how it fares we need to have like… an unlimited length fight or something. Ugly, slow, effective.
by Pyrgz Krum on Sep 7, 2010 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 18 recs
Completely disagree
Despite the fact that it is sometimes devoid of any entertainment value, there is still one fighter enforcing his will on the other. If he’s completely neutralizing his opponent, to me that’s a victory.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
by Worldisart on Sep 7, 2010 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Completely? Dang brosef
To me judging a fight should boil down to “If this fight continued past our allocated time-frame, who would win?”.
Let’s take Lentz v. Winner. I did not feel that that core question of who would win was conclusively answered. It was a fight where very little evidence to support the case for a definitive winner was presented.
Of course this is all subjective, but you catch my drift I hope.
I catch your drift
I just don’t agree. Whether in a cage or in real life, Lentz neutralizes Winner. I mean look it’s a reality of fighting in that 9 times out of ten, control will dictate the winner. I’ve been in fights in real life and my instinct wasn’t to stand there and trade punches like some drunken fool, rather it was to ensure that the guy I was fighting wouldn’t be able to do any damage to me.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Looks like we're at a point of contention regarding core values
I guess when I say “win a fight” I usually mean finish an opponent in some sense, either via submission, (T)KO or exhaustion (lots of 90s vale tudo fights were stopped due to this!). Aggression and offence-centric, if you’d allow the ad hoc terminology.
It seems to me that you judge a fight on neutralizing an opponent, either via finishing or reducing the opponent’s ability to do damage. A sort of defensive-centric view, in a sense. Would you say this is correct?
Yes, I do have a defensive-centric view of fighting. I think like all sports, in MMA defense will evolve at a much greater rate than defense because it is easier to stifle your opponents offense than wholly execute your own.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
i disagree with your line of thought.
The best way to ensure no damage is taken is to end the fight quickly. In a real fight there is no ref, no one to save you after you have stalled. Real fights you always go for the “kill”. Or are banking on a bouncer or cop saving you?
by the-gentle-way on Sep 7, 2010 12:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, who would hypothetically win if the fight was longer instead of judging what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
by bigweeze on Sep 7, 2010 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kalib Starnes
…desired Nate Quarry to chase him around. That was his will. Quarry should have trained to be faster. If the fight had kept going, Quarry would have been exhausted.
Fights should be about damage and attempts to finish within the allotted time. Otherwise, it’s basketball without a shot-clock. If you don’t score (or even “shoot”), you should lose the ball. Rules get changed as sports evolve.
Use more judges.
by MasonA on Sep 7, 2010 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 33 recs
Pretty much the best thing I’ve ever heard anyone say about anything
by the guy with the big nose on Sep 7, 2010 9:25 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
are you ariel helwani?
"Vo-cab-u-lary's necessary when diggin' into my library..."
by TDITZ on Sep 7, 2010 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What?!?!?!
He was totally controlling that fight.
Use more judges.
by MasonA on Sep 7, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 7 recs
He was also violating the prohibition of passivity.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
Kalib Starnes is a bad example
And don’t pretend like it’s not. Starnes refused to engage in anyway shape or form.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the second part. Because first of all, the rules themselves as they stand now state drastically different things. It wouldn’t just be a few small rule changes but rather a complete change in the philosophy of North American MMA to accommodate the idea of damage and finishes being the only criteria upon which to judge a fight.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
by Worldisart on Sep 7, 2010 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Just being funny.
The rules state effective striking should be judged first if the majority of the round takes place on the feet, then effective grappling if most of the round is on the ground, with control being a sort of tie-breaker. I’m not sure it’s clear on a case like Lentz where he leaned against Winner for most of the first 2 rounds and rarely got the fight to the ground. I think Winner hit him more and the fight was mostly on the feet for those rounds.
I think “effective” grappling is a term we’d disagree on. In a post down the page, you say that nowhere in the rules does it state that working for a finish is a requirement. I agree that it’s not specified, but I believe that it is more effective to threaten your opponent with a loss than to not. And a loss by referee stoppage is more threatening than a loss by decision.
Ah, whatever, we’ll keep disagreeing but I might as well throw in my other metaphors! Time of possession doesn’t decide football games, being ahead in a basketball game with no shot clock and just running around refusing to shoot sucks, and holding someone while waiting for the principal to come break up the fight is lame.
Use more judges.
by MasonA on Sep 7, 2010 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Effective grappling
Here’s the problem with defining effective grappling as an attempt to finish; in most attempts at finishing on the ground or in the clinch you risk giving up your position and as such give up another element of the judging criteria, control.
I think there is a good healthy debate to be had about the rules of the sport as they stand now, there are definitely changes that need to be made in both the rules and the judging criteria. Thing about it is though is it’s a fine balance.
On the one hand I don’t want to see fight after fight decided strictly by control and defensive grappling. Conversely you can easily adjust the rules so that you go too far to the other extreme and everything turns into bad kick boxing.
I think ultimately, while some things do have to change, fighters and fans alike are going to have to accept that regardless of the rules there will always be boring fighters and fights and while yes it can be frustrating at times, it’s also something that ups the appreciation of great fights when they occur.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
completely agree
with the second half of your post. I dislike boring stand-up fights almost more than lay and pray. I think what’s good about putting a premium on finishing is that it forces people to risk position in order for greater rewards.
If you shoot a basketball, it might get rebounded by the other team. But shooting is a thousand more times interesting that if basketball were about maintaining possession for the whole game. To take it a step further, making the shot clock 5 seconds wouldn’t make basketball any more interesting.
In my view, MMA depends on the fighters to take shots at their pleasure, which works most of the time. Sometimes, fighters do get rewarded with a win without shooting much and that is boring as hell to watch. I’d like to see the balance tipped in favor of more offense.
Use more judges.
Should have read further in the comments
Before bringing up NC State vs. Houston in the finals with Akeem…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
rec'd
reminds me of Cecil Peoples – didn’t he actually say something like this regarding Machida/Shogun I? About how although Machida was retreating and getting kicked in the legs, he was somehow determining where the fight took place?
“If you don’t shoot, you should lose the ball” is a great, great way of putting it.
Refusing to engage is against the rules. Period.
Don't like wrestling in MMA? Go watch K-1.
Can't deal with the occasional boring fight? Let me introduce you to ROH.
by Monday Morning Martial Artist on Sep 7, 2010 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Awesome
You are the only other commentator Ive ever seen who has referenced the “basketball without the 24 sec clock” stalemate that MMA could become! ive written that so many times!
For those who can...
Think back to the outcry after the bullshit stall-ball “victory” NC State took over Houston and Akeem in the NCAA championship way back in the day…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
“….desired Nate Quarry to chase him around. That was his will.”
Incorrect. It was Starnes’ will not to get punched in the face any more, and he failed. That’s sort of a silly comparison. Yes, controlling someone on the ground isn’t incredibly damaging in the sense that you’re not going to be incredibly bruised, but can you really look at Jon Fitch’s last two fights and tell me that Saunders or Alves really did anything to convince you that they did anything but lose?
I’m sorry, but when you’re being thrown around the canvas by a wrestler, the only award you should be getting is “best ragdoll impersonation.”
Neutralizing your opponents offense without applying any offense of your own isn’t a victory it’s a stalemate.
by who me on Sep 7, 2010 9:23 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 9 recs
The fact is you are supposed to be working toward finishing the fight. If fighter A comes ready to employ all his techniques and fighter B takes him down and is intent on stalling rather than threatening any real submission or strikes, the fight should be restarted since we have time limits.
I love the ground game, and am a student of it. GSP, he’s fine by me… Dong Hyun Kim, one of my favorite fighters…. These guys are active. They aren’t content just trying to hold their opponents down.
by JaeeJaee on Sep 7, 2010 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No where in the rules for North American MMA does it say that working for a finish is a requirement for winning a fight. While this may be something fans would like to see, it ignores two things.
1) At the highest levels of MMA, regardless of intent, finishes are going to become more and more scarce as the talent gap between fighters shrinks.
2) As offense is a lot more difficult to learn and evolve, defense will become the first imperative of most fighters, and control is a great way to defend yourself.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Where did I say I wanted finishes? no one is asking for that. We are asking that damage be ATTEMPTED. Being on your back is part of the ground game as well. If the Lay and prayer is not passing/actively landing strikes or attempting submissions, we should be seeing more 10-10 rounds as per the unified rules as the man on the bottom is displaying a good defensive guard since no offense is being mounted.
I never said that's what you wanted
All I said, was that no where in the rules is there anything that says attempting to finish is a requirement to win the fight, so why should fighters who lack a clear cut ability to finish endanger themselves by opening up for a finish that they likely won’t get?
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
But nowhere in the rules does it say being on top
means you are winning the fight.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." -Will Munny, a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.
by PapaBumpants on Sep 7, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes it does
Control is one of the things outlined in the judging criteria, being on top of your opponent and holding him down is controlling him.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
This isn’t ‘cheating within the rules’ – it is actually against the rules. ‘Timidity’ is outlawed in the Unified MMA rules and what better describes the act of holding on to an opponent and waiting for the clock to tick down with no attempt or inclination to do any damage?
You were saying?
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
by JaeeJaee on Sep 7, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Refs discretion
If the referee thinks a fighter is stalling on top it’s his discretion to stand them up. If the referee decides that it’s kosher than it has to be viewed as control by the judges.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Then effective defense comes into play and they negate eachother.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
Not really
Effective defense would be tying your opponent up and being the reason he is unable to do anything from the top.
There’s a difference between your opponent stalling and you neutralizing your opponent.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Effective defense is great. But if all you are doing is defending, you have no room to bitch about the other guy being timid.
Did Winner try to get his butt off the fence even once? Did he ever rip out Lentz’s hooks or pummel under and circle back into striking range? Or did he just sit there and passively counter Lentz’s every move?
It's funny
The few times Winner did try to reverse position he was shockingly effective.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Winner couldn't be taken down for 2 rounds of that fight.
"I trained with Steven Seagal."
by B.H. Farnsworth on Sep 7, 2010 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Hardy shows an awful understanding of the timidity rule.
Timidity is defined as a fighter being unwilling to engage. It has nothing to do with activity or the clock. Lentz was anything but timid. He was constantly looking engage Winner in the clinch.
You can argue his conclusion, but I think is understanding is fine, and I agree with it in this case. If you’re closing distance and tying up in order to avoid being in a fight, I can see that qualifying as timidity.
Tatum: I think he's a good man. I like him. I got nothing against him, but I'm definitely gonna make orphans of his children.
But where does that leave people who
want to pull guard and work off their backs? Demian Maia would likely disagree about who is controlling most of his fights.
Being on top does not equal control.
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." -Will Munny, a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.
by PapaBumpants on Sep 7, 2010 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Working from the back
That’s the risk you take. Even in sport jiu jitsu it’s a myth that being on the back is an advantageous position.
Accepted conventions of grappling say that being on top is being in control.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
It's a nuetral position.
You don’t lose points for being there.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
It is not a neutral position
That is flat out wrong. In individual disciplines it can be viewed differently, but even when you’re sitting inside the guard of your opponent, you’re still in the dominant position.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
really
in sport Jiu Jitsu? I think you are flat out wrong.
and Yes, it is a nuetral position. You lose the leverage to strike but gain the use of all four limbs.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
Worldisart is correct.
The guard is not neutral is sport jiu jitsu. If a guy takes you down and holds you there, he wins on points.
no he is wrong and so are you
Guard is neutral. In both Gi and no-gi
I have worked and competed at several grapplers quest tournaments. I know their rules quite well.
As far as adcc, almost identical rules. One key difference is there are no points awarded until the last 2 minutes of the fights.
by the-gentle-way on Sep 7, 2010 2:16 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You don't lose leverage to strike
There are hundreds of examples of fighters posturing up in the guard and finishing a fight with strikes.
Jon Jones broke Brandon Vera’s face with an elbow from the guard.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Thus furthering my position that being on top, even in the guard is a dominant and controlling position.
And please let’s refrain from getting snarky, I’m being polite, we can all get along.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
Fair enough.
The top is dominant for striking…. How many submission options exist form within your opponents guard? Now if you are pulling guard, how many submission options are available to you? You can do more physical damage from the top, but you are more likely to catch a submission from the bottom.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
Submission options, and even attempts have nothing to do with how a fight is scored.
In the eyes of the judges based on the rules and judging criteria handed down, submissions attempts are a black and white option. You are either successful and thus win the fight on the basis that you have submitted your opponent or you are unsuccessful and you get zero credit because you failed in your attempt to implement a technique.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
wrong. that falls under effective grappling “bottom position fighters using an active threatening guard”.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
But it's not effective
How is a failed submission attempt effective? That is the definition of ineffective.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
it's a threatening guard
if only the submission counted, this phrase wouldn’t be in the judging criteria.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
this has been discussed at length previously. A sub attemp that did not result in submission can still injur an opponent. Despite the incompetency of many judges most of them still understand this concept.
Your beliefs become your reality.
by Hardy's in your face on Sep 7, 2010 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Being in someones guard is not a dominant position, you may have an advantage but don’t use the world dominate.
Thank you.
it’s preffered, but not dominant… unless your opponent is Kimbo or James Toney….
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
It might be considered neutral in grappling
But in MMA, unless you pulled guard, you probably did not intend to be there at that moment…
Dominant no, but not neutral IMO
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
If being on your back were considered a neutral position in grappling, then Jeff Monson and Ricardo Arona would not have a trophy shelf full of ADCC titles.
Being on the bottom is NOT a neutral position, not even in straight grappling.
And it’s not a neutral position in MMA.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
it is the less favorable position...
But depending on the person it is neutral.
I am not debating the top is where you would rather be. What I am saying is, if the person on top has done nothing with it, you have to look at the man on the botton, if he has done anything to keep from being damaged, you have to give him credit for effective defense. Meaning, 10 – 10 rounds should come about in these affairs.
I’m not reffering to your fitches but rather your guida’s. and not all his fights, but rather some of his rounds.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
why?
If the guy on the top didn’t do any damage, and the guy on the bottom didn’t do anything, why should we forget how the fight got to the ground?
If no one did anything in the round besides a takedown, why does the takedown get erased from history?
^^^ What he said
Even if nothing happens for either fighter in that position, it is still the efforts of the top fighter that put the fight in that position thus satisfying the criteria for winning a round on the basis of control.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
that's not always the case...
in some instances the guy on bottom was doing damage and did more damage before the fight hit the ground and they were nuetralized. it’s these instances I am reffering to.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
A wrestler and BJJ guy are one the ground. The Wrestler on top, BJJ on bottom. Both are where they want to be. Who is controlling the fight?
Myth
Even in sport BJJ, being on your back is NOT an advantageous position, and while a grappler can be comfortable from that position it does not mean he’s where he wants to be.
"If the commission would sanction it and Dana would move, I’d fighter Anderson right now."
- Chael Sonnen at the post fight press conference following his loss to Anderson Silva.
Support independent artists
http://worldisart365.blogspot.com/
I know little about BJJ so I’ll go with you, but if it’s not an advantageous position then why to BJJ practitioners pull guard?
it's a neutral position on the positional ladder.
I have won a few tournaments from my back… Though I don’t like jumping guard, I like to get the takedown. I am pretty comfortable within my guard, as most bjj practitioners, however.
"I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling." - lowellthehammer
exactly how long have you been training bjj?
Or are you just making things up?
by the-gentle-way on Sep 7, 2010 1:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
You don’t have to ask if he’s speaking from experience or not. Its pretty obvious.
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Also see Well Read Idiots post.
I knew it was in the rules somewhere, but couldn’t find it. There goes your argument.
If the current rules set is leading to stalemate, the rules will get changed. Jon Fitch wins fights, but if everyone fights like him then MMA will the fad sport of the 00s.
The changes don’t even have to be anti-wrestler necessarily. But it will happen.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
The key word here is "neutralizing"
One should view mixed martial arts as a series of 3’s due to the multiple rock,paper, scissors type layers to the sport.
Positive – Effective dominant offense/ outstriking or outgrappling your opponent.
Negative – Ineffective offense and defense/ attacking but doing no damage, being outstruck or being put in a prolonged defensive posture.
Neutral – Containing the action to the point where neither opponent is actively doing any kind of damage or advancing position, the fight has essentially become static.
Lentz controlled Winner but thats as far as it goes, there were no submission threats or damage being done. That’s a 10-10 in my book.
People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.
- Helen Keller
Even the poster boy for the boring wrestler Jon Fitch
Still succeeds in putting opponents on their backs and makes them defend.
Granted he hasn’t finished an opponent in a while, he is still the aggressor in most of his fights, he is not content to just nullify his opponent.
People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.
- Helen Keller
Nik Lentz imposed his will on Andre Winner, yes he did. it just so happens that Nike Lentz’s will in that “fight” was some bitchas boring shit that doesn’t show anyone anything
a life: it's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come -Lester Freamon
by eastcoastatlas on Sep 7, 2010 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions
But didn't Lentz try to take Winner down
Only resorting to tying him when he couldn’t? If anything, that should tilt toward Winner. Or be a draw.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Defending position should count for something, but so should the take down.
I think the change we need is to give credit to defended takedowns.
If GSP tried to take Hardy down, and succeeds, then GSP has just dictated where the fight takes place. But if Hardy stuffed the takedown, it was Hardy who dictated where the fight takes place, and he should get credit.
The problem (if there is one) is that defensive manoeuvres don’t get equal credit.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
That is very true
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I can see what you're getting at.
… But if you were to 10-10 a round, as you suggested, a Champion (like GSP) would still win because he is the “champion”. So, there really isn’t a difference in my opinion.
Boils down to Hardy needing to be a “mixed” martial arts practitioner and not a one or two dimensional fighter.
Semper Fi
PREDICTION for 2010-2011 NFL Season: "The England Patriots will finish 8-8 plus or minus 1" ~8/13/10 1230p
by ChicagoMarine on Sep 7, 2010 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t say he embarrassed himself. I think everyone was well aware GSP would take him down at will and I actually think he did a far, far better job than anyone expected when he was on the ground. GSP himself said after the fight he didn’t expect Hardy to be that good or that tough. Hardy himself said he had one way to win, to catch GSP with one punch and he couldn’t.
He’s not knocking wrestling, he’s knocking wrestlers who have a gameplan of “take it to the ground and call it a day” a tactic that I believe frustrates plenty of MMA fans, casual or hardcore.
Goldberg: "He's got him in some kind of strange choke I've never seen before!"
Rogan: "That's a rear naked choke."
by NE188 on Sep 7, 2010 9:19 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree 100% with your post, just one question:
when did the quote in your sig happen?
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Honestly, I can’t remember what event it was. I found it in and amongst a number of “goldie’s greatest”, so to speak, youtube video’s. There’s plenty of them. Video’s and ridiculous quotes.
Goldberg: "He's got him in some kind of strange choke I've never seen before!"
Rogan: "That's a rear naked choke."
who’s complete inability to stop a takedown embarrassed himself for 25 minutes
Hardy embarrassed himself? How so? He didn’t leave the fight with a scratch, bump or bruise. He lost via decision, simple as that. He didn’t get his butt kicked like Penn or Fitch. Alves got dropped and pounded on a couple of times but Hardy left the Octagon unscathed and his submission defense impressed the hell out of the champion.
You may interpret his performance as an embarrassment but GSP gave his challenger nothing but praise. I’ll go with GSP’s opinion on Hardy instead of your interpretation.
- - - - -
VEe is ANIMated!
by VeeisAnimated on Sep 7, 2010 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
its still quite embarrasing to put taken down at will for 25mins
he came out quite well ,but still had a clinic put on him
Give Hardy a break
He explicitly excluded guys who don’t go for submissions and don’t improve position, so he’s not talking about GSP or his own fight. He’s not bitching about all wrestlers.
I KNEW when I came on this article, ^ THIS ^ would be the first comment
… And GREEN-LIGHTED!
Semper Fi
PREDICTION for 2010-2011 NFL Season: "The England Patriots will finish 8-8 plus or minus 1" ~8/13/10 1230p
by ChicagoMarine on Sep 7, 2010 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
How 'bout we lay off the ad hominem attacks...
and judge his words soley on the merit of his argument
this is becoming the new norm
those that can’t wrestle, complain about those who can
by StillUnknown on Sep 7, 2010 9:01 AM EDT reply actions 6 recs
What division are you guys in?
Im a mid-silver player. Name is Jiiri on BNet if you wanna teach me some crap.
i'm mid-platinum'ish. i really do suck tho.
the best resources for learning are commented replays; here are a couple of links which, if you haven’t known of them yet, will hold enough information to keep you busy and learning for the next couple of months:
commented replays (VODs)
http://www.youtube.com/user/HuskyStarcraft
http://www.youtube.com/hdstarcraft
http://day9tv.blip.tv/
and the holy grail (commented live streams, strategy forums, guides, VODs, streamed tournaments..):
http://www.teamliquid.net/sc2/
Go big red!
actually, dan hardy just needs to improve his wrestling
but i do think the scoring system should (somehow) reward people who work for the finish and punish people who don’t. the question is how.
“The Athletic Commissions need to look at the scoring and refereeing to stop this from becoming a problem. If a guy is in a dominant position, but not actually doing anything offensive – stand ’em back up.”
“If he is consistently trying to tie the other guy up to avoid actual fighting – warn him and then start taking points. It is supposed to be a fight.”
Personally, I think it is kind of hard to disagree with this, in principle.
Also note that it is not clear that he is criticizing GSP – as GSP improved position and went for submissions.
He was going after Lentz (doesn’t he train with Winner?), and on that point he was correct. Lentz did nothing to actually deserve to win for most of the fight he just tied Winner up against the cage and stalemated him. Wrestling is going to be important in this sport but for fights like the Lentz one it’s hard to disagree with Hardy.
by who me on Sep 7, 2010 9:16 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Lentz did nothing to actually deserve to win for most of the fight he just tied Winner up against the cage and stalemated him.
… and Winner did nothing to put the fight in his preferred range. He was perfectly content to sit his butt against the cage and counter-wrestle.
When was the last time you saw a guy like (prime) Chuck, Jens or Rich Franklin get pinned up against the cage for 15 minutes? NEVER. Because those guys worked their asses off to get the fight back where they wanted it. They weren’t content to sit there are create stalemates with their takedown defense. They’d use footwork to avoid the clinch, or they would pummel out of the clinch, circle off the cage and reset in their preferred range.
Winner did none of that. He just spent 15 minutes reacting to whatever Lentz was doing. At least Lentz was being aggressive. Winner was content to passively sit on the fence and neutralize Lentz.
by Steve4192 on Sep 7, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
who did those guys fight
that was looking to do nothing but hold them against the cage? Honestly, I don’t know.
Use more judges.
Are you kidding?
Chuck’s entire career was built on smashing grapplers who wanted nothing to do with his striking.
They tried and tried to control him and Chuck would have none of it. He’d use footwork to keep them off him. He’d punish them on the way in. He’d pummell under and circle off the fence. He punish them on the way out. And on the rare occasion he was taken down, he’d scramble like crazy rather than flop to his butt.
by Steve4192 on Sep 7, 2010 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
as far as i can remember
chuck only fought three wrestlers his entire career
randy tito and randleman
The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance.
by Johnathan Willis on Sep 7, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
oh yeah
babalu also has a wrestling background but he doesn’t fight like a wrestler
The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance.
by Johnathan Willis on Sep 7, 2010 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
He doesn’t?
How does he get all of his opponents to ground so he can work his sweet submission game?
hardy isn’t talking about people taking people down to work a submission game
he’s talking about lay n pray
he’s talking about stalling
he’s talking about timidity (which is against the rules)
if you had read the full article you’d realize that
The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance.
by Johnathan Willis on Sep 7, 2010 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Whoa … wait a minute.
I though we were on a Chuck tangent here.
I know what Hardy was saying. I was responding to your claim that Babalu does not fight like a wrestler when in fact, he does. He uses wrestling to put the fight where he wants it, just like every other wrestler.
Matt Hughes uses subs too. Does that mean he does not fight like a wrestler? Of course not.
haha
ok back to chuck and babalu then………my bad
if someone takes someone down to work a sweet submission game they’re not fighting like a wrestler they’re fighting like a bjj guy
The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance.
by Johnathan Willis on Sep 7, 2010 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
no no
were talking about people lay n prayin
not going for a finish
working a submission game is very much goin for a finish
bjj and wrestling are very different despite the fact that they both take place on the ground
The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance.
by Johnathan Willis on Sep 7, 2010 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
yes he is
Jermy horns teachers were bjj guys and he was matts teacher. So yes. A submission wrestler for sure.
by the-gentle-way on Sep 7, 2010 1:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Its not all one or the other
Look at Barnett – he’s a BJJ champ and BJJ BB as a catch wrestler who has never trained BJJ in his life…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions
thats silly
He trains with paulson who is a machado black belt and who gave him his bjj black belt. If you train from the guard or mount you are training bjj. Gracie/bjj is part of every mma fighters training weather they admit it or not.
by the-gentle-way on Sep 7, 2010 6:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Perhaps, but its true
From grapplersquest.com:
With minimal kimono training, Josh Barnett was promoted to a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu black belt by his longtime coach Erik Paulson. Paulson, a Rigan Machado black belt, awarded Barnett the belt based on competition merit and overall knowledge. Barnett trains and teaches at Paulson’s CSW Training Center in Fullerton, California.
This past November Barnett, technically a white belt in BJJ, entered in the ultra-heavyweight division of the black belt category and won the gold medal at the No-Gi World Championships.
Source: http://www.grapplersquest.com/blogs/briancimins/catch-wrestler-josh-barnett-earns-bjj-black-belt
Or as Barnett himself said:
Arnidude What? I thought you were always a BJJ Black Belt?
@JoshLBarnett nope. Never trained in it actually. Did do judo and after no-gi and gi matches against world champs I got my belt!
roninjiujitsu So is that the belt you wore at the Cali Gi comp, or did someone FINALLY give you one?
@JoshLBarnett my coach Erik Paulson who is a bb under Rigan belted me based on competition merit and overall knowledge.
But I am also a full instructor in CSW, a Hybrid Wrestling instructor from Pancrase, Black shirt from AMC Pankration.
Yes, I really was promoted to BJJ BB by my coach Erik Paulson…surreal as that.may be LOL.
Source: http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma.cfm?go=news.detail&gid=207138
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 8, 2010 1:01 AM EDT up reply actions
LOL
You realize he fought those three guys SIX times right? Throw in two more fights with Babalu and you have accounted for a sizable chunk of his career.
i’m jus saying
you said chucks entire career was based on fighting wrestlers and that simply isn’t true chuck has fought WAY more strikers than he did wrestlers
yes chucks sprawl and brawl was legendary
his take down def was top notch
but to say he built his “entire career” fighting wrestlers is plain and simple a distortion of the facts
and phildo is right
how many of the wrestlers chuck fought were notorious for lay n pray?
hardy isn’t talking about people taking someone down to work a sub
he’s talking about lay n pray
and even more so he’s talking about timidity which is against the rules
The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. It saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require explanation - just occupance.
by Johnathan Willis on Sep 7, 2010 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s not what I’m saying at all.
People whining about lay and pray usually have tito and Randy near the top of their shitlist. Chuck was 4-1 against them. And in the 1, he was taken down 4 times, and got up 3 times.
If chuck can do it, anyone can do it.
really?
If Chuck can do it, anyone can do it?
How do you figure? Because someone is good at something, everyone can be good at it? Because one of the top all-time fighters in his weight class, who had extremely good quickness and a wrestling background that helped him develop great TDD, anyone can do it?
For the record, Winner got up most of the times he was taken down. But that’s not enough because his opponent was solely interested in grabbing him, and for 2 rounds, pretty much only interested in pressing him against the cage.
Use more judges.
He could have punched the guy while he was trying to take him down, he could have gotten a takedown himself. He could have swept him while on the ground.
That fight wasn’t that exciting, but Winner didn’t really do anything either, why should the guy who did less than nothing get more credit than the guy who did nothing?
Winner did hit him.
And I’ll blame Lentz because i don’t consider failing at a single for two rounds to be offense. Perhaps Winner should have just gone to the ground and looked to sweep or scramble, but it’s a tough proposition for a striker to go to ground where he’ll probably struggle to stand up. Since refs rarely stand fights up, no matter how little damage is being done, it’s hard for that to sound enticing for Winner.
I don’t personally care if Winner succeeds at improving his game. I just never want to see Lentz fight again. Or anyone fight like him.
Use more judges.
Chuck was also a wrestler, and a BJJ guy
At the end of the day, he used his wrestling like everyone else does – to control where the fight takes place. In his case, he wanted it on the feet, and that’s what he got.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
where he KTFO'd people
Good wrestler who used that advantage to finish people = no problem at all.
Good wrestler who uses that advantage to hang on people and win decisions = not interesting at all.
Use more judges.
100% agree
When the gameplan is to control and not damage.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 8, 2010 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions
Obviously, Chuck did not fight wrestlers exclusively. But his title run and the lead up to it was almost exclusively against grapplers.
but none of those guys were lay and pray guys
Use more judges.
I'm open to that possibility
but I’ve never personally heard the term applied to either one of them. Is that what people think? Seriously, I’m asking…
Use more judges.
Was Winner content to sit there or was he actually stalemated and stuck with no real option but to defend? Instead of realizing that he wasn’t getting the take down by grabbing one leg and pushing and trying something else to advance the fight Lentz just tied Winner up and held him against the cage.
You bring up lots of good fighters from 3 years ago but in MMA ability terms 3 years ago was a different generation of fighters and guys fought in different ways. Who ever tried to grab one of Chuck’s legs and push him against the fence and then just stand there for entire rounds?
bad wrestling or not
he has a point IMO.
There are a number of snugglers in the UFC.
Wrestling is my fav fighting discipline as long as its utilized to smash someone. Not lay and pray. If they dont advance or do anything offensive it should be treated like a clinch against the fence. Reset and fight. Score the take down and move on.
MMA IS EVERYTHING!
Hell, you know what? Scoring takedowns is part of the problem. Only damage and submission attempts should count. Going for a takedown should only be done in the aggressor’s best interest, as a move to put himself in a position where he can do damage and sustain less damage. Right now a lot of fighters are thinking “Well if I get the takedown and hold him that’s this round in the bag.”.
He's not saying there is anything wrong with wrestling
He’s referring to stalling. I don’t get the sense he is referring to GSP in any sense, but rather guys who don’t go for finishes, who gain good positions and do nothing but hold them.
by JaeeJaee on Sep 7, 2010 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 7 recs
Agreed
this is not the ultimate wrestling championship – cue the outraged American wrestlers who think holding a guy down for the duration is actually “fighting”. Further to this its probably the only thing that can stop the UFC going on to beat boxing worldwide.
by Chrisapalooza on Sep 7, 2010 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Why do you have to put in the ‘American’ part I’m not really sure. Sure there is currently a disproportionate amount of American MMA fighters who use wrestling as a base, but the very person who this comment was directed at isn’t even American.
It’s a problem with some wrestlers regardless of the country they hail from…
by Empty Thoughts on Sep 7, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Dan Hardy isn’t knocking guys who can wrestle: he’s knocking guys who use wrestling to stall. Josh Koschecks appearences in the octagon look more like police restraint training videos than fights.
I would hate to meet the cop
who was trained by watching Koscheck v eany of his 3 fights before Daley
Forever indebted to CroCop's left leg for getting me into MMA
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 7, 2010 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fail
He isn’t talking about Koscheck at all. Koscheck stands, bangs, submits, GnPs, etc. He’s the poor man’s GSP.
Except
Against Daley…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
what he says in regards to the WInner/Lentz fight is true
Dude still needs to up his wrestling
Ride the Tiger!
Sounds sore coming from a guy that got tooled by wrestling, but he’s right. IF the wrestling isn’t being used to finish the fight and all they can do is hold the guy down then the match gets boring and I wish rules were structured to reward finishing or attempting to finish more. He doesn’t knock all wrestling if you read his comments, only lay and pray stall crap.
There are a lot of people out there calling themselves ‘UFC fighters’ who are nothing of the kind. In the UFC, you should go for finishes.
Says the man with only one actual finish in his 5 UFC fights.
by Lyrias on Sep 7, 2010 9:23 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
technically
he said “go for finishes.”
Use more judges.
Oh I get what he means, I’m just tired of the wrestling argument and I really wish fighters would either seriously train their wrestling defense or shut up. Maybe if Dan hadn’t spent his time making youtube videos about his obsession with his wrestling singlet leading up to the GSP fight and had instead actually trained wrestling he wouldn’t have been manhandled for 25 minutes.
Not really no
All I ever hear from guys who get outwrestled is how the rules need to change or how those fighters are boring and it’s getting old. Granted no amount of training will guarantee being able to stop GSP from taking you down, but either get better at something or shut up.
When GSP lost to Matt Hughes he went out and trained with the Montreal Wrestling club, he didn’t sit around whining about the scoring systems. I wish more fighters would do this.
by Lyrias on Sep 7, 2010 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The better both guys are at wrestling the more likely you are to see guys get tied up and stalemated like in the Nick Lentz fight. Guys getting better at wrestling doesn’t help this problem it makes it a more common occurance. The point of the quote wasn’t that wrestling was bad it was that stalling and control tactics instead of actually trying to improve position and finish fights is a problem. Heck Winner actually showed pretty good take down defense wrestling in the Lentz fight, when Lentz couldn’t easily take him down is when Lentz decided to not try anything different and it got stalemated.
by who me on Sep 7, 2010 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This has got nothing to do with Hardy or anyone being out wrestled and whining about it.
It has to do with fighters who try and take a person down and just hold him there, without improving their position, but instead do things that makes them seem active, without actually doing anything. Just look at King Mo, Evans and McKee if you need examples of this.
read it again
he is talking about lentz v winner
do you disagree in light of that fight?
Forever indebted to CroCop's left leg for getting me into MMA
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 7, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Alves vs. Hardy would be a great fight
"I talked about retirement a little bit, but told them I'd be the same ol' grumpy, pissed off guy." --Bobby Cox
Spot on Dan Hardy
People need to go for finishes. I am in favour of anything that encourages fighters to finish the fight.
Forever indebted to CroCop's left leg for getting me into MMA
For all of you throwing the GSP fight back at Hardy
1. He didn’t say anything about GSP stalling in their fight. GSP didn’t stall, he looked for finishes
2. He just talked about Lentz (who IMO, wasn’t trying to KO or sub Andre)
3. Octagon control needs to be thrown out of the criteria. It’s subjective. If Lentz had been fighting a BJJ guy, who’s to say the BJJ guy isn’t controling the fight by being on his back?
by DayGeaux on Sep 7, 2010 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
who’s to say the BJJ guy isn’t controling the fight by being on his back?
Everyone that thinks being on top necessarily means you’re winning.
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions
For those who do not read the full article:
Interesting quote here
This isn’t ‘cheating within the rules’ – it is actually against the rules. ‘Timidity’ is outlawed in the Unified MMA rules and what better describes the act of holding on to an opponent and waiting for the clock to tick down with no attempt or inclination to do any damage?
And that’s not the same as saying all UFC bouts have to be kickboxing or Thai boxing matches in order to be entertaining. That’s not what I am saying.
One of the best fights of the year was George SotXX – who is a friend of mine and a guy I am tipping to win the Lightweight Title next year – beating Joe Stevenson at UFC 110.
About 13 of the 15 minute war was on the ground, but both guys were going for submissions, ground strikes, sweeps or trying to improve their positions constantly.
Neither of them secured top position so they could essentially stop fighting, which, quite honestly, is what is beginning to happen in the UFC.
Forever indebted to CroCop's left leg for getting me into MMA
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 7, 2010 9:29 AM EDT reply actions 10 recs
Seriously?
Timidity has nothing to do with how active a guy is. It is defined as guys not being willing to engage. That certainly does NOT describe what Lentz was doing. He was looking to engage constantly. It just so happens that his preferred method of engagement is the clinch. Lentz was anything but timid.
Winner is every bit as much to blame as Lentz.
His footwork was awful and allowed Lentz to consistently get his hands on him, and while he did a good job of stuffing the takedowns, he did an atrocious job of disengaging and circling out from the clinch. Just fighting off the takedown is not enough.
How often did you see a guy like prime Chuck Liddell or Jens Pulver get stuck on the fence for 15 minutes? You didn’t, because those guys had the skills to get their butt off the cage and disengage or avoid the clinch altogether. They also PUNISHED guys when they came in and when they disengaged. Winner needs to let his hands go more, needs to work on his footwork, and needs to be more aggressive about disengaging from the clinch.
A wrestler can’t cage hump a guy who has effective counter-wrestling skills.
We still think Lentz should do more
If your opponent can defend the takedown but can’t get out of the clinch, then you should still be able to do some damage to him.
However, I do agree with your premise. Blame should go to the defender when when he is in fact the one that is stalling. I think Rampage-Evans, while entertaining overall, was boring at times not because Rashad would refuse to do damage but because Rampage would tie him up and wait for the ref to stand it up or separate them. Rashad did do dirty boxing and GnP when he could.
I get the feeling that if this wasn't Dan Hardy than most people here would agree.
Sucks that most people on MMA sites seem to have something against Hardy because he’s probably one of the funniest and most well spoken fighters in the game today. Hard to disagree with him about more and more fights turning into wrestling matches but it’s been that way since the start – whoever is the better wrestler more often than not will be the victor.
"Sometimes hype just ain't enough." - Jens Pulver on his win over BJ Penn
by lowellthehammer on Sep 7, 2010 9:33 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It has nothing to do with Hardy.
It has everything to do with defending the most maligned discipline in the sport.
I’m sick and tired of hearing whiny strikers and submission grapplers bitch and moan about wrestling.
by Steve4192 on Sep 7, 2010 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 9 recs
I argued with the people who complained about GSP in the fight with Hardy. I argued that Chael wasn’t boring. He continually hit Anderson throughout the fight. I’m a former HS wrestler and I love that aspect of MMA. I can’t defend Lentz. Show me in that fight where Lentz tried to actively hurt Andre (who, I agree with your point above, did nothing to help himself). If someone is that easy to take down then do something with it.
by DayGeaux on Sep 7, 2010 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
absolutely
Chael was great. Tons of offense and control. Lentz was horrible. I don’t hate wrestling. I hate watching people run out the clock for the whole fight.
Use more judges.
Once again, Winner is to blame for a lot of that. He just sat back and took it. He made no effort to get his butt off the cage and back into striking range. He was content to neutralize Lentz rather than aggressively looking to put the fight back into his range.
How do you know he was content to just sit there? He looked like he was doing what he could to get away but Lentz wrestling was good enough to just tie him up. It was Lentz who never tried anything different once he realized he wasn’t just going to get an easy takedown. Once a guy that good gets his hands on you he is going to be able to tie you up but Lentz didn’t do anything beyond that.
I get you are trying to defend wrestling here but this isn’t about defending wrestling this is about the fact that there are fights where guys don’t improve positions are make any attempts to finish in any manner they just tie the other guy up and neutralize them. One guy neutralizing another guy but not doing anything offensive of their own isn’t a win it’s a stalemate.
I’m not defending Lentz, but I’m not about to absolve Winner of his culpability in that fight.
Winner did nothing but react to what Lentz was doing. He didn’t let his hands go. He didn’t use his footwork to stay out of the clinch. He didn’t pummel under and circle off the cage. He just sat his butt on the cage and passively counter-grappled.
Take a look at the careers of successful strikers in the sport and you will find precious few of them who have allowed themselve to be controlled up against the fence like that. Guys like Chuck/Jens/Rich didn’t sit their passively when they got pinned up against the fence. The worked like crazy to get their butts off the fence and circle back out to striking range.
It takes two to make an awful fight. Winner’s complete passivity in the wrestling department made that boring clinch fest possible.
I said most, not all.
And for the record I think there’s a difference between Lentz/Winner, where it was obvious that Lentz had no intent to do much of anything at all besides hug Winner’s waist for 15 mins, and Maynard/Florian, where the fight itself wasn’t the most exciting but Maynard was certainly creating offense (no matter how methodical and risk averse it may have been). I’m anti-stalling, not anti-wrestling.
"Sometimes hype just ain't enough." - Jens Pulver on his win over BJ Penn
by lowellthehammer on Sep 7, 2010 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions
I actually agree with Hardy...
Wrestling are seeing that they can go out in fights and do nothing but go for takedowns and win on points. Most wrestlers are very content with getting the takedown and laying on top of their opponent for the remainder of the round and coming out in subsequent rounds and rinse and repeat. I really do think they should stand fights up more and start taking points from wrestlers that look like they aren’t going for the finish…
Okay, now we're getting a little silly.
Most wrestlers in the UFC tend to do damage on the ground. There are notable exceptions, of course, but many fighters who are primarily wrestlers are trying to do damage too.
How about a quick game. Name 5 wrestlers in the UFC who you’d consider to fit your description.
Definitely don't know 5
But Clay Guida and Nick Lentz are high on the list. Which is kind of funny because they’re in the UFC weight class where it’s hardest to get KO’d. Feel free to add.
Use more judges.
i dont see why taking someone down and laying on top of someone is worth so much on the score cards
personally i think sub attempts from the bottom should count enough to neutralize whatever points are earned unless the top fighter is passing guard and /or laying down some effective strikes (not just pitter patter so they dont get stood up )
Strawman argument
Name a fight where the guy lost because he was on the bottom making sub attempts and lost even though the guy on top did nothing.
mo lawl vs. mooosassy
Moosassy out landed him in just about every rd. With strikes,They were from the bottom. He also went for subs. Mo never passed guard. Unless it was because of a sub attempt.
How bout thiago vs. Rashad?
by the-gentle-way on Sep 7, 2010 6:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I generally root for wrestlers but he’s right. The sort of clinch and stall routine that poorer wrestlers like Lentz engage in needs to stop and to at least not be scored in the “wrestler’s” favor. If you’re trying for 5 minutes to get a take down and all you can manage to do is jam your opponent against the fence, then your opponent has thwarted your will just as much as you’ve thwarted his. In the lentz fight, the only significant blows were landed by Winner and Lentz had no success keeping Winner down in the first two rounds. I’d like to have seen them given to Winner.
"If a dick don't get hard offa cocaine, what would you axe it?" O.D.B.
"To be is to be the value of a bound variable." W.V.O Quine
"I shoot. I score. He shoots. I score." Dan Gable.
Hows this for a thought.
Just wrestling for 3 rounds will get you the win… but without rounds it would just get you tired.
I guarantee you the one getting wrestled would tire out first.
Guillotine.
by iiowyn on Sep 7, 2010 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Good luck with that
Dan Hardy wants the rules of the sport changed to cater to his strengths. It’s kind of like when the NCAA banned the slam dunk in the late 60’s, in an attempt to neutralize Lew Alcindor. It didn’t work, he adapted. As would all truly transcendent athletes.
www.mmatorch.com
try reading comprehension
"How you expect to run with the wolves come night when you spend all day sparring with the puppies" - Omar Little
by The Omaplatapus on Sep 7, 2010 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Wrestlers would finish a ton more often if you let them knee grounded opponents in the head
Agreed
At very least they need to allow up kicks. That would be a very good weapon to use against wrestlers to get up to your feet. Probably the dumbest banned moved, right ahead of 12-6 elbows
True
Upkicks aren’t as dangerous as soccer kicks because you’re on your back. Soccer kicks have gobs of power, so I can see the safety concern there, but a solid punch with 4oz gloves where you put your body into it is no less damaging than an upkick.
Upkicks aren't banned
kicks/knees to the head of a grounded opponent is banned, so if the guy is standing, they’re legal.
Just nitpicking.
Pretty sure they were talking about upkicking a guy who’s sitting in your guard…
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Learn how to sprawl
Hardy sounds like a fighter who doesn’t know how to stop a wrestler. SO he wants rules put into place to help him and his kind out.
Why not fault the guy on bottom? He has every opportunity to stop the wrestling take down and also should be able to get off his back if he is good enough at wrestling and/or BJJ. So it is the wresters fault that the guy he is fighting does not try to get up or stales on bottom?
Most boring fights are b/c one guy is far better than the other at wrestling that the guy that sucks just balls up to try and not get finished. Kinda like what hardy did.
These rounds where there is 1 takedown and then nothing else happens in the round must happen a lot while I’m traveling, because they seem to get everyone’s panties in a bunch, but I don’t recall many of them happening.
I’m all for scoring more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds when needed, but if there is this round that keeps happening when I’m asleep, with 1 takedown and the fight staying on the ground for 5 minutes with nothing happening, the guy who gets the takedown should win the round 10-9.
Getting a takedown and doing nothing>>>>>getting taken down and doing nothing.
then learn how to sprawl
Facts don't come with points of view.
by Robert Livingston on Sep 7, 2010 10:32 AM EDT reply actions
full stop
Facts don't come with points of view.
by Robert Livingston on Sep 7, 2010 10:33 AM EDT reply actions
Not a huge Hardy fan but I totally agree. And no, he didn’t mention the GSP fight and I don’t think he was referring to that. Nobody in their right mind would look at what GSP did as lay and pray.
The scoring definitely has to change. How can you have takedowns and Oct control as 2 of the 3 criteria? When you get a takedown, aren’t you then controlling the octagon? So in addition to being in the naturally dominant position and scoring points for the takedown, you’ve now been given extra points for this ridiculous Octagon control thing. And now all you have to do to win the round is lay on top. Doesn’t that seem like it encourages L n P type fighting? Does the BJJ guy ever get points for octagon control from the bottom?
I think 10-10 rounds need to happen more. If a BJJ guy gets taken down and laid on for 5 minutes, kinda eating minor shots and kinda going for submissions but nobody does anything significant it should be 10-10. Not 10-9 because the wrestlers fav position happens to be on top…
This will not stand man, this aggression will not stand!
BJJ guy stuffs a takedown, but then gets taken down…
Has wrist control or similar, and any attempts at passing guard are either thwarted or not attempted…
No real GnP, but minor nuisence type strikes from top and bottom…
Submissions attempted but not locked in or finished…
That is the very definition of a 10-10 round IMO
Now, if the first takedown gets him down, the guy on bottom has to threaten more to still get a 10-10 round.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
he seems upset
"How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?"
by DamnSevern on Sep 7, 2010 10:45 AM EDT reply actions 7 recs
I agree w Mr. Hardy
There’s a reason why most sports have a play clock. It’s the same reason basketball players make 2 to 20 million dollars per year these days. Rule changes were made to keep people from stalling and to keep it interesting to fans. Before the shot clock was established teams would win games by scores like 19-18 (pistons – lakers 1950).
by dribblebib on Sep 7, 2010 10:56 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Seriously though
Stay active in guard a la Sonnen, throwing punches all the time, or improve your position with 30-60 seconds or get stood up.
Repeatedly getting stood up could result in point deductions, in certain circumstances, or at least a round being scored 10-10.
Having said that – you still wouldn’t stop people trying to “out point” their opponents. That is simply a reality if you are going to have decisions.
So we should penalize the top buy b/c the bottom guy stop fighting and is just covering up?
by Darren Watkins on Sep 7, 2010 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
Trying to solve one problem that way will just create another. Now the guy on the bottom has less motivation to make sub or sweep attempts because simply hugging the guy on top will neutralize the round.
Yup
And I’ve seen people get yellow carded for tying up a wrestler for the bottom. This would stop lay and pray and holding on for dear life from the bottom hoping for a standup.
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions
But that's not such a bad thing
If the guy on the bottom can tie him completely up for a period of time, they should be stood up.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
If the guy on top isn’t scoring much offensively but the fight is kept there b/c the top fighter has a “dominant position” it encourages stalling too.
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions
If the bottom guy is just covering up
Posture up and punish him, pass his guard or do both…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 7, 2010 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions
not that easy. u can cover up or protect your self on bottom with out balling up.
It is a lot harder for the top guy to do much if the bottom guy is stalling or preventing any movement. Next time when the anti wrestling crowd starts getting pissed watch what the bottom guy is doing. NOrmally he is doing everything he can to not take damage and also not moving.
Stalling on bottom to me is a bigger problem than wrestlers not doing anything on top.
by Darren Watkins on Sep 7, 2010 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions
The guy on bottom is trying to defend himself, yes he should be working to try and get out of that position and perhaps trying submissions but of course he is going to be trying to keep the guy on top from beating the crap out of him. It wasn’t his choice to be down there and he’s not really the one on the offensive at that point the guy on top is. If the guy on top can’t accomplish anything then perhaps he needs to look for a different way to try and win the fight, the guy on bottom is trying to get out of a bad spot and protect himself.
Umm the bottom guy did chose to be on bottom. They both started standing and now he is on his back or om the ground under neither the top guy.
Why should the top guy attempt a submission that is not there just to make u happy? They have dominate control and can ground and pound while still having that control. The bottom or defending guy should be the one working to stop the top guy from being in such a dominating position.
by Darren Watkins on Sep 7, 2010 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
This almost never true:
Umm the bottom guy did chose to be on bottom. They both started standing and now he is on his back or om the ground under neither the top guy.
Unless the bottom guy pulled guard, it is highly unlikely he chose to be there. Unless you mean by choosing not to be a better wrestler he chose it…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 8, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow...
Not sure how I created that text box mess, but the point remains…
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer
Haters are gonna hate and bitches are gonna bitch...
by BigDNotDallas on Sep 8, 2010 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions
1. So the bottom guy chose to be taken down by the other fighter and have the other fighter on top of him? Seriously?
2. If they have dominate control and do attempt to ground and pound then that is great, not sure why you think they would have to only try for a submission when trying for any kind of offense at all is all is good? What is bad is having a dominant position but doing nothing with it to try and finish the fight. What I said about perhaps trying for a submission was for the guy on bottom, your response is very confusing?
3.
The bottom or defending guy should be the one working to stop the top guy from being in such a dominating position.Yes the bottom guy is on the defensive and is trying to stop the top guy from dominating him…….. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me because what you wrote doesn’t agree with what you wrote?
sorry I can be confusing.
I mean the guy picked to be on bottom by not training hard enough and learning how to stop a take down. Fighters know what is going to happen and should be able to stop the other guy if he knows he is a wrestler. Peple act like wrestlers just attack and cant but stopped, that is crazy, the guy losing should have to stop the wrestler from getting into dominate poistion after dominated postions.
Getting a take down is not easy and the attack fighter should be rewarded for attacking. The only way I agree with not scoring a take down is if a guy bulls guard or when the defensive fighter is able to either get away right away or is able to attack with sweeps and submission attempts.
Most fights today the bottom guy just plays defense and does not attack much or at all. This makes it extremely difficult for the top guy to do anything. On top of that why should the guy in better position and the guy winning the fight open him self to unnecessary risk?
I just dont lay and praying being a huge problem. Do we get some fights that are boring and could be better? YES. Could this be sovled if they made people fight on the bottom instead of stalling and just holding on, yes.
If you are losing a fight then that fighter should start attacking and trying to win instead of just holding on. This will help fights become more entertaining.
by Darren Watkins on Sep 9, 2010 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree with him
To many of these guy’s are lay n pray. Lentz didn’t try to win that fight, he tried to keep from loosing it. If you not going to pound a guy out or tap him out, then it should be stood back up asap. I loved watching Maia vs Maranda, because Maia was looking to finish or shields vs miller, but to just lay there on a guy, to avoid fighting is bullshit. I know that hurts some of the UFC and GSP Nutthuggers to hear, but its the truth.
My Favorite Fighters MMA
1. Nick Diaz
2. Fedor
3. Carlos Condit
4. Jake Shields
5. King Mo
6. Gilbert Melendez
7. Gegard Mousasi
8. Melvin Manhoef
9. Takanori Gomi
10. Nate Diaz
11. Dave Branch
12. Josh Thomson
by MasterWhiteTiger on Sep 7, 2010 10:59 AM EDT reply actions
How on earth can you like Shields but not GSP?
You lost all your credibility with your last sentence. GSP goes for damage and finishes way, way more than Shields.
look at their last ten fights
Who finishes more Shields or GSP? It’s got nothing to do with UFC or Strikeforce, its just the truth. Look at their last 10 fights and you’ll see who finishes more. I think GSP’s the best fighter in the world, but he’s to interested in not getting knocked out than he is finishing people. “Strikeforce Troll” Man some of you guy’s are tools dude.
My Favorite Fighters MMA
1. Nick Diaz
2. Fedor
3. Carlos Condit
4. Jake Shields
5. King Mo
6. Gilbert Melendez
7. Gegard Mousasi
8. Melvin Manhoef
9. Takanori Gomi
10. Nate Diaz
11. Dave Branch
12. Josh Thomson
by MasterWhiteTiger on Sep 7, 2010 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
We've got a Strikeforce Troll here
Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade
If you can just lie on top of a guy, that guy sucks and should be in a different profession
No grown man in MMA should suck so badly that another grown man can hold him down and do nothing. If you can’t escape, reverse, or find a way to extricate yourself or do damage in that situation, you fucking suck, period, end of story, go find a new job because you’re a shitty fighter. It means any good wrestler in the world can stuff your offense completely — I could go pull 200 NCAA wrestlers at random off the mat and put them in a cage against Hardy and he would not be able to do shit if he doesn’t get a punch in right off the bat. Fuck him.
"You stick a microphone in a guy's face and he calls out anybody but the champion, and Joe Silva should fax him a pink slip right then." -- Chael Sonnen.
It's a fight, not a wrestling competition.
Everything that takes place in the ring/cage should be done with the intention of ending the fight. Hardy is correct in that there is a strain of wrestler than has infected the UFC that has no intention/capability of ending a fight. The Lentz/Winner fight was just the latest, glaring example.
However, we shouldn’t denigrate wrestling as a whole. GSP, Chael, and most other wrestlers employ their technical wrestling skills en route to beating the shit out of their opponents. They’re not necessarily finishing, either. But they’re sure working every angle to inflict damage or find an opening for a submission. Transitions, positioning, etc, is perfectly fine, and entertaining, as long as you follow it up with damage or submission attempts.
Again, it’s a fight. The goal is to finish, not survive. There’s no bonus for Decision of the Night. Nor should there be.
I specializes in grammar fail.
by a tommy point on Sep 7, 2010 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Lets not forget Matt Hughes
He used his wrestling to control his fights, while adding decent striking and subs to his game and became a great finisher.
But it took him years and years to get to that point.
Early in his career, Matt was like a mini-Mark Coleman. He just had the luxury of developing his game in the shadows when no one was watching the sport.
Contemporary wrestlers like Lentz are going through the same growing pains, but they are doing it in the spotlight. It wasn’t that long ago that people called Josh Koscheck and Rashad Evans blankets. They eventually developed a more well rounded skill set and became complete mixed martial artists. Lentz might get there … or he might not. But as long he keeps winning, he deserves the chance stick around and work on his skills.
Everything that takes place in the ring/cage should be done with the intention of ending the fight.
I agree completely, but the issue is that that comment is not supported by the rules or judging criteria. Nostalgia aside, that’s what was great about pride. The ippon rule essential rewarded fighters for doing their best to finish and punished those that didnt.
Without that rule, the generally held belief that the goal is to finish your opponent, appears to be waning somewhat. You just have to listen to many fighters corners talking about tactics. So often (when its not useless pep talks) it seems to revolve around scoring points more than doing damage. Not to mention the soon to explode, imo, tactic of stall for the first 4 mins causing a stale-mate then explode and take your opponent down in the final minute to win the round as nothing more significant than the take down occured in the round.
Agree with Hardy
And most people agree with him that lay and pray wrestling is boring to watch compared to BJJ or striking.
I personally cannot stand when people ride out the rounds in top position without throwing any punches or passing guard… it is simply stalling, no buts about it.
"Vo-cab-u-lary's necessary when diggin' into my library..."
even worse is guys riding out rounds by cage-clinch humping. at least if a guy gets a takedown he had to do something to get there. Lentz on Winner is whats really bullshit
a life: it's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come -Lester Freamon
by eastcoastatlas on Sep 7, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I have no problem with wrestling at all in MMA, but I do not like it when a fighter is intentionally trying to stall the fight. I don’t care if a fight goes to decision as long as the fight is active. Demain Maia vs Mario Miranda was good in my opinion even though it went to decision because Maia was active in passing guard and trying to finish the fight. Chael Sonnen is fine with me because he stays very active on top control throwing strikes.
The counter argument is that the fighter on the bottom or pinned against the cage needs to find a way to get out. I do have a problem with someone on the bottom in full guard trying to tie up the guy on top (and usually failing) looking for the ref to stand them up, and I feel that this is in a way the fighter on the bottom looking for someone else to give them a way out. The guy on the bottom could attempt to sweep, throw strikes, or find a way to get back on their feet because some fighters are too content lying on their backs in full guard. It’s easier said than done though, and the thing is that if a wrestler is on top of you, it is going to kill the clock just trying to get that wrestler off of you.
I think that the problem lies in the judging and scoring system. This is just an example but If half a round is on the feet and one fighter is outstriking his opponent, but then his opponent takes him down and is in top control for the last half of the round doing little to no damage, then generally the fighter who got the takedown and just rode the round on top control wins the round. I feel that too many times, the takedown and top control is over-valued, and it seems that more than half the time, the takedown negates any striking that happened.
Please share the many Lay and prayers
So how are all of these lay and prayers that people are pissed off about?
Nick “Cagehump” Lentz
a life: it's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come -Lester Freamon
by eastcoastatlas on Sep 7, 2010 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Trust me I am not a rashad Evans fan but he is no ware a Lay and Prayer. Did u watch the Ramapage vs Rashad fight?
by Darren Watkins on Sep 7, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I did. It seemed to me Rashad was much more interested in making sure Rampage was not in a position to mount any offense whatsoever than actually causing damage, whether it was in the clinch against the cage or on the floor. Rashad didn’t really G&P until the last 30 seconds of the fight, which really confirmed in my opinion the reason he didn’t do it sooner was he was afraid of getting swept.
Rashad became a great mixed martial artist. Then Machida knocked him stupid. Now he’s a top control wrestler again. L&P perfectly describes his post Machida career to date.
Ricky Hatton came closer to beating Manny Pacquiao than Marquez did to beating Floyd.
-SC
by The Lethal Haze on Sep 7, 2010 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The boring part of lay and pray
is the fighter who is being dominated. To me when I read a comment like this, gives me the impression that a fighter is just not a good enough of a striker. Maybe good at fighting but not enough to compete in a strikers only sport such as boxing, kickboxing or muay thai. They can get away with that in MMA because of other skill sets which is game of course. But only to complain when they can’t play their pseudo kickboxing match. It’s a shitty attitude.
I don’t disagree with knees when down or up kicks, I liked the dynamics of them in Pride. But to complain about wrestling and about finishing fights when you can’t even get yourself out of a bad positions is just stupid. Two solutions 1) change sports. 2) change your game and find the solution.
www.undigenous.com - MMA Gear and Apparel
Twitter: @undigenous - Facebook: Undigenous MMA
- Fight Shorts coming soon!
I'm a huge grappling fan and not so much of a Hardy fan...
I’m a huge grappling fan and not so much of a Hardy fan but I really have to say there is a ton of truth in what he is saying here.
Of the recent fights I’ve seen I can think of two right off the bat that just completely bored me and both suffered from what he is talking about. Winner vs Lentz in the UFC and Swanson vs Mendes in the WEC. If I were a casual fan watching either of those fights as some of my first experiences with MMA, I’d have probably changed the channel if I could.
The problem though is that people have been trained to look at dominate positions and not to give any considerations passed that. Look at the Lashley / Griggs fight from Strikeforce and you’ll see the vast majority of people arguing against the stand up even though Lashley was doing nothing but laying on top of Griggs not even controlling him. I mean every time he went to posture up he would get wailed on and then he would immediately turtle back up. Was it possible that he could have actually been winning the round on a judge’s scorecard? I would hope not, but it’s quite possible that he was.
I don’t want to see less grappling or wrestling in MMA myself. I’d just like to see it actually be entertaining when I do see it. Thankfully most is, but there is still enough that isn’t at times for this to be a problem in need of fixing.
Puzzle
Surely fighting is meant to be a puzzle – figure out how you are gonna beat a guy, whether that is before you get in the ring or during the bout.
If you know a guy is going to come and wrestle, either aggressivley or passivley(?) work out a way to combat this and win your fight…
Macknight
-----------------
Correct me if I am wrong - I may learn something.....
GSP doesn't Lay and Pray
He advances positions, attempts submissions and tries to finish fights. When you are a complete figther you can decide where the fight takes place. Against Fitch he dominated him in the stand up as well as taking him down and trying to finish the fight. Against Alves and Hardy (superior strikers) he took them down while working GnP and subs.
Firefrankwren.com: It's gonna happen this offseason
Umm
How many fights have you finished in the UFC again Hardy? One. One out of four wins and five fights total.
People with pillow fists shouldn’t throw stones (at wrestlers.)
