Hyden's Take
HYDEN BLOG: Change Can Be A Good Thing
Sep 1, 2010 - 9:11:31 AM HYDEN BLOG: Change Can Be A Good Thing

DISCUSS ALL THIS IN OUR NEW MMATORCH FORUM

...OH, ONE MORE THING - PLEASE BOOKMARK US & VISIT DAILY!

By: Frank Hyden, MMATorch contributor

Last week's blog generated a fair amount of reader response. It's not the most mail I've ever gotten about a topic, but it did create some good discussion, which is what I care about. I've had people tell me that having every title fight end in a knockout or submission is crazy. However, I've had even more people tell me that they wish that things were like that. The biggest problem I have with title fights ending in decision is that you haven't really beaten the guy, you just had three guys tell you that you won. Picture this scenario:

It's the Super Bowl, you have Team A and Team B. Team A is ahead 10-3, and has controlled the game so far. Their dominating defense has enabled them to play their type of game, a slow and grinding affair. It's the 4th quarter, and just a minute remains. Team B has been able to do nothing all day, the lone exception being a great punt return that set up a field goal. Team A is going to kneel on the ball and run out the clock. However, the snap is muffed and the ball is loose. A defender from Team B grabs the ball and races into the end zone for a touchdown. After the extra point, the score is tied, 10-10. Team B kicks and Team A gets the ball back with 40 seconds remaining. Team A marches down the field, going 70 yards in 35 seconds. Team A has the ball on Team B's 10 yard line with 5 seconds to go. Team A throws a pass into the endzone as time expires, but the pass is incomplete. Suddenly, the officials huddle up and award Team A the victory. The score is tied, but the officials decide that Team A did more during the game to win. Instead of going into overtime, which all the major sports do, one team is awarded the victory by virtue of what they did during the game. Imagine how well that would go over.

I realize that a fighter can win all five rounds of a title fight, but I still think that he would need to finish his opponent to be the true winner. If you can dominate a guy for five rounds, why can't you finish him? If you can't finish him, have you really been dominating him? Dominating an opponent means that you've broken his will, and that you're able to do anything you want to him. If you cannot pound a guy into submission or tap him out, you have not dominated him. That word gets thrown around too much anyhow. True domination is only achieved by rendering your opponent helpless and by finishing him. This happens very rarely in MMA.

The only reason that decision victories are considered acceptable in fighting sports (Boxing, MMA, etc.) is because they've been happening for so long. It's the same way that comic-book names like Batman, Superman, and Spiderman are accepted. Those names have been around for multiple decades. Names like Catman, Dogman, Snakeman, or Awesomeman would be laughed at and ridiculed. Why is that? Those four latter names are no more ridiculous than the three former ones. Time has a way of making people accept things, though.

Title fights are already different in that they go five rounds instead of the usual three. Why not go all the way, and say that there must be a winner regardless of how long it takes? If you remove the possibility of winning a few rounds and then coasting to victory, you would actually see fights ending sooner than they do now. How many times have we seen a guy win a few rounds, then get ultra-conservative, and try to not lose. I don't like seeing fights where the guys aren't trying to win every single second. I don't like the idea of rewarding people who don't take chances.

There's a big difference between fighting smartly and fighting not to lose. When I see a guy go whole minutes without even throwing a strike or trying a submission, there's a problem with that. Guys who are counter-punchers or prefer to fight defensively are at least still trying to bait their opponent into making a mistake. If fighters are at least trying to win, that's all we can ask for. I don't think that's asking too much. The problem is that there are too many guys who are content to ride out the clock and not risk it.

The argument that MMA is a sport first, and entertainment second, is a fallacy. All sports are about entertainment first and foremost, that's why they're on television. All the rules that the UFC has adopted are about making the sport more entertaining. All the safety precautions are about making it more entertaining. It's very common for major sports to change or tweak their rules to increase the entertainment factor. The NFL has legislated out a lot of the old-school rules in order to make the passing game more viable. The NBA routinely allows two steps or more without calling traveling. MLB ballparks are tiny compared to what they used to be, allowing more home runs. This is all in the name of increased scoring and excitement.

People shouldn't be so hesitant to change a sport if it might make that sport better.


READER FEEDBACK

Last week's blog: [CLICK HERE]

BILLY SPANGLER:

"I do agree lay-and-pray is boring and it does devalue the entertainment value of MMA, but I differ in opinion on the subject. Jon Fitch is the best example of lay-and-pray. Is it his fault that it works? No. It's up to his opponent to gameplan around that to win. MMA is about two opponents bringing their strengths to the cage and to hopefully negate the other persons strengths. Examples are Georges St. Pierre over Fitch and Randy Couture over Tim Sylvia. Why should a fighter change his fighting style to satisfy fans? Case in point: Jorge Gurgel. He fights to be entertaining even though he is a great BJJ practitioner. He'll be lucky not to suffer brain damage in a fight just for fan entertainment. Too often I think we get caught up in the entertainment aspect of sports and forget that main goal is to win. The Phoenix Suns were entertaining offensively for years but it was the San Antonio Spurs (defensive, slow, and tough, boring) getting the rings. Same goes for the Pittsburgh Steelers, they don't have the flashy offense but they do enough to win playing boring football. Actually I think as a fighter having someone smother me for 25 min completely controlling me would be more humbling as a fighter than a submission or knockout because it means that fighter had complete domination over me. Either way fighters should fight to their ability and win however possible."

DAVE:

"First off, it's not about entertainment. It's about fighting. Just because you think it's boring?!?! It does take skill to take someone down. It's not the fighters fault his opponent can't stop his takedowns. They should practice more! For me, I think BJJ is a fairly cheap way of fighting. Bending someones arm after they just beat your face in for a while. The difference is I know it takes skill to pull off some of the submissions. I understand it's a part of MMA.

I think it's funny how MMA fans have evolved through the years. They seem to be robots, repeating what they read or hear. I find modern MMA fans to be phony snobs who think MMA is all about BJJ.
The moment you start to try to tailor MMA to certain types of fighting is the moment we lose true MMA. To say someone should not get points for a takedown, is just funny."

TREY W:

"Just read your Lay and Pray column and understand your stance on the situation. Basically, "cage control" would have to be thrown out as a viable way to score points. Unless it comes with some damage dealing blows or bona-fide submission attempts. However, realistically speaking, that would never happen. This is because that style of fighting is extremely effective at neutralizing an opponent and taking very little damage in the process. Here's our biggest hope with the whole Lay-and-Pray issue. As with the politicians in office today, most are waiting for the old guys to die out and the new generation to take over. The Lay-and-Pray seems to be a dying breed with the likes of Ben Askren and other talented wrestlers on the rise. These newer guys are evolving the game with one simple thing. Knees to the downed opponent while transitioning from position to position. Knees to the legs, ribs, arms, shoulders... Wherever one can be slipped in! So I think as the newer breed starts taking over the ranks, we will see even more evolution in the sport and ground control. Until that time, we can just enjoy the fights for what they are and use the known Lay-and-Pray fighters as a good time to hit the bathroom and grab a beer."

FRANCIS CARINO:

"You have written several articles recently condemning wrestling-centric styles a la Jon Fitch. Why is it that you only called the man on top boring? Why can't some of the blame be placed where it is rightfully deserved, the man on bottom. Going into a Fitch fight you know what you are getting, so why not focus more on wrestling and conditioning. I'm not implying it is easy to stop Fitch, but if a fighter is unable to, they should take heat too. Part of having an effective stand-up game is being able to keep the fight on the feet via movement and takedown defense, or creating scrambles, etc. Many great fighters have done exactly that. Mirko Cro-Cop and Georges St. Pierre did not have elite wrestling credentials prior to their MMA careers. While the man on top may not do damage, transitioning to better positions is still an attempt to get closer to finishing a fight. Laying on bottom is not.

A lot of guys do appear to work from the bottom and remain trapped, but some do nothing, not even try to hold on for a stand up. How many times have you seen guys look up from the bottom and shrug their shoulders at a ref? I think it's a poor excuse for fighters to say, 'I came here to fight, not wrestle.' There is a reason it is called mixed martial arts, not kickboxing.

I personally feel another thing that would help to discourage lay and pray is knees to the head of a downed/prone opponent. Yes they are dangerous, but it creates a means to abate lay and pray. First, it gives wrestlers another means to end the fight from top control. Second, and I believe more importantly, it creates very real and harsh consequences for failing a takedown attempt. Often times wrestlers can repeatedly shoot for takedowns with little consequence of retaliation. If a takedown gets stuffed they can transition to neutral or even more advantageous positions in many cases. These knees would allow retribution. It a standup fighter over-commits to a strike, the consequences are very real. Counterstriking is many very successful fighters' bread and butter. Creating more opportunities to punish a failed takedown could lead to fewer attempts."

JACKSON SUMMERS:

"Although I understand where you're coming from it doesn't make sense for a legitimate sport. What you're saying is say Georges St. Pierre and Anderson Silva were to fight if GSP takes him down but cant inflict enough damage in the ref's opinion then the fight should be put back on the feet where Anderson is more comfortable? That would completely defeat the purpose of strategy and gameplan. If you want more finishes why not just watch K-1 or a hardcore jiu-jitsu tournament?"

CONOR LEADEN:

"I am writing to you because I strongly disagree with your last blog on "Lay-And-Pray". One line that particularly stuck out for me was "It's all about entertainment". MMA is about finding out who are the most skilled fighters at each weight-class in the world. While I agree MMA would not be in the position it finds itself without the fans shelling out their cash to be entertained, that is not the sole objective of it's existence. Sure if it's all about about entertainment why not give the fighters weapons and throw three or four of them in the cage at once. Oh wait that already exists. It's called pro wrestling. You also argued that a fighter should not be scored for takedown unless they achieve significant amounts of ground and pound or make a reasonable attempt at a submission while on the ground. So how do you score it? Lets say one fighter is continuously able to take a opponent down but does nothing with it. How do you score that fight? A 30-30 draw? A draw even though one fighter was able to completely control where the fight took place?

JOHN PATRICK BYRNE:

"To start off let me say I do agree with your proposition on a change of the rules but how you go about it I do not agree with. There are some fighters who take someone down, obtain a position, and just sit there. But to say a takedown does not earn you points is insane. Takedowns should be awarded points the second a successful takedown is performed. Stalling can only be met with negative affects on the fighter who is stalling, in wrestling wrestlers who stall give up points to their opponent and are eventually disqualified.

It is up to the referees to make sure that stalling does not take place. Also fighters on the bottom would then be affected by the stalling rule. We also must come with our own scoring system the system we have adopted from boxing just does not work with this sport.

Your comment about championship fights never going to a decision is also insane. Just because you are the champion does not make you a "god" of your weight class able to finish your opponents at will. Also look at every champion in the UFC... not one of those guys ever purposely try to force a decision all of them always look to finish the fight, it can not always end that way. A fighter who has earned a title shot is not going to be a pushover, sometimes a finish can not be gained."


Comments and suggestions can be e-mailed to me at hydenfrank@gmail.com