# This lay and pray bullshit needs to stop



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Just watched you know which fight and I'm ******* fuming, like actually angry. This judging system is ******* bullshit. How can you win rounds via take downs alone? Some one explain that? I gave rounds 1 and 2 definitely to Pettis and Clay the third (just). In rounds one and two Anthony got the better of the limited stand up exchanges and on the ground he was working Guida.

How the **** can you win the ******* rounds via constantly getting tangled up in dangerous submission attempts and just defending?!!!! How?!!!! Because that's all he was doing, defending countless submission attempts. He did ZERO damage on the ground and only managed to get into any kind of dominant position in round 3 (the round in which I just gave him the edge).

I'm sick the death of this bullshit, honestly.

Yes, I'm mad.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Amen.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Things like this really just annoy me, it isn't fair, things like this turn me away from this sport I love. The judging system is just appalling. It isn't the scoring system that's at fault, it's purely down to the judges. Robbing so many people of winning fair fights.

I've had enough of it.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Agreed.

Already said it in another thread, I was so mad that I could actually hear my blood rush through my veins (thank God it's gone now).


----------



## Dream-On-101 (Jun 4, 2009)

Couldnt agree more. I was arguing with anyone who would listen last night that Guida did not win the fight, he won a points decision based on an incredibly flawed judging system which for some reason seems to think that you are winning a fight PURELY because you are on top.

This is Mixed Martial Arts. How fucked up is it that judges cant see that fights can be won from the bottom? Why is wrestling rated above other aspects to such an extent? Lying in guard desperately trying not to get submitted by one of the most active guards i have ever seen whilst the guy on the bottom throws up submission attempt after submission attempt should NOT win you a fight. Do the judges literally have no comprehension of what they are looking at? This isnt UFC 1 were no one knew what BJJ was. 

Its not even as though Guida could claim he was controlling Pettis. It was all he could do not to get submitted.

It was ridiculous. It needs to change. I was FUMING last night and i am getting mad thinking about it again.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Already said it in another thread, I was so mad that I could actually hear my blood rush through my veins (thank God it's gone now).


Oh man, I've just finished watching it now and believe me, the blood is pumping through my ******* veins.

You know the sad and scary part, it seems like MMA fans are just accepting this as the norm though, they just accept it and say that it's fair given the scoring criteria.

That's where the confusion lies, there is nothing wrong with the criteria for scoring fights (I cba finding and posting the rules, but I have read them and they make sense)

It's the judges interpretation of the scoring which is horribly, horribly wrong. So much emphasis is being scored on take downs alone, it's just ridiculous.

Ok, so obviously we give Clay Guida points for octagon control and effective take downs. What about effective striking? Effective grappling? and effective aggression and damage?! It's obvious who got the better of the stand up in both rounds 1 and two. It's obvious who was the aggressor both on the feet and on the ground (Pettis) and it's ******* obvious who inflicted more damage on their opponent.

Can't believe I'm still raging lol. I'm off to get some kfc.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Dream-On-101 said:


> Couldnt agree more. I was arguing with anyone who would listen last night that Guida did not win the fight, he won a points decision based on an incredibly flawed judging system which for some reason seems to think that you are winning a fight PURELY because you are on top.
> 
> This is *Mixed Martial Arts*. How fucked up is it that judges cant see that fights can be won from the bottom? Why is wrestling rated above other aspects to such an extent? Lying in guard desperately trying not to get submitted by one of the most active guards i have ever seen whilst the guy on the bottom throws up submission attempt after submission attempt should NOT win you a fight. Do the judges literally have no comprehension of what they are looking at? This isnt UFC 1 were no one knew what BJJ was.
> 
> ...


You're right.

It's not K-1, ADCC, it's MMA, wrestling is a part of the sport. If people don't like it, well, they know where to go, is it fair? Well, you can make the argument that taking your opponent down is a sign of "dominance" until the scoring criteria is changed, get used to this.

I was upset during the fight, not because of the wrestling, I understand it's part of the sport, but it sucked seeing Pettis lose, but you gotta give Guida his props, he did what he had to do to win that fight, and he won.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> You're right.
> 
> It's not K-1, ADCC, it's MMA, wrestling is a part of the sport. If people don't like it, well, they know where to go, is it fair? Well, you can make the argument that taking your opponent down is a sign of "dominance" until the scoring criteria is changed, get used to this.
> 
> I was upset during the fight, not because of the wrestling, I understand it's part of the sport, but it sucked seeing Pettis lose, but you gotta give Guida his props, he did what he had to do to win that fight, and he won.


You're another ******* retard who doesn't understand the correct scoring criteria for fights.

Where does it say in any of the rules that take downs should be emphasised the most and every thing else should be inferior?

******* retards man


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

ok ill tell you all what i have been saying for well a year now, we need to adopt PRIDE criteria of judging and i like the 10 minute first round and the yellow card for lay and praying, the japanese know how mma should be fought


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

To me, this fight is the equivalent of a boxer doing nothing but blocking all his opponents punches, and winning.

Sure, neither is doing any damage, but at least one is trying.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Mckeever said:


> You're another ******* retard who doesn't understand the correct scoring criteria for fights.
> 
> Where does it say in any of the rules that take downs should be emphasised the most and every thing else should be inferior?
> 
> ******* retards man


In the North American judging criteria, which heavily favors wrestlers.

Get over it, your boy lost. Don't wanna see "lay n pray"? Tell your boys to learn how to defend a takedown. If Pettis would have defended a takedown, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Guida schooled him and Pettis couldn't do anything. Not every fighter wants to go out there and play rock 'em sock 'em robots, some fighters actually care about their position in the sport and want to win.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> In the North American judging criteria, which heavily favors wrestlers.
> 
> Get over it, your boy lost. Don't wanna see "lay n pray"? Tell your boys to learn how to defend a takedown. If Pettis would have defended a takedown, we wouldn't be having this conversation. *Guida schooled him* and Pettis couldn't do anything. Not every fighter wants to go out there and play rock 'em sock 'em robots, some fighters actually care about their position in the sport and want to win.


Complete rubbish.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Soojooko said:


> Complete rubbish.


Complete rubbish? 30-27 across the board says other wise.

Pettis did nothing in that fight but attempt submissions, Guida controlled him, Guida didn't allow him to do anything, Guida pretty much schooled Mr. Flashy Stand Up With No TDD.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Complete rubbish? 30-27 across the board says other wise.
> 
> Pettis did nothing in that fight but attempt submissions, Guida controlled him, Guida didn't allow him to do anything, Guida pretty much schooled Mr. Flashy Stand Up With No TDD.


should i bring up how machida got koed viciously by shogun? but UFC_OWNS what dies that have to do with my stupid comments? well stupid comment stupid but true response


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> Complete rubbish? 30-27 across the board says other wise.
> 
> *Pettis did nothing in that fight but attempt submissions, Guida controlled him, Guida didn't allow him to do anything, Guida pretty much schooled Mr. Flashy Stand Up With No TDD.*


So you say Pettis was the one going for finishes, but Guida schooled him? That's a paradox. To think that the judges actually think it's what happened shows you how stupid the judges are.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

UFC_OWNS said:


> should i bring up how machida got koed viciously by shogun? but UFC_OWNS what dies that have to do with my stupid comments? well stupid comment stupid but true response


What does Machida and Shogun have to do with Clay Guida vs. Anthony Pettis? Clutching at straws to try and prove a point much? I'd run along because you're bringing up a fight that is irrelevant to this conversation. Machida atleast can defend a takedown and doesn't get "Lay n Prayed" unlike Pettis did last night.

And yeah, going for submissions doesn't mean you're in control. Guida *controlled* that fight with his superior *grappling* the ENTIRE fight outside of when Pettis got on top that one time.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> What does Machida and Shogun have to do with Clay Guida vs. Anthony Pettis? Clutching at straws to try and prove a point much? I'd run along because you're bringing up a fight that is irrelevant to this conversation. Machida atleast can defend a TDD and doesn't get "Lay n Prayed" unlike Pettis did last night.


omg hahaha what a dumbass you played right into my sarcastic and immature comment thus making you the silly one


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

How many people here have ever won a fight by laying on their back and not completing a sub?

Pettis fought well and made me a new fan.

he did not win.:cheeky4:


----------



## H-Deep (Feb 3, 2009)

I wanted guida to win but I agree last night wasnt really winning a fight. Laying on top of someone avoiding submissions shouldn't win you a fight but unfortunately we see this time and time again in the sport.

I actually had more enjoyment watching the boxing last night than the ufc, haven't said that in a very long time. Hopefully something gets done but I doubt it


----------



## Steroid Steve (Oct 1, 2010)

It's pretty silly that laying on top of a guy and "controlling" them, supposedly, is considered fighting or even winning a fight. I'm starting to see why some asshole boxers say the things they say about our sport now.


----------



## HaVoK (Dec 31, 2006)

The fight went just as I and many writers did. Clay doing nothing and Petis actually trying to win the fight from his back. Ending with Petis getting robbed.

This come down to the commissions. Until they take it upon themselves to discipline poor judges, educate the judges with seminars, or fighters become judges it will never change. For Christ sake...I saw Cecil Peeples as the ref in a Strikeforce fight! The worst boxing judge in history. How he becomes a MMA judge let alone a ref is beyond comprehension. It's all political bullshit. Commissions should be independent contractors not a governing body.


----------



## paulfromtulsa (Jan 13, 2007)

Who wants to see gsp vs guida for the world championship of lay and pray?


----------



## Finnsidious (Mar 14, 2009)

oldfan said:


> How many people here have ever won a fight by laying on their back and not completing a sub?
> 
> Pettis fought well and made me a new fan.
> 
> he did not win.:cheeky4:


 Well said.

Everyone bitches about Guida winning for lay n pray, but they think Pettis deserves to win for unsuccessfully defending takedowns and unsucessful sub attempts? Since when does not doing something properly win you the fight?

There isn't anywhere that says wrestling should score more than any other part of MMA, but there is something called 'Octagon control', which is scored quite a bit higher than say, 'not having Octagon control'.

Guida wanted to take Pettis down and control him, he did. Pettis wanted to keep the fight standing and try and sub Guida if he was on his back. He did neither, why should he win???


----------



## Big_Charm (Jan 7, 2011)

UFC_OWNS said:


> ok ill tell you all what i have been saying for well a year now, we need to adopt PRIDE criteria of judging and i like the 10 minute first round and the yellow card for lay and praying, the japanese know how mma should be fought


Amen. I also think that there should be some nice stomps and soccer kicks brought back from the PRIDE days as well :thumb02:

I like both guys that fought last night.... and to ad fuel to this growing fire, I was big into wrestling while in HS/College. 

I hate seeing this lay n pray style from any and all fighters. I think a lot of the judging is becoming quite skewed and heavily 'reliant' on just take downs.

The scoring system just has me :confused02:


----------



## Emericanaddict (Dec 31, 2006)

All those who are complaining are just butt hurt hype train riders. God damn the quality of members and post has declined around here.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Emericanaddict said:


> All those who are complaining are just butt hurt hype train riders. God damn the quality of members and post has declined around here.


For real, you'd think this was Sherdog with the anti-wrestling mentality and bringing up other fights just to get a rise out of other members.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

You should not be able to win fights on take downs and take downs alone. Wrestling is all about control.The only fighter that actually established control on the ground was Anthony Pettis. Did you not see or hear Rogan continually mention how Pettis always had excellent wrist control on Guida to control his posture and set up submission attempts.

Lying in some ones guard, getting controlled by the dude on the bottom whilst he constantly attacks you with submissions is not winning a ******* fight.

The only time Guida ever actually advanced position to a dominant one was in round three (the round in which I gave him the edge).

In the other two rounds, Pettis got the better of the stand up and inflicted more damage and he got the better of Guida on the ground via controlling him and constantly working for submissons.

I have no problem with wrestling when it is used effectively to win a fight. When wrestlers go out there, take their opponent down, pass their guard, establish dominant positions and land ground and pound. Guida did NONE of that. The only thing he did was score take downs, on the ground he mounted NO OFFENSE.

Some of you guys are unbelievable.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

c'mon Mck

effective wrist control on your back is how you survive not how you win.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

oldfan said:


> c'mon Mck
> 
> effective wrist control on your back is how you survive not how you win.


What? Wrist control is used for just that, control. The fact of the matter is, he had Guida under full control in his guard and used that wrist control to set up a number of submissions.

Ground control in this fight went to Anthony Pettis.

And for the loser's who say fanboys are just mad their fighter lost, no, that is not true. The only real fighter I'm a fan boy of or have some sort of emotional attachment to is BJ Penn. I had no problem with Fitch winning that fight, i still think Fitch should have beat BJ that night.

I have zero problems with fighter's who go out there and win fights FAIRLY, whether I'm a fan of a certain fighter or not.

Guida won this fight through a heavily flawed judging system. Not fair.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

oldfan said:


> c'mon Mck
> 
> effective wrist control on your back is how you survive not how you win.


Same could be said about top control though. The guard should be considered a neutral position, not an advantage for the guy on top.


----------



## schiops (Jul 12, 2009)

You can make whatever arguments about who was more active and whatnot, but bottom line is the rules are what they are and Guida won under those rules. Whether the rules are fair or not is another argument, and is quite frankly irrelevant at this point, all that matters is what the rules ARE not what they SHOULD be. Guida won the fight, get over it.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

oldfan said:


> c'mon Mck
> 
> effective wrist control on your back is how you survive not how you win.


.. and what was Guida doing exactly? Looked to me like he was doing an awful lot of defending and surviving himself.

I'm not saying Petis should have won. Just that the scoring system is bogus. Being on your back should not automatically equate to "being controlled". That is the fundamental problem.




Hammerlock2.0 said:


> The guard should be considered a neutral position, not an advantage for the guy on top.


Exactly. There is a whole range of attacking moves you can pull off from your back. To say you have to complete a sub for it to score is like saying you need to KO your opponent from a punch to score. Punches come in all strengths. Its up to the judges to decide whether a punch was worth scoring or not. Why should the same not apply to sub attempts? An educated judge should be able to tell the difference between lots of loose sub attempts vs more effective technique. As it stands, you either sub the dude on top of you, or you lose the round, *no matter what you do*. How can that be right?


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

schiops said:


> You can make whatever arguments about who was more active and whatnot, but bottom line is the rules are what they are and Guida won under those rules. Whether the rules are fair or not is another argument, and is quite frankly irrelevant at this point, all that matters is what the rules ARE not what they SHOULD be. Guida won the fight, get over it.


NO. THIS IS WHERE THE CONFUSION LIES. 

The rules are fine as they are, it is the judges interpretation of those rules which are flawed, please try and understand this.

It isn't the rules that are at fault here, IT IS THE JUDGES, FOR NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THOSE RULES OR FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE SPORT.

Judge's heavily favour take downs in fights for some unknown reason. It says no where in the rules or scoring criteria that take downs should be heavily emphasised over every thing else, it says this no where!

You can look at the Diego Sachez/Kampmann fight for an example. I think Diego must have attempted around 15 take downs in that fight and Kampmann defended 14 of those take downs. Now then, Diego is favoured because he completes one single take down, even though he failed around 14 others and he also ticks the boxes for "effective aggression" because he was bringing the fight to kampmann.

It isn't the rules, it's the judging, people need to be aware of this.


----------



## Big_Charm (Jan 7, 2011)

Soojooko said:


> .. and what was Guida doing exactly? Looked to me like he was doing an awful lot of defending and surviving himself.
> 
> I'm not saying Petis should have won. Just that the scoring system is bogus. Being on your back should not automatically equate to "being controlled". That is the fundamental problem.


I definitely agree with that. There`s something very wrong when the system `heavily`favours the take down, but when your opponent is more active in the guard from their back, it`s still nullified :thumbsdown:


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

My Boy, was niether of these fighters, I have no bias who won/loss. Apparently people (this entire thread for the most part) should go watch K1 if WE don't like Dog leg humpers like Guida? I say go watch american wrestling if you like non damage top control wrestlers. 

I love a good takedown, but if your gameplan is to go face into chest and pin them against the cage, then pin them against the mat, for 3 rounds, the rules fail. They need to get rid of this Wrestling bias, and make rules to inflict damage or gtfo. Bore fest like this are become all to common because of them. If you say go watch K1, you also have zero credibility. 

Ferguson vs Ramsey was wrestling to, but WHOA, they were going to finish the fight! CRAZY huh? And it was a great fight because they don't want to just eek out a win.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Same could be said about top control though. The guard should be considered a neutral position, not an advantage for the guy on top.


I have to disagree. maybe you're a lot more advanced than I ever got. I never had the flexibility to have a good offensive guard I was all about surviving, sweeps and getting up.

But to me.... having someone in my guard never felt equal to being in someones guard.

Unless you have an AMAZING guard then it's just better than being mounted.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Mckeever said:


> You should not be able to win fights on take downs and take downs alone. Wrestling is all about control.The only fighter that actually established control on the ground was Anthony Pettis. Did you not see or hear Rogan continually mention how Pettis always had excellent wrist control on Guida to control his posture and set up submission attempts.
> 
> Lying in some ones guard, getting controlled by the dude on the bottom whilst he constantly attacks you with submissions is not winning a ******* fight.
> 
> ...


I guess you didn't see or hear Rogan mentioning Guida's shoulder strikes to Pettis.

Of course, not like it matters, Jon Fitch beat BJ Penn into near retirement, but since he's a wrestler everyone will look past the fact that he did beat BJ's ass in the third round and will call him boring, simply because he did it on the ground and not on the feet.

Anti-wrestling mentality is ruining MMA, people need to learn to appreciate ALL aspects of MMA.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

WTF are you guys talking about?? Pettis winning the first and second??????? :sarcastic12:

Clay Guida clearly won all three rounds. 

Clay had some great takedowns, sharp sub defense and most importantly he STAYED BUSY on the ground. You can't play the "lay n pray" card here guys. The fight wasn't stood up even once. This isn't UFC 1 and we are not watching Shamrock/Severn if this was lay n pray the fight would have been stood up. 

Every time the fight went to the ground it was exciting - Pettis going for subs, Clay defending and staying busy. 

I'm going to assume this thread was started by a hardcore Pettis fan who saw his boy lose. Its MMA it happens. 

Pettis is a great fighter but in this fight all he proved was that he is good off his back and that he can throw some flashy kicks.

I can understand if there was takedown after takedown and neither fighter did anything but this wasn't the case. 

Why don't they eliminate takedowns all together and the UFC can just become K1!


----------



## Big_Charm (Jan 7, 2011)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> I guess you didn't see or hear Rogan mentioning Guida's shoulder strikes to Pettis.
> 
> Of course, not like it matters, Jon Fitch beat BJ Penn into near retirement, but since he's a wrestler everyone will look past the fact that he did beat BJ's ass in the third round and will call him boring, simply because he did it on the ground and not on the feet.
> 
> Anti-wrestling mentality is ruining MMA, people need to learn to appreciate ALL aspects of MMA.


Brother, I don't think its a hating mentality on wrestling. Its more to do with heavy weight on just take downs, then laying on the opponent and smothering. 

I love the wrestling aspect, as I once was heavily active at a very competitive level... but the system is definitely flawed as the judges weigh heavily on this aspect.

I love all aspects of MMA (I know you weren't directing your response at anyone in particular) just adding some clarification.

:thumbsup:


----------



## OasisSupersonic (May 25, 2011)

If the only interesting thing that happens all year in UFC is a change in the judging system, I wouldn't at all be disappointed.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Am I the only one who gets bored to tears watching K1?


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> *I guess you didn't see or hear Rogan mentioning Guida's shoulder strikes to Pettis.
> *
> Of course, not like it matters, Jon Fitch beat BJ Penn into near retirement, but since he's a wrestler everyone will look past the fact that he did beat BJ's ass in the third round and will call him boring, simply because he did it on the ground and not on the feet.
> 
> Anti-wrestling mentality is ruining MMA, people need to learn to appreciate ALL aspects of MMA.


lmao, are you serious.

It isn't anti wrestling mentality at all. It's anti-juding mentality. I gave Jon Fitch full props for what he did in that third round (even though he didn't attempt to pass guard or establish a dominant position).

I give Clay Guida no props, because other than in the third round, he did **** ALL offensivley on the mat.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

kc1983 said:


> Every time the fight went to the ground it was exciting - Pettis going for subs, Clay defending and staying busy.


I think this is the point we're trying to make. It was exciting because Pettis was going for subs the whole time. Which means, Pettis was getting the advantage (or in pro-wrestler fans eyes at least neutralizing his top game), and the fight should have been stood up at that point. Once your top control in no longer inflicting damage, boom, stand up. It makes sense to me.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

kc1983 said:


> WTF are you guys talking about?? Pettis winning the first and second??????? :sarcastic12:
> 
> Clay Guida clearly won all three rounds.
> 
> ...


Clay didn't stay busy at all, what on earth are you talking about?

What ground and pound did he land? what guard passes did he make? What dominant positions did he establish?! (Again I'm referring the only rounds 1 and 2 here)

Staying busy, means working. Either working to pass the guard and gain a dominant position, working for ground and pound or working for submissions, that is called staying busy. The only thing Clay was busy with was defending submission after submission from the offensive Pettis.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

I've already written in another thread what should be done to prevent too excessive lay and pray:

1. Educating the judges that being on top does not necessarily mean it's a dominant position. As long as the fighter is in its opponent guard it should be considered a neutral position as is done in Jiu Jitsu. Only if one of the fighters takes action (bottom - "real" submission attempt; top - "real" ground n pound) that fighting sequence should be counted in the respective fighter's favor.

2. Allow 12-6 elbows (maybe with the exception that the face is an additional forbidden target to the back of the head, spine, kidneys and groin). It's one of the rare striking tools that also works from the bottom, without them the fighter on the bottom practically cannot apply any functional striking. So it's the rules that make the bottom fighter weaker, not necessarily the position itself. Fighters wouldn't feel comfortable lay and praying if they get constantly hit by elbows and therefore be willing to work on their position.

3. Get rid of the 10 point must system (not only in particular to prevent lay and pray, but a better scoring system in general could maybe also help in this aspect)

4. Differentiate between "finish" victories (KO,TKO,Sub) and "decision" victories. That could be done in the pay, similar to FotN, KotN and SotN. Something like "decision win"=regular pay, "finish win"=double pay (the exact amount of additional pay can be debated of course). In contrast to the FotN, KotN and SotN bonusses the fighter would know that he definitely gets more reward if he successfully takes more risk whereas with the other bonusses he doesn't know whether taking more risk would pay out even if he made a finish. But it could also play a role in the fighter's record and ranking.

That way wrestlers still can score on take downs and use their skills to work for dominant position, but it may prevents fights stopping in a halt position until the time runs up.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

box said:


> I think this is the point we're trying to make. It was exciting because Pettis was going for subs the whole time. Which means, Pettis was getting the advantage, and the fight should have been stood up at that point. Once your top control in no longer inflicting damage, boom, stand up. It makes sense to me.


How can you argue that Pettis was getting the advantage if every submission he threw at Guida was shrugged off? There was one armbar which looked good but Clay defended beautifully. Clay had great top control, solid posture and he did connect with some shots which scored points. 

If I showed this fight to 10 people I guarantee that the majority of them would score this fight in favor of Guida.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Like I said wrist control is about survival. this is what happens to great BJJ without it.




















but it doesn't win by itself.

sub attempts = failed subs

ps. how much credit do you give for takedown *attempts*?


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

Mckeever said:


> Clay didn't stay busy at all, what on earth are you talking about?
> 
> What ground and pound did he land? what guard passes did he make? What dominant positions did he establish?! (Again I'm referring the only rounds 1 and 2 here)
> 
> Staying busy, means working. Either working to pass the guard and gain a dominant position, working for ground and pound or working for submissions, that is called staying busy. The only thing Clay was busy with was defending submission after submission from the offensive Pettis.


You make it seem as if Pettis was the only one doing anything on the ground. BOTH fighters were busy and yes Pettis did go for a lot of submissions but literally all of them were shrugged off. 

Also the name of this thread needs to change...Lay n Pray...when there is lay n pray the fight gets stood up because nothing is going on. The fight never got stood up once.

Pettis certainly didn't have any objections to the decision of this fight. There's no reason to argue this or try and justify anything. To me and to the vast majority of people who watched this fight it was quite clear who the winner was. End of discussion.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

kc1983 said:


> How can you argue that Pettis was getting the advantage if every submission he threw at Guida was shrugged off? There was one armbar which looked good but Clay defended beautifully. Clay had great top control, solid posture and he did connect with some shots which scored points.
> 
> If I showed this fight to 10 people I guarantee that the majority of them would score this fight in favor of Guida.


Who said anything about Pettis winning? I'm just talking about standing them up when no damage is being inflicted, and the person on the ground is actively trying to attack, that's all.

I think if I fought Guida, or that type of fighter, i'd hold rubber gaurd as best I could until it was stood up. The more you move under him, the more it looks like he's doing something.


----------



## burdy (May 22, 2011)

sigh, another exciting fighter turned point machine thanks to greg jackson


----------



## JonCR96Z (Sep 16, 2009)

The fighters know how the judges are. If they don't want lose a decision, then they need to learn how to get up.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

kc1983 said:


> You make it seem as if Pettis was the only one doing anything on the ground. BOTH fighters were busy and yes Pettis did go for a lot of submissions but literally all of them were shrugged off.
> 
> Also the name of this thread needs to change...Lay n Pray...when there is lay n pray the fight gets stood up because nothing is going on. The fight never got stood up once.
> 
> Pettis certainly didn't have any objections to the decision of this fight. There's no reason to argue this or try and justify anything. To me and to the vast majority of people who watched this fight it was quite clear who the winner was. End of discussion.


That's because Pettis was the only one doing any thing on the ground, the only thing Guida was active with was defending Pettis' submissions. There were no guard passes, ground and pound or submission attempts from Guida. He did nothing on the ground.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

box said:


> Who said anything about Pettis winning? I'm just talking about standing them up when no damage is being inflicted, and the person on the ground is actively trying to attack, that's all.
> 
> I think if I fought Guida, or that type of fighter, i'd hold rubber gaurd as best I could until it was stood up. The more you move under him, the more it looks like he's doing something.


I agree that the fight should get stood up if no damage is inflicted. But Guida was doing enough for it not to. He was throwing punches and hitting with the shoulder. In the eyes of the ref and the judges that does inflict damage and it scores points. 

At this point the only time we are going to see a fight get stood up is if neither fighter is busy and they just lay there like a couple of assholes holding each other. Both guys stayed busy in this one.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

kc1983 said:


> I agree that the fight should get stood up if no damage is inflicted. But Guida was doing enough for it not to. He was throwing punches and hitting with the shoulder. In the eyes of the ref and the judges that does inflict damage and it scores points.
> 
> At this point the only time we are going to see a fight get stood up is if neither fighter is busy and they just lay there like a couple of assholes holding each other. Both guys stayed busy in this one.


He was throwing and landing hardly any shots and those shoulder stomps were pathetic. Anthony actually punched Guida in the face more from the bottom position.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

box said:


> I think if I fought Guida, or that type of fighter, i'd hold rubber gaurd as best I could until it was stood up. The more you move under him, the more it looks like he's doing something.


That's probably a problem, yes. The referee sees the bottom fighter is going for submissions and wants to give him the opportunity so he doesn't stand them up, but the uneducated judges only see the other fighter being on top and think he is the dominant fighter.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

Mckeever said:


> That's because Pettis was the only one doing any thing on the ground, the only thing Guida was active with was defending Petti's submissions. There were no guard passes, ground and pound or submission attempts from Guida. He did nothing on the ground.


I disargee. Guida stayed busy on the ground, he landed shots and not one submission posed any danger to him. You can try and justify it any way you want and we can argue about it until my elbow grows an asshole but the fact of the matter is takedowns = points and failed submission attempts = fail

That's how it is and that's how its going to be for a long long time in MMA.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

oldfan said:


> sub attempts = failed subs
> 
> ps. how much credit do you give for takedown *attempts*?


Exactly. We don't give points for stuffed takedowns. We don't give points for punches that miss or get blocked. If you rock the guy with punches, draw blood, or otherwise hurt him you get points, otherwise, not really. Why should subs be different? You should get credit only if the guy's face is turning red from a choke, if he's in pain from having his arm bent the wrong way, or you actually have a sub of some sort locked in deep. Why should subs get credit if the guy isn't being hurt or put in any real danger?


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

So let me ask you guys who think pettis won something.

You say that Guida lost due to being controlled at the wrist and not advancing his position? Well wouldn't the same be true for Pettis? He was being controlled on the ground and was rarely able to advance HIMSELF to a better position. The few times he was able to get to his feet he was taken down at will again and showed a severe lack of TDD.

and to soojooko



> To say you have to complete a sub for it to score is like saying you need to KO your opponent from a punch to score. Punches come in all strengths.


To score you have to land effective aggression. Any punch that lands is effective aggression, but how exactly is a failed sub attempt that is shrugged off effective?

And McKeever, you're blowing the deadliness of those sub attempts WAY out of proportion. Guida was never in any more danger than Pettis was. He shrugged off Pettis' supposedly amazing sub attempts with relative ease.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

aerius said:


> Exactly. We don't give points for stuffed takedowns. We don't give points for punches that miss or get blocked. If you rock the guy with punches, draw blood, or otherwise hurt him you get points, otherwise, not really. Why should subs be different? You should get credit only if the guy's face is turning red from a choke, if he's in pain from having his arm bent the wrong way, or you actually have a sub of some sort locked in deep. Why should subs get credit if the guy isn't being hurt or put in any real danger?


I agree in the way that I wouldn't count a submission attempt like a landed strike or take down, BUT I would count it considering _aggression_ and _dominance_/_control_ (as the opponent has to defend and thereby is on the "retreat" in that fighting sequence).


----------



## Soakked (Feb 5, 2007)

Here's a quote I said in a different thread "It's quite obvious that the rules favor wrestlers". Likewise when it come to scoring interpretation.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

I found it hard to want to give the W to either fighter last night to be honest. Guida did nothing with the takedowns and Pettis did not really come close to getting a sub. Both guys get 0 points for ground work in my opinion because Clay did no damage and Pettis did not lock in any dangerous sub attempts nor was he able to use his BJJ to reverse or sweep.

This is one of those fights which sadly the only successful thing that occurred the entire fight were takedowns from Guida, which led to nothing. Because of this I gave the fight to Guida. Just like I don't score points for attempted takedowns I don't score points for attempted subs unless it leads to a better position somehow. Clay won, but just barely. 

I would probably feel comfortable scoring it a draw and saying neither man did anything worthwhile. It may be worth mentioning that had it not been for the constant sub attempts this fight may have been stood up often. Just food for thought.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

I shall begin my post with a short reminiscence...

Remeber when Clay Guida was exciting? When he didn't care if his opponent was better? He would fight and win or lose everywhere using his tremendous gas tank to outwork his opponents on the ground AS WELL AS the feet. When he actually was the fan-fighter he claimed to be?

Anyway, on to the topic at hand. I f-ing hate LnP. Its the worst thing about this sport. If a fighter has a wrestling base and can't stand and bang, that's fine. Pass the guard. move for the most dominant position and work for the TKO or sub. Its not about finishing, its about TRYING to finish. That's what the fans want. 

Guida's performance was the definition of LnP(in rounds 1 and 2). He secured the takedown, sat in guard. And fought desperately to keep that position. Landed by my personal count less than twenty punches on the ground over both rounds. Landed more than several shoulder attacks. But unless you happen to have a fractured jaw, they will do nothing but keep one from getting stood up. Guida maintained the top position and landed those strikes, and it f*cking disgusted me. So much so that I texted my training partner between rounds 2 and 3 and said "Jitz Monday. I'm watching Pettis vs Guida and I will never let some asshat grind the hell out of me like this EVER!"

Pettis on the other hand stuffed only one or two takedowns, again by my count, but was aggressive off his back. He attempted at least a dozen subs in those two rounds. However, Guida was able to defend all of them, while maintaining top position at almsot every turn. Pettis maintained wrist control throughout the entire fight, but was unable to finish off his back or stand. 

The sad part is that with the judging system the way it is in the UFC, maintaining top position is looked upon as being better than attacking from the bottom. And ALL fighters know this. It's not a surprise when Grind Safe-Pierre out points his opponents. The same with Guida. Jackson's camp is becoming notorious for this. Evans, GSP, Guida. The day Jones grinds out a decision by choice is the day I fill up a gas can and drive to New Mexico. 

Do I wish Pettis had won? Yeah, most definitely. He's a huge raw talent and this loss may put him 2 years away from another shot in the LW division. Do I think he won? No. And its a damn shame to me that he lost.


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

Mckeever said:


> That's because Pettis was the only one doing any thing on the ground, the only thing Guida was active with was defending Pettis' submissions. There were no guard passes, ground and pound or submission attempts from Guida. He did nothing on the ground.


RD 1.

1.09 - Guida catches a kick and secures a TD moving directly into guard.

Pettis attempts 2 triangle's, Guida postures up and throws strikes, nullifying the submission attempts. Guida moves back into Pettis' guard.

Pettis trying hard to keep control of Guida's wrist as Guida throws knee strikes to the back of thigh/anus. Guida lands a strike to the head even with his wrist being controlled. Pettis only offense so far is wrist control and 2 failed sub attempts. Pettis has now been controlled on his back for just over a minute.

Both men throw strikes and in the scramble Pettis attempts what looks like an armbar for a split second before Guida secures top position again and wraps him up.

Guida lands a few strikes, postures up and throws down a few elbow shots before pettis returns to his feet with a wild back kick that catches air. The kick allows Pettis to return to his feet at the 2.00 mark.

Pettis unable to get off the cage as Guida works for a double and then transitions to a single and immediately secures another takedown against the cage in under 20 seconds.

Guida stacks Pettis' up against the cage and rains down elbow strikes from full guard. Follows up with shoulder strikes and a right hand as Pettis holds on.

Pettis wraps Guida up and attempts to lock in another triangle as Guida lands 2 right hands. Guida postures up and escapes as Pettis lands a few strikes from the bottom. Pettis attempts another unsuccessful triangle attempt and eats a hammerfist for his trouble.

Hammerfist to the body as Guida finds it difficult to pass guard with a hard fought attempt. Pettis' leg remains high on Guida's shoulder but presents no real danger at the moment. .30 seconds left in the round.

Guida moves to half guard as both men become tied up. Guida delivers shoulder shots to Pettis as he attempts to free his trapped leg from the half guard position. Guida drops an elbow strike as the round ends with him on top. 

RD. 2.

Pettis looks to land strikes as Guida circles. Both men finding little success on the feet. Guida begins to press forward, becoming the aggressor standing. Guida lands a leg kick and eats a right by Pettis. Pettis trying to tee off but finding it difficult to land on the moving target that is Guida who darts in and out of the pocket.

Guida charges in and pushes Pettis to the cage, lifts Pettis off of his feet and slams him to the ground at the 4.00 minute mark. Pettis has his back against the cage as Guida works to pull his legs out and plant him more securely on the ground.

Pettis eating shoulder shots as he hangs on to Guida. Guida smothering Pettis against the cage, driving his shoulder into the chest of Pettis.

Pettis has now been pressed against the cage unable to amount any offense for a whole minute before posturing up and attempting to get to his feet.

Pettis gets to his feet and is immediately defending a single. Guida lifts Pettis' leg off the mat, lands a strike to the face and the grappling exchange continues. Multiple knees to the leg of Pettis by Guida as he now works for a double. Pettis has found zero offensive success as of the 2 minute mark of this round.

Pettis finds room to separate and both men connect with strikes. we're back on the feet with just under 2 minutes to go.

2 strikes from Guida as he blocks a head kick. 

Pettis trying to find some distance and rhythm as he hits the cage with what could have been a devestating jumping back kick.

Leg kick by guida which is returned by Pettis who's kick is almost caught. 

Guida pressing forward with 1 minute on the clock.

10 seconds later Guida sets up a beautiful shot and plants Pettis on his back once again.

Guida works in a few shots as Pettis throws up a triangle attempt. Guida quickly shrugs off the attempt and answers with a 2 punch combination. Both men wrapped up with 16 seconds remaining.

Pettis attempts a triangle and transitions to a scary looking armbar as Guida spins wildly with the motions. Pulling his arm out at the last second and remaining on top.

RD 3 should be a no brainer. And it's funny just how little offense Pettis was able to mount in the second round. So if you can tell me Pettis won rounds 1 and 2 after that breakdown I just wrote up you're simply delusional. You're also delusional if you're trying to tell me that Guida did absolutely nothing in that fight. This fight was not Lay N Pray, it was a hard fought grappling match that both men had a difficult time advancing in due to their opponents strengths.

Guida said that Pettis' guard was one of the trickiest guards he ever encountered and Pettis admitted that he had some holes in his game and that Guida did a great job in exploiting them. It's time for both men to improve in the aspects of their game that they displayed last night, not time to revamp the scoring system due to this fight.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> In the North American judging criteria, which heavily favors wrestlers.
> 
> Get over it, your boy lost. Don't wanna see "lay n pray"? Tell your boys to learn how to defend a takedown. If Pettis would have defended a takedown, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Guida schooled him and Pettis couldn't do anything. Not every fighter wants to go out there and play rock 'em sock 'em robots, some fighters actually care about their position in the sport and want to win.


Ok Ok, let's break this down with some logic...

So because the judging system cannot accurately score grappling, that is, other than being on top of the other guy, no criteria even exists, everyone should be able to avoid takedowns to avoid this flaw in the system?

GOOD ONE!

So rather than this be MMA, it's actually MMA minus grappling from one's back... you know, like what happens in BJJ all the time? 

Yep, that grappling stuff from the back shouldn't count for anything. But what should count for something is keeping someone on the ground but not actually doing anything other than avoiding aggressive grappling from the other guy, getting reversed and sometimes even failing just bodyweight-hold him there.

What a complete crock of shit.


----------



## hellholming (Jun 13, 2009)

smotherf*ckers.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Like Ape City, I scored the fight for Guida simply based on the takedowns, as they were the only successful executions of the fight. I wasn't too impressed with either fighter though. Clay barely did enough on top to keep it from standing and Pettis' TDD was pretty embarrassing. He looked good on the bottom but didn't do anything other than throw up a dozen failed submission attempts. I treat submission attempts like I do takedown attempts. If they aren't successful or don't lead to a better position then they don't count. In my eyes, guida did more than Pettis to win because he executed the only successful offense of the fight.

McKeever, you're going to be mightily pissed when GSP fights Diaz because I guarantee you that you just saw a short glimpse of what is to come.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

WAR Guida easy winner and did nothing wrong.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Very interesting discussion. With whats being said, I pose one question.

Anyone who's has watched one UFC fight in the past know what judges favor (I.E. TD's). It's safe to assume someone like Pettis knows what the judges would have scored.

So my question is why didn't Pettis work on his TDD? Knowing Guida's style... and that the judges favor that style... why didn't Pettis work TDD so he could keep the fight standing where he would have clearly won?

I don't want to hear that he planned to sub him either. Because if that was he plan, he obviously wasn't able to do it, then he deserved to lose.

Unless of course everyone thought these judges were going to be magically different than the ones over the last 5 years...


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Ari said:


> Like Ape City, I scored the fight for Guida simply based on the takedowns, as they were the only successful executions of the fight. I wasn't too impressed with either fighter though. Clay barely did enough on top to keep it from standing and Pettis' TDD was pretty embarrassing. He looked good on the bottom but didn't do anything other than throw up a dozen failed submission attempts. I treat submission attempts like I do takedown attempts. If they aren't successful or don't lead to a better position then they don't count. In my eyes, guida did more than Pettis to win because he executed the only successful offense of the fight.
> 
> McKeever, you're going to be mightily pissed when GSP fights Diaz because I guarantee you that you just saw a short glimpse of what is to come.


1.) You've always been some huge Pettis hater for what ever reason.

2.)I doubt that, lady. Guida has been renown for his LNP for a long time. GSP on the ground is actually capable of smooth guard transitions and good ground and pound. So if Nick does threaten with subs, I expect GSP to attack with solid ground and pound and guard passes of his own, unlike Guida.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Pettis knows he lost that fight:



> "I think I knew control-wise, he was on top, and he did a good job staying on top," he told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com). "I couldn't get my submissions off. I attempted a lot. I hit him a lot. I just understand how the game works. If he controls you, you lose the round. I didn't do enough to get up off my back, so big up to Clay."


Guida also knows how things are:



> "Wrestling wins championships," Guida told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com). "Look at most of the champs right now, and some of the people that have a hard time. Anderson Silva is one of my favorite fighters, and you've seen that he has trouble with good wrestlers like Chael Sonnen.
> 
> "Cain Velasquez is one of the best wrestlers out there. Georges St-Pierre is a phenom. He's one of those athletes that comes around once every 100 years. The guy could probably go wrestle in the Olympics. You saw he used to struggle with wrestling. Now he's a master of it. Jose Aldo has a couple of holes in his game. We saw besides maybe his gas tank, it could be wrestling. Mark Hominick is not a great wrestler, and he was taking him down.
> 
> "There's no secret anymore. Wrestling wins championships."


source: http://mmajunkie.com/news/23875/des...ales-anthony-pettis-finds-a-silver-lining.mma


That being said i think the judging criteria should be revisited. LnP can´t be judged as highly as it is.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

AmdM said:


> That being said i think the judging criteria should be revisited. LnP can´t be judged as highly as it is.


Yes, no blame on the fighters. They have to earn their living, so of course they use the most effective way according to the rules. It's the system/judges (education) that should be changed.


----------



## mo25 (Feb 7, 2011)

Clay won the fight and I agree with the decision. Pettis couldn't do shit from the bottom. How many times did he go for a sub and failed? A Lot. How many times did Clay go for a takedown and fail? Zero. He was dominant throughout the fight.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

whatever, the reason top position is so heavily rewarded in the points system is because in a real fight you can do TONS of damage from that point. 

In a real fight the wrestler would toss in gouges, 12-6 elbows, groin strikes, throat strikes, knees to the head etc. and destroy the guy on the bottom for trying but failing at submissions. Because rules or no rules, a failed submission is a failed submission, it's worthless. 

You complete a sub, you win the fight. You don't, it doesn't win you any points because it hasn't accomplished shit. If anything you're the one exploiting rules, because without them you couldn't attempt your 10th failed armbar without getting gouged and stomped.

The points system was designed to reflect how a fight would've turned out in the absence of rules to protect the fighters, or a time limit. It was not designed to entertain you or reward "valiant" but ultimately pointless sub-attempts and token fighting from a losing position that would've meant destruction in a real fight.


----------



## Ciaci (Feb 9, 2011)

Personally, I find Guida's style tedious and boring to watch. He won the fight, but in my eyes, did NOTHING of consequence. His repeated take downs followed by shoulder pummels account to very, very little in my book. 

Guida is, in my mind, a very over hyped boring fighter. All of his bouncing around, wild hair and energy give the appearance that he is doing far more than he actually does. I cringe when I watch him.


----------



## Rusko (Feb 4, 2010)

I don't want to see Clay fight again, and I liked him. This is not what a fighter does. I was raging.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Hiro said:


> Ok Ok, let's break this down with some logic...
> 
> So because the judging system cannot accurately score grappling, that is, other than being on top of the other guy, no criteria even exists, everyone should be able to avoid takedowns to avoid this flaw in the system?
> 
> ...


http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/3417

That's all that needs to be said about this fight, Guida out struck AND out grappled Pettis, how he did it isn't an issue. Guida knew what he had to do to win, he went in there and he did it, and now he's right there in the mix for a title shot with Miller/Henderson, Guillard, and Siver.

The criteria the UFC uses is the one they go by, no matter how bad people want the PRIDE rules back, and using the North American rules and that scoring system, Clay Guida beat Anthony Pettis.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> whatever, the reason top position is so heavily rewarded in the points system is because in a real fight you can do TONS of damage from that point.
> 
> In a real fight the wrestler would toss in gouges, 12-6 elbows, groin strikes, throat strikes, knees to the head etc. and destroy the guy on the bottom for trying but failing at submissions. Because rules or no rules, a failed submission is a failed submission, it's worthless.


Not completely. I agree in that a failed submission doesn't help much (if it doesn't improve position or forces the other guy to react defensively). But in a real fight bottom position (and ground fighting in general) is not recommended not so much because the top position guy has a big advantage, but because of his friends who could come around the corner and stomp you on the head with their boots. Everything you describe would translate into MMA as GnP, that's what you can expect of the top position fighter and not having a cuddle between the legs of his opponent. In a real fight people are usually not almost naked, but wear clothes which makes submission escapes A LOT harder, which in consequence makes also GnP harder.


----------



## razorbeck54 (May 27, 2011)

Mckeever said:


> Things like this really just annoy me, it isn't fair, things like this turn me away from this sport I love. The judging system is just appalling. It isn't the scoring system that's at fault, it's purely down to the judges. Robbing so many people of winning fair fights.
> 
> I've had enough of it.


if you dont like the fact pettis got taken down outwrestled and outclassed on the ground shit pettis spent more time on his back than titos wife maybe you should just start watching boxing:sarcastic12:


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

razorbeck54 said:


> if you dont like the fact pettis got taken down outwrestled and outclassed on the ground shit pettis spent more time on his back than titos wife maybe you should just start watching boxing:sarcastic12:


I do watch boxing, thanks. I'm a fan of all combat sports, not some silly little MMA fanboy like yourself.

I will say this, I was extremely impressed with Gudia's take down ability in this fight. Pettis has demonstrated some elite level take down defense in the past. Completely out wrestling Shane Roller (a better pure wrestler than Guida) and out wrestling Ben Henderson, another very solid MMA wrestler.

Guida really shocked me with how well he took Pettis down, given how impressive Pettis' TDD has been in the past against strong wrestlers.

The way he countered Pettis striking with perfectly timed take downs was very impressive, so please don't start with the; "learn some TDD Pettis!", because he's very good in that area.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Mckeever said:


> 1.) You've always been some huge Pettis hater for what ever reason.
> 
> 2.)I doubt that, lady. Guida has been renown for his LNP for a long time. GSP on the ground is actually capable of smooth guard transitions and good ground and pound. So if Nick does threaten with subs, I expect GSP to attack with solid ground and pound and guard passes of his own, unlike Guida.


I don't hate Pettis at all, I just think he's incredibly overhyped. It bugs me when people get all wrapped up about how "exciting" someone is and saying that they will be the "future" and the "next champion" simply because they throw flashy kicks and beat lower mid-tier competition like Ben Henderson and Shane Roller. Last night proved all along what I have been preaching about Pettis since "the kick". He doesn't have the wrestling chops to be a contender in the UFC. He struggled with Ben Henderson who has very average wrestling and Shane Roller's wrestling appears to be very poorly adapted for mixed martial arts. His standup is tricky and technical and his guard is above average, but any decent wrestler will be able to control him with ease. Edgar, Maynard, or Miller would dominate him. However, if anything my opinion of Pettis rose after last night. He's only 24 years old, and he still has tremendous upside. I think if he can work on his TDD and defensive wrestling he just might break the top 10.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Pettis needs to train with Brock. :thumbsup:

Dude, Brock's fighters were not taken down. Even Chris Cope wasn't taken down by Shamar once Brock seriously started training him.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Trix said:


> Pettis needs to train with Brock. :thumbsup:
> 
> Dude, Brock's fighters were not taken down. Even Chris Cope wasn't taken down by Shamar once Brock seriously started training him.


I know you were probably joking with this post, but as I said before, it isn't like Pettis is some scrub in the wrestling area. He has shown excellent TDD in the past against very solid wrestler's, so that makes Guida's actual take downs very impressive.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Ari said:


> I don't hate Pettis at all, I just think he's incredibly overhyped. It bugs me when people get all wrapped up about how "exciting" someone is and saying that they will be the "future" and the "next champion" simply because they throw flashy kicks and beat lower mid-tier competition like Ben Henderson and Shane Roller. Last night proved all along what I have been preaching about Pettis since "the kick". He doesn't have the wrestling chops to be a contender in the UFC. He struggled with Ben Henderson who has very average wrestling and Shane Roller's wrestling appears to be very poorly adapted for mixed martial arts. His standup is tricky and technical and his guard is above average, but any decent wrestler will be able to control him with ease. Edgar, Maynard, or Miller would dominate him. However, if anything my opinion of Pettis rose after last night. He's only 24 years old, and he still has tremendous upside. I think if he can work on his TDD and defensive wrestling he just might break the top 10.


There isn't any thing lower tier about Ben Henderson, he's a top fighter.

I should have rephrased from Anthony Pettis hater, to WEC hater. You seem to think the entire wec roster is rubbish.


----------



## chosenFEW (Oct 25, 2009)

when dana does another one of those Q&A with the fans somebody needs to bring this up to him...

for now it seems wrestling is the go to of the sport. You even saw strikers like jose aldo wreslting in his last fight... Jose is adapting his style to the sport as well. soon he will be wrestling the majority of the time.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Guida won that fight handily. You could choose any 3 judges you want and any judging criteria you want and he'd STILL win. 

Trust me. I'd love to jump on the Guida-bashing wagon here but there is no argument to how he could have possibly lost that fight. Guida may not have done anything but Pettis did even less.


----------



## Will Munny (Jun 4, 2011)

Pretty simple, stop the takedown. No one to blame but himself. It's not like nobody knows Guida's game plan. He does the same shit every fight.

And Henderson is not top tier. I don't see him beating any top 10 lw. Too one dimensional.


----------



## razorbeck54 (May 27, 2011)

Mckeever said:


> I do watch boxing, thanks. I'm a fan of all combat sports, not some silly little MMA fanboy like yourself.
> 
> I will say this, I was extremely impressed with Gudia's take down ability in this fight. Pettis has demonstrated some elite level take down defense in the past. Completely out wrestling Shane Roller (a better pure wrestler than Guida) and out wrestling Ben Henderson, another very solid MMA wrestler.
> 
> ...


well first off you dont know me so dont say im some ******* mma fan boy i was not insulting you. and i never said anything bad about pettis i like the guy but he got mauled in that fight imo


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

Mckeever said:


> I know you were probably joking with this post, but as I said before, it isn't like Pettis is some scrub in the wrestling area. He has shown excellent TDD in the past against very solid wrestler's, so that makes Guida's actual take downs very impressive.


as impressive or not. Pettis was in line for a title shot and the guys at the top of the LW division would outclass Guida in wrestling IMO. That means that regardless of how Pettis' TDD looked against Henderson and Roller, the way it looked against Guida shows that he has a lot of improvement to work on.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Trix said:


> Pettis needs to train with Brock. :thumbsup:
> 
> Dude, Brock's fighters were not taken down. Even Chris Cope wasn't taken down by Shamar once Brock seriously started training him.


The Duke Roufus team does need some serious grapplers there, great stand up but they are lacking, and against the Maynard's of the division it'll be tough.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

It wasn't nearly as bad as Torres vs. Mighty Mouse, but I agree 100%

What we need is Fighting Rules!!


This is the Ultimate Fighting Championship after all :thumbsdown:




DREAM RULES!!!


----------



## Life B Ez (Jan 23, 2010)

Was literally just about to make a thread on this, what Guida did for a win was a joke. He layed on him and didn't get subbed, that is what just earned him a win 30-27.......

It's horseshit.


----------



## Dream-On-101 (Jun 4, 2009)

TheLyotoLegion said:


> You're right.
> 
> It's not K-1, ADCC, it's MMA, wrestling is a part of the sport. If people don't like it, well, they know where to go, is it fair? Well, you can make the argument that taking your opponent down is a sign of "dominance" until the scoring criteria is changed, get used to this.
> 
> I was upset during the fight, not because of the wrestling, I understand it's part of the sport, but it sucked seeing Pettis lose, but you gotta give Guida his props, he did what he had to do to win that fight, and he won.



I genuinely dont know if you are agreeing or disagreeing with what i said. But just in case, no were in my original post did i suggest that wrestling shouldnt be counted, what i was saying that far too much emphasis is placed on it.

Even poor wrestling is given more regard than effective BJJ or other disciplines, as was the case last night. Pettis should have been scoring for having an active ground game, whilst what happened was Guida was rewarded purely for being on top - even though he wasnt winning the fight there to anyone with functional eye balls.


----------



## DJ Syko (Jan 6, 2008)

Mckeever said:


> Just watched you know which fight and I'm ******* fuming, like actually angry. This judging system is ******* bullshit. How can you win rounds via take downs alone? Some one explain that? I gave rounds 1 and 2 definitely to Pettis and Clay the third (just). In rounds one and two Anthony got the better of the limited stand up exchanges and on the ground he was working Guida.
> 
> How the **** can you win the ******* rounds via constantly getting tangled up in dangerous submission attempts and just defending?!!!! How?!!!! Because that's all he was doing, defending countless submission attempts. He did ZERO damage on the ground and only managed to get into any kind of dominant position in round 3 (the round in which I just gave him the edge).
> 
> ...


agree 100%


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Mckeever said:


> I know you were probably joking with this post, but as I said before, it isn't like Pettis is some scrub in the wrestling area. He has shown excellent TDD in the past against very solid wrestler's, so that makes Guida's actual take downs very impressive.



I think this fight showed Pettis TDD is horrible.

Guida was setting his takedowns up somewhat obviously..

This was Guidas gameplan...

1. Stay on the outside, move a lot, strike a little.
2. Catch kicks -> takedown.
3. When Pettis takes a step towards Guida, or begins to come forwards -> initiate takedown.
4. If Guida lands a good punch or kick -> takedown.
5. Control Pettis on the ground and rack up points.

If you watch the fight, you'll notice everytime Pettis starts to move forward a little, he gets taken down.

Pettis is ok when hes circling or waiting for Guida to come to him. But, whenever he loses his patience & starts to come forwards that's when Guida shoots and takes him down.

If Pettis was going to come forwards, he needed to be ready to sprawl or switch it up by taking a step forwards, then moving backwards or something to not make it so obvious when he was coming forwards..


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Trix said:


> I think this fight showed Pettis TDD is horrible.
> 
> Guida was setting his takedowns up somewhat obviously..
> 
> ...


That's all well and good explaining that, but you could say the exact same thing about GSP.

You know the take down is coming, you know he's going to counter your striking with a take down when you push forwards, but there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. That's what I'm getting at.

You might be able to explain how easy it looks to defend on paper, but actually doing it is another story. That doesn't make his take down defense bad, it just makes Guidas execution of the take downs excellent, because i'll admit, they were perfectly timed and set up.


----------



## Vale_Tudo (Nov 18, 2007)

Ref needs to stand guys up earlier, and several takedowns with no activity should be a yellow card and 25% of your purse.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

I agree 100% with everyone in this thread that thinks that Pettis should have won the fight. Being on top, putting no offense together besides takedowns, and never attempting to finish the fight should not win you a fight. In a wrestling match, Pettis got worked. However, it wasn't a wrestling match. 

Yeah, Pettis' TDD wasn't very good, but that is greatly due to his trying to attack on the feet. That's right, trying to finish the fight on the feet. Trying to damage his opponent, ..... There should be consideration taken for attempting to finish the fight as opposed to holding for posotion.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Davisty69 said:


> I agree 100% with everyone in this thread that thinks that Pettis should have won the fight. Being on top, putting no offense together besides takedowns, and never attempting to finish the fight should not win you a fight. In a wrestling match, Pettis got worked. However, it wasn't a wrestling match.
> 
> Yeah, Pettis' TDD wasn't very good, but that is greatly due to his trying to attack on the feet. That's right, trying to finish the fight on the feet. Trying to damage his opponent, ..... There should be consideration taken for attempting to finish the fight as opposed to holding for posotion.


Liddellianenko pretty much said what I need to say for this...



Liddellianenko said:


> whatever, the reason top position is so heavily rewarded in the points system is because in a real fight you can do TONS of damage from that point.
> 
> In a real fight the wrestler would toss in gouges, 12-6 elbows, groin strikes, throat strikes, knees to the head etc. and destroy the guy on the bottom for trying but failing at submissions. Because rules or no rules, a failed submission is a failed submission, it's worthless.
> 
> ...


----------



## mprasek (Jun 18, 2007)

If you are complaining about Guida winning:Why, because your boy can't sweep?

If his jits was so good, he would have gotten up, swept, rolled, forced the stalemate, something.

Not a troll, just tired of bitching about the "rules" because someone wins without a knockout.

m

P.S. A MMA fight without a ground game is just a crappy amateur boxing match.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

So, Guida was in top position. Therefore, he was dominating Pettis because in a real fight he would have done a ton of damage were there no rules to protect the guy on the bottom. The problem with that is that the guy on the top in this fake fight you are imagining would have been trying to finish the fight from the top. Guida did nothing of the sort. And, while trying to finish the fight and cause copious amounts of damage, he would have opened himself up to subs, reversals, and standups. However, because Guida didn't try and finish shit, Pettis was limited to what he could do. He was pinned, held, shoulder humped... 

Your argument works perfectly for a fight where the guy on the bottom cannot mount any sort of offense from the bottom. He does nothing, the guy on top does nothing, but the guy on top would theoretically be doing something because he's in an advantageous position, and therefore wins the fight. 

Put simply, this argument is crap in reference to the Guida/Pettis because the guy on top did nothing but stall


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

I was very impressed with Pettis. I can't wait to see more fights from him. This was just a bad stylistic matchup. I posed a question a couple pages back that no one responded to. After reading more I have another one.

Why should attempted subs (which do no damage at all) be weighed more than TD's? Because you are trying to sub with little to nothing to show for means it should score more than TD where you actually accomplished what you wanted to do?

Last I checked attempted TD's don't score you anything. So why should attempted subs?


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

YELLOW CARD.




fixes everything seriously. I'm positive Alves would have crushed Story if yellow cards were in place, etc.


----------



## Trix (Dec 15, 2009)

Mckeever said:


> That's all well and good explaining that, but you could say the exact same thing about GSP.
> 
> You know the take down is coming, you know he's going to counter your striking with a take down when you push forwards, but there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. That's what I'm getting at.
> 
> You might be able to explain how easy it looks to defend on paper, but actually doing it is another story. That doesn't make his take down defense bad, it just makes Guidas execution of the take downs excellent, because i'll admit, they were perfectly timed and set up.



The timing of GSP's takedowns aren't predictable. You can't really tell when he's going to shoot.

The timing of Guida's takedowns are really predictable, though. I could tell when Guida was going to shoot just by watching how Pettis was moving. If you can, watch the fight again. Watch how obvious Guida is with his timing -- almost everytime Pettis starts to move forwards, Guida shoots.

Not necessarily in the 1st round when they were feeling each other. But, definitely in the 2nd and 3rd.

Guidas takedowns weren't well setup. Its Pettis' weak TDD that is making Guida look better than he is, unfortunately.

Then again, Pettis might have tired out his legs in the 1st with all those triangle attempts. Maybe its not really fair to generalize.


----------



## BrutalKO (Oct 5, 2006)

...Hence the familiar words "Never leave it in the judges hands". Understandably, fights will go to a close decision so I also agree more scrutiny should be placed on the judging. We often wonder: Do they go strictly by the book? Based on effective Striking, Grappling, Aggression and Octagon control? One thing is certain- There are fights that need better technical judging since MMA has quickly evolved and some fights can be too close too call...


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Davisty69 said:


> So, Guida was in top position. Therefore, he was dominating Pettis because in a real fight he would have done a ton of damage were there no rules to protect the guy on the bottom. The problem with that is that the guy on the top in this fake fight you are imagining would have been trying to finish the fight from the top. Guida did nothing of the sort. And, while trying to finish the fight and cause copious amounts of damage, he would have opened himself up to subs, reversals, and standups. However, because Guida didn't try and finish shit, Pettis was limited to what he could do. He was pinned, held, shoulder humped...
> 
> Your argument works perfectly for a fight where the guy on the bottom cannot mount any sort of offense from the bottom. He does nothing, the guy on top does nothing, but the guy on top would theoretically be doing something because he's in an advantageous position, and therefore wins the fight.
> 
> Put simply, this argument is crap in reference to the Guida/Pettis because the guy on top did nothing but stall


You don't get any points for 'trying' in MMA. You don't get points for "trying" to take someone down, "trying" to knock them out, or "trying" to submit them. All that matters is execution and Pettis executed nothing what so ever in that fight. But of course he "tried".

Fact of the matter was, Guida took Pettis down several times and maintained top position. Guida doesn't get any points for taking Pettis down or controlling him on the mat, but Pettis gets points for trying to submit/finish Guida and failing? That doesn't make any sense. Need I remind you all but one of those submission attempts were shrugged off with ease.

If this were a Johnson/Torres I would be on the other end because Torres tore up Johnson from within his guard. Pettis did nothing but try a dozen failed submission attempts.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

All Pettis managed was high guard a few times in the first you shouldn't win a round based on that. Wrist control, throwing your legs up, and moving your hips are not "dangerous submission attempts". Neither guy really did much of any scoring in that round. Draw round no one scored enough to deserve a point advantage for it. 

A yellow card isn't going to matter Maz has the option to stand the fight up for stalling and he never did even though that is all Guida did for 90% of the time he was ontop. The ref is the one who gives out cards and if he won't even stand them up he isn't taking a point or 10% of their purse.


----------



## Crester (Apr 5, 2009)

Add me to the list of people that weren't happy with the Guida Lay-N-Pray. I mean technically you gotta give the win to Guida because he held Pettis down for the entire fight. But seriously... so much of the fight was just Guida laying on top of Pettis while humping him and pushing his shoulder into his face.

They need to do something about this.


----------



## MLD (Oct 15, 2006)

oldfan said:


> How many people here have ever won a fight by laying on their back and not completing a sub?
> 
> Pettis fought well and made me a new fan.
> 
> he did not win.:cheeky4:


This is what I was thinking...I'm a Pettis fan, but I saw Guida win last night.


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

Crester said:


> Add me to the list of people that weren't happy with the Guida Lay-N-Pray. I mean technically you gotta give the win to Guida because he held Pettis down for the entire fight. But seriously... so much of the fight was just Guida laying on top of Pettis while humping him and pushing his shoulder into his face.
> 
> They need to do something about this.


isn't it pettis that needed to do something about this?


----------



## NotDylan (Jul 13, 2009)

PheelGoodInc said:


> I was very impressed with Pettis. I can't wait to see more fights from him. This was just a bad stylistic matchup. I posed a question a couple pages back that no one responded to. After reading more I have another one.
> 
> Why should attempted subs (which do no damage at all) be weighed more than TD's? Because you are trying to sub with little to nothing to show for means it should score more than TD where you actually accomplished what you wanted to do?
> 
> Last I checked attempted TD's don't score you anything. So why should attempted subs?


I'll play Devil's advocate. 

A successful submission ends a fight, a successful takedown does not (with the exception of a few cases). So one could argue that submission attempts should have more weight than takedown attempts. 

At the same time, not all sub attempts are equal, some are easily defended and others _nearly_ end the fight. Would you weight them differently or would simply being active from the guard score you points?

Another point to consider: The submission fighter needs only to pull off one submission and he ends the fight decisively while the lay and pray artist must complete multiple takedowns, defend the sub attempts, and control his opponent on the ground for the entirety of the fight.


----------



## Steroid Steve (Oct 1, 2010)

sNuFf_rEaLiTy said:


> isn't it pettis that needed to do something about this?


The UFC needs to do something about this. Fighters conforming to the system DOESN'T fix the system. This is much bigger than Pettis.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Voiceless said:


> Not completely. I agree in that a failed submission doesn't help much (if it doesn't improve position or forces the other guy to react defensively). But in a real fight bottom position (and ground fighting in general) is not recommended not so much because the top position guy has a big advantage, but because of his friends who could come around the corner and stomp you on the head with their boots. Everything you describe would translate into MMA as GnP, that's what you can expect of the top position fighter and not having a cuddle between the legs of his opponent. In a real fight people are usually not almost naked, but wear clothes which makes submission escapes A LOT harder, which in consequence makes also GnP harder.


Well obviously I meant a one on one real life fight (those do happen) and not a battle royale. In most of those, ground fighting as you said is a pointless gambit.

But yes I forgot to factor in clothing. It's a varying factor though, no one wears tough, loose and easy to grab clothing like the Gi in real life either, so I guess it depends on what exactly the guy is wearing. 

However I admit you're right, once you think about it in terms of the lack of clothing and sweat advantage wrestlers get in the cage, sub-attempts actually have a more valid case for points value.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> Well obviously I meant a one on one real life fight (those do happen) and not a battle royale. In most of those, ground fighting as you said is a pointless gambit.
> 
> But yes I forgot to factor in clothing. It's a varying factor though, no one wears tough, loose and easy to grab clothing like the Gi in real life either, so I guess it depends on what exactly the guy is wearing.
> 
> However I admit you're right, once you think about it in terms of the lack of clothing and sweat advantage wrestlers get in the cage, sub-attempts actually have a more valid case for points value.


In a real fight the guy on the bottom would break the guys arm and the fight would be over, especially a bitch wrestler.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

Bknmax said:


> In a real fight the guy on the bottom would break the guys arm and the fight would be over, especially a bitch wrestler.


Um yeah I'm talking about FAILED sub attempts maybe you missed that part. i.e. no arm breakage, just flopping around on your back. Failed attempts don't get you shit except your face smashed in. On the streets especially. 

If you're up against some noob that has no knowledge of submissions then yes you wouldn't fail, but I'm talking about scoring the bout between two professionals as if it were a real fight (because that's was scoring is there for) without rules or time limits to hinder them.


----------



## BronxBruceWayne (May 15, 2009)

AGREED. took the words right out of my mouth. and i was just as irritated watching the fight, and afterwards. I'm not even that BIG of a pettis fan, but i knew what kind of fight we COULD have seen if they put together a better matchup. i knew this was gonna be guidas game plan. disappointing because guida is a relatively boring fighter, hes got great conditioning, and a good drive n wrestling, but his standup is sub par and i wouldnt wanna see him as champion anyway if he won. pettis comes to FIGHT. not lay on top of you for 3 rounds to 'grind out' a win.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

I really don't know what to think about some things I have read here. 
Seems many people have no idea what the term "lay and pray" means.
And it seems many of those people are under the mistaken impression that Anthony Pettis beat Clay Guida on Saturday night.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Lots of interesting posts in this thread. If Guida is given the title shot, he's going up against either Edgar or Maynard, both of whom in my opinion are of the same top notch cardio that Guida has, but both are superior in striking and wrestling than Guida. I see the same thing happening to Guida in a title fight against either of those two in the same fashion as what happened when Guida fought Diego. He's gonna get bloodied up and nullified.


----------



## kritter (Apr 22, 2007)

Something needs to be done, and actually will be done if fights get too boring. 

As people have already said, the problem is not really the rules but how they are interpreted. That said, I would be up for the rules being given an overhaul to make things more clear for the judges.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

I'm not one of these guys who think Pettis won this fight! I think he clearly lost as well!!

Doesn't change the fact, that Dream Rules are indispensable for the Future of this Sport.


Otherwise people will play the rules all the time which is a NO-Go!!


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

Not sure about all this but what I do know is that some young punk kid ran his mouth and then got skilled. Next time he should just keep his mouth shut.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Hexabob69 said:


> Not sure about all this but what I do know is that some young punk kid ran his mouth and then got skilled. Next time he should just keep his mouth shut.


i dont recall pettis being a cocky dick neither does anyone else, and i wouldn't say he got skilled, i would say he got layed on like a human blanket and thats about it, doesnt matter because i wanted miller to get the next shot anyways, and jim was right in saying guida would win too


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Liddellianenko said:


> Well obviously I meant a one on one real life fight (those do happen) and not a battle royale.


Yes, but you never know whether the other guy has some back up around the corner or not (unless you're the one with back up that makes sure no one interferes). That's why you want to avoid any ground fighting in general.



Liddellianenko said:


> But yes I forgot to factor in clothing. It's a varying factor though, no one wears tough, loose and easy to grab clothing like the Gi in real life either, so I guess it depends on what exactly the guy is wearing.
> 
> However I admit you're right, once you think about it in terms of the lack of clothing and sweat advantage wrestlers get in the cage, sub-attempts actually have a more valid case for points value.


Yes, clothes vary, but already a simple T-shirt makes a big difference, because it gives enough friction to make it a lot harder to slip out of a submission. And a sweater or jacket makes it like another world of fighting with the possibilities of grabbing the clothes and thereby controlling the opponent and/or using it for chokes. Wrestling is dangerous on the street with its take downs, in particular if you are aware not to simply bring someone to the ground (which on concrete can already be quite devastating), but to throw him into objects (preferably solid hard corners of them).


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

UFC_OWNS said:


> i dont recall pettis being a cocky dick neither does anyone else, and i wouldn't say he got skilled, i would say he got layed on like a human blanket and thats about it, doesnt matter because i wanted miller to get the next shot anyways, and jim was right in saying guida would win too



I understood him to say Guida was given to him as a filler fight while he waited to get Edgar/Maynard. What better way to insult the guy who just insulted you than to make it last 15 minutes. The system which points are given may be flawed, but that is the system in place at present. The Miller fight will be much more entertaining anyway.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

Ari said:


> You don't get any points for 'trying' in MMA. You don't get points for "trying" to take someone down, "trying" to knock them out, or "trying" to submit them. All that matters is execution and Pettis executed nothing what so ever in that fight. But of course he "tried".
> 
> Fact of the matter was, Guida took Pettis down several times and maintained top position. Guida doesn't get any points for taking Pettis down or controlling him on the mat, but Pettis gets points for trying to submit/finish Guida and failing? That doesn't make any sense. Need I remind you all but one of those submission attempts were shrugged off with ease.
> 
> If this were a Johnson/Torres I would be on the other end because Torres tore up Johnson from within his guard. Pettis did nothing but try a dozen failed submission attempts.




So what was it that Guida was doing other than laying on Pettis? You'd like to think he was TRYING to do something at least, but he wasn't even doing that. He was having some level of control over Pettis and that is it, but some of the time it was Pettis was controlling him from his back which is a more skillful and impressive thing to do than just laying on someone. The guy on top is the one with gravity on his side, if he can't do anything other than avoid subs and have his wrists controlled then he should be losing points, not gaining them.

Pettis didn't land subs but Guida didn't even try, he just chilled out on the ground and scored points for doing nothing. 

There comes a point when you have to look at this and say a fighter who takes another down is then in an advantageous position, they can simply apply their bodyweight to stay in that position without much skill or advancement required. So why should that score points on its own? Without strikes, transitions, sub attempts (i.e effective grappling) why should this be allowed to go on and ultimately win a fight?

Pettis didn't do much to win the fight either but it's pretty difficult when you've got a wrestler laying on you for 3 rounds. Is that martial arts, laying on someone? Is that what you consider a fight? It neutralises what many consider to be martial arts, or a fight. It stops anything happening.

I've said all this before. Doing what Guida did to Pettis is only controlling him, rather than controlling him as a means to implement some form of attack or advancement on the ground. It's avoiding the fight.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Ari said:


> You don't get any points for 'trying' in MMA. You don't get points for "trying" to take someone down, "trying" to knock them out, or "trying" to submit them. All that matters is execution and Pettis executed nothing what so ever in that fight. But of course he "tried".


Actually, here lies the problem. You *do* get points for *trying* to knock someone out. You get points for every punch connected, whether they are hard or not. However, a BJJ fighter on his back doing his thing, will never get any points at all unless he completes a sub. That means that a striker or wrestler have far more opportunities for scoring points than a fighter who likes fighting off his back. This, fundamentally, cant be right. Its is MMA. All disciplines should carry equal weight. But the reality is, they dont. Being on your back is automatically considered inferior positioning, even though some fighters might specialize in it.

To be clear. I have no problem with Guida winning. He used the rules and did what he had to. My problem is that the rules allow for this kind of win-without-fighting technique. It favours wrestlers, no doubt.

I want MMA to be just that: Mixed. I dont see why one discipline should be favoured over another as far as scoring criteria go. It needs to be changed.


----------



## anderton46 (Apr 23, 2010)

/The sport is MMA, not Equally balanced Martial Arts. If one is more effective then let it be so. People say Guida did nothing yet he obviously was attempting to pass guard and posture to strike otherwise there would have been no room for submission attempts. There has to be space to throw the legs up, and that space means Guida isn't just 'Laying and Praying' if Pettis had worked a better gameplan he would have controlled Guida from bottom and got the standup.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> whatever, the reason top position is so heavily rewarded in the points system is because in a real fight you can do TONS of damage from that point.
> 
> In a real fight the wrestler would toss in gouges, 12-6 elbows, groin strikes, throat strikes, knees to the head etc. and destroy the guy on the bottom for trying but failing at submissions. Because rules or no rules, a failed submission is a failed submission, it's worthless.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:


----------



## Hennessy (Feb 28, 2011)

Mckeever said:


> Just watched you know which fight and I'm ******* fuming, like actually angry. This judging system is ******* bullshit. How can you win rounds via take downs alone? Some one explain that? I gave rounds 1 and 2 definitely to Pettis and Clay the third (just). In rounds one and two Anthony got the better of the limited stand up exchanges and on the ground he was working Guida.
> 
> How the **** can you win the ******* rounds via constantly getting tangled up in dangerous submission attempts and just defending?!!!! How?!!!! Because that's all he was doing, defending countless submission attempts. He did ZERO damage on the ground and only managed to get into any kind of dominant position in round 3 (the round in which I just gave him the edge).
> 
> ...


I with you all the way brother.
In japan they had horrible judging sometimes BUT at least they only scored a TD IF you do something from it.
I think that has to be implemented in the UFC but they won't do it.

They clearly want to favour wrestlers since they have an almost unlimited supply there. Those rules motivate college or high school wrestlers to go there, learn a few punches and win.
It's not only the TD point system though. Also the elbows on the ground need to go. I saw so many fights were the opponent was taken down and nothing else happended but shoving the elbow in the face. Often resulting in a win due to cuts.

But I also want to make clear, I do not blame the wrestler or the athlete for this. I would take advantage of this point system as well. I only blame the sytem.

Just saw that the autor got banned...I hope this is because of the way he spoke to some (guess he was still to fuled up...wasnt good homey) and NOT because of his opinion


----------



## kritter (Apr 22, 2007)

Saying that top position should be rewarded because "in a real fight" you would be able to win is silly - you still got hammer fists, elbows, subs from the top. If you can't do the damage with this, you won't be able to do the damage will illigal strikes either. 

Posture up, take some risks, do the damage or don't get any points for you take down and "control".

By the way this is responding to what Liddellianenko said.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Hennessy said:


> I with you all the way brother.
> In japan they had horrible judging sometimes BUT at least they only scored a TD IF you do something from it.
> I think that has to be implemented in the UFC but they won't do it.
> 
> ...


I don´t think elbows need to go. I think knees and kicks to downed opponents need to get back.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

Hennessy said:


> I with you all the way brother.
> In japan they had horrible judging sometimes BUT at least they only scored a TD IF you do something from it.
> I think that has to be implemented in the UFC but they won't do it.
> 
> ...


I don´t think elbows need to go. I think knees and kicks to downed opponents need to come back.
Wrestlers would not abuse so much if they were afraid of eating their own mouth piece. :thumb02:


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

what needs to stop is this thread.

save some for this weekend when JDS and Maia both get out wrestled.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

AmdM said:


> I don´t think elbows need to go. I think knees and kicks to downed opponents need to come back.
> Wrestlers would not abuse so much if they were afraid of eating their own mouth piece. :thumb02:


knees and kicks would never be sanctioned by any american athletic committee which is a real shame, i would be content with 10 minute first rounds and pride yellow cards for lay and praying and pride judging criteria, the japanese know how mma should be fought and judged


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> what needs to stop is this thread.
> 
> save some for this weekend when JDS and Maia both get out wrestled.


jds is getting the KO quick oldie and munoz is getting the KO quick too haha, i think nunes will 'upset' florian too


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

oldfan said:


> what needs to stop is this thread.
> 
> save some for this weekend when JDS and Maia both get out wrestled.


lol that´s real funny

Maia is gonna put Munoz to sleep and Carwin will put himself to sleep past round 2!


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I know I'll catch it for this but... I think Maia has better stand up...


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> I know I'll catch it for this but... I think Maia has better stand up...


blashpemy outrageous insane crazy, munoz will haymaker maias head into orbit ala dollaway


----------



## Hennessy (Feb 28, 2011)

Well I do not think that Kicks on a grounded opp. should come back. thats something that MMA does not need. Elbows on the ground however never stop a fight. they again favour Lay and pray and also make it bloody very quick. another thing that MMA does not need. Im all for knees on the ground though. The whole sprawls wouldnt be that easy anymore.

And again, I myself do wrestling in my gym. I like wrestling.
I think that wrestling is VERY efficient not only in MMA but also in real life combat.

But I also think that even the biggest wrestling nuthugger here cant be in favour of LnP rules. I dont wanna spend my hard earned bucks on fights like these.


----------



## anderton46 (Apr 23, 2010)

Hennessy said:


> Well I do not think that Kicks on a grounded opp. should come back. thats something that MMA does not need. Elbows on the ground however never stop a fight. they again favour Lay and pray and also make it bloody very quick. another thing that MMA does not need. Im all for knees on the ground though. The whole sprawls wouldnt be that easy anymore.
> 
> And again, I myself do wrestling in my gym. I like wrestling.
> I think that wrestling is VERY efficient not only in MMA but also in real life combat.
> ...


I acutally don't mind the current ruleset, but I definitely think that knee's to grounded opponants would definitely mean failed takedown attempts can be punished more and would make wrestlers think twice about shooting.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

Hennessy said:


> Elbows on the ground however never stop a fight. they again favour Lay and pray and also make it bloody very quick.


Tell that to Jon Jones' recent victims, something tells me Vera, Hamill, and Matyushenko would disagree. Or hell, GSP's taken out a few guys with elbows on the ground, Matt Hughes in the rematch, Sean Sherk, and Jay Hieron.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

AmdM said:


> I don´t think elbows need to go. I think knees and kicks to downed opponents need to come back.
> Wrestlers would not abuse so much if they were afraid of eating their own mouth piece. :thumb02:


So True :thumbsup:



AmdM said:


> lol that´s real funny
> 
> Maia is gonna put Munoz to sleep and Carwin will put himself to sleep past round 2!


:thumb02:

Maia is better everywhere except Wrestling. If Munoz wants to use his Wrestling he's got some balls^^


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Two Things.

1. If you're high enough Nick makes perfect sense.

2. Judging by this video and this thread, Nick should be the most popular fighter on the forum.


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

I kind of see both sides of the argument, but do agree that MMA judging needs to be revisited. On one side of things I've got to give the fight to Pettis because despite being on the bottom Guida was fighting for his life not to get submitted. On the other hand Guida was in dominant positions and while I didn't sit down and judge it by BJJ rules there's a good chance he'd have won even in a BJJ competition. My biggest problem is that Guida wasn't really working to do any damage - he was only working to hold on to the other guy. It was obvious that his gameplan was to smother Pettis and that shouldn't be a viable strategy. It's not the ultimate hugging championship. But again, on the flip side of the coin you've gotta work your takedown defense so people can't take the fight where they want it. See Torres vs. Mighty Mouse.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

Diaz has the right idea. Pride had the right idea. Let's make some moves Dana. Yellow cards baby!


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Well said Nick :thumbsup:


----------



## Hennessy (Feb 28, 2011)

he's definetly on the money here.


----------



## cdtcpl (Mar 9, 2007)

Not sure if this has been shown yet, but according to Fight Metric, Clay Guida landed more significant shots and won the fight:

http://blog.fightmetric.com/2011/06/guida-vs-pettis-official-ufc-statistics.html


----------



## SM33 (Sep 22, 2009)

It is a tricky situation. Working for submissions from the bottom is activity and aggression, but it's all or nothing - you either get the sub and end the fight, or you don't manage to get it by the final bell and you've inflicted little damage throughout the fight, you don't have a lot to show for your efforts.

Being on top, it is a naturally more advantageous position when both fighters are highly skilled. You can be 50% aggressive and still do damage, still land shots and still control the fight. You're using less energy than the other guy, and he will look tired quicker.

So the argument is, working hard to finish opponent but not getting the finish vs. gaining good position and then working only to maintain it, not improve it and finish opponent. Most minor shots landed vs. most fight-ending techniques attempted. I suppose if it's a draw in terms of grappling and no one gets a submission, you have to look at the most shots landed, and 9/10 times that will be the guy on top. They may not be trying to finish, but they are successfully using more techniques.

I think there are very solid arguments for both sides and the best way to neutralise it is to call fights like Guida vs Pettis a draw. Pettis actually had Guida in trouble more times than vice versa, but Guida did more 'damage' and did control the fight. Guida 100% dictated where the fight went, but he didn't ever hurt Pettis and was in a few bad situations during the fight, not really win-worthy. Pettis couldn't dictate the fight, but he 100% defended against the dictator and even managed to put him in trouble at times, though landing fewer strikes, not really win-worthy. DRAW.

If more fights like this were a draw, you would quickly see fighters change their methods and goals for the fight. I personally believe the TUF system would help an awful lot too if it were implemented, but drawing more fights of this type would be a good start.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

oldfan said:


> Two Things.
> 
> 1. If you're high enough Nick makes perfect sense.
> 
> 2. Judging by this video and this thread, Nick should be the most popular fighter on the forum.


I was thinking about rolling one before seing that interview,
but you know what? I didn´t and still made perfect sense to me.

Way to go, Nick Diaz. You rub the truth in their faces!


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

SM33 said:


> It is a tricky situation. Working for submissions from the bottom is activity and aggression, but it's all or nothing - you either get the sub and end the fight, or you don't manage to get it by the final bell and you've inflicted little damage throughout the fight, you don't have a lot to show for your efforts.
> 
> Being on top, it is a naturally more advantageous position when both fighters are highly skilled. You can be 50% aggressive and still do damage, still land shots and still control the fight. You're using less energy than the other guy, and he will look tired quicker.
> 
> ...


It's very easy actually

Just watch some fights in Japan and you will agree with every single decision. There isn't a bad decision up there.


The only thing we need to do is apply those rules to America and we won't have a loser winning again :thumbsup:


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Liddellianenko said:


> Um yeah I'm talking about FAILED sub attempts maybe you missed that part. i.e. no arm breakage, just flopping around on your back. Failed attempts don't get you shit except your face smashed in. On the streets especially.
> 
> If you're up against some noob that has no knowledge of submissions then yes you wouldn't fail, but I'm talking about scoring the bout between two professionals as if it were a real fight (because that's was scoring is there for) without rules or time limits to hinder them.


BJJ,*****,Judo are not just Grappling ,they teach clinch close range strikes that you can use, many fights end up in this situation.Many of the locks and chokes that are done on the ground, can be applied while standing.Jiu Jitsu, American kickboxing, Muay Thai and Judo/ *****, Combat ***** they have you start out training for worst case scenarios they teach you how to fight random schmucks you might run into. When the bullets run out i would rather be Combat ***** trained then wrestling.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

SM33 said:


> I think there are very solid arguments for both sides and the best way to neutralise it is to call fights like Guida vs Pettis a draw. Pettis actually had Guida in trouble more times than vice versa, but Guida did more 'damage' and did control the fight. Guida 100% dictated where the fight went, but he didn't ever hurt Pettis and was in a few bad situations during the fight, not really win-worthy. Pettis couldn't dictate the fight, but he 100% defended against the dictator and even managed to put him in trouble at times, though landing fewer strikes, not really win-worthy. DRAW.
> 
> If more fights like this were a draw, you would quickly see fighters change their methods and goals for the fight. I personally believe the TUF system would help an awful lot too if it were implemented, but drawing more fights of this type would be a good start.


I think that's not a that bad idea and thought myself that calling more fights a draw (and consequently not sharing any win-bonus and not climbing the contender ladder) would bring fighters more to try to actually WIN their fights. If there isn't a clear winner fighting wise why call one of the fighters a winner anyway¿


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

The judges have no real choice but to score for the top position if neither guy is scoring. I think a yellow card is a fair idea to bring back but what I would prefer to see is simply this.

If you are caught stagnating in a dominant position the referee gives your opponent the option of standing up or starting in top guard themselves. 

This is a solid reformation but it will also require referees who can actually tell the difference between being busy and looking busy.


----------



## Bonnar426 (Jul 18, 2006)

I can't believe people are making this out to be a controversial decision when its not. It was plain as day that Guida won that fight.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Fieos said:


> The judges have no real choice but to score for the top position if neither guy is scoring. I think a yellow card is a fair idea to bring back but what I would prefer to see is simply this.
> 
> If you are caught stagnating in a dominant position the referee gives your opponent the option of standing up or starting in top guard themselves.
> 
> This is a solid reformation but it will also require referees who can actually tell the difference between being busy and looking busy.


That would never work. Then guys on bottom are going to cling onto top guys to cause a stailmate. Then the guy on bottom gets to go on top because of it? That makes no sense. Not to mention it would drastically change the outcome of a lot of fights and it would lead to massive outrage. There needs to be less of waiting before standups IMO. Thats the only practical solution.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

PheelGoodInc said:


> That would never work. Then guys on bottom are going to cling onto top guys to cause a stailmate. Then the guy on bottom gets to go on top because of it? That makes no sense. Not to mention it would drastically change the outcome of a lot of fights and it would lead to massive outrage. There needs to be less of waiting before standups IMO. Thats the only practical solution.


It is pretty hard to tie someone up from the bottom to the point they can't do anything and hold that for any length of time. A properly executed can-opener makes mortals of us all.

However, another option would be a warning and then a penalty point for stalling. 

I'd like to find some solution to lay and pray though. I agree with the Guida/Pettis decision completely but would like to add more finish incentive and less control incentive to fights. Quicker standups means I'll see even less cool submissions. I don't want to negate the ground game, and the ground game takes time to set up. I want to encourage transitions, submission attempts, etc. Don't stand them up, encourage productive activity...

Maybe, and just maybe on this one... If you are caught stalling in the top position your opponent get to bring in a gay teammate to help out?


----------



## cdtcpl (Mar 9, 2007)

BobbyCooper said:


> Just watch some fights in Japan and you will agree with every single decision. There isn't a bad decision up there.


This is sarcasm, right?


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

cdtcpl said:


> This is sarcasm, right?


If you would have seen the recent Dream events, you wouldn't have to ask me that question.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

Man i'd love yellow cards to come to the UFC, but I really doubt they ever will.


----------



## Nefilim777 (Jun 24, 2009)

I think we can all rant and rave about how bullshit the scoring system in MMA is, but until the Athletic Commission gets their finger out and changes the scoring our anger is merely in vain.


----------



## satanius (Mar 28, 2010)

Apparently, under these fucked up unified rules, guys like Pettis that are good off their back would be better off not trying any subs when getting fitched because if they miss it counts for shit and it prevents judge from standing them up. And it saddens me to see one more exciting fighter ruined by Jacksons' famous "perfect gameplanning".


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

satanius said:


> Apparently, under these fucked up unified rules, guys like Pettis that are good off their back would be better off not trying any subs when getting fitched because if they miss it counts for shit and it prevents judge from standing them up. And it saddens me to see one more exciting fighter ruined by Jacksons' famous "perfect gameplanning".


That is a good point, Pettis could have held on and got the stand-up every time. Then it would just become a straight wrestling match. Takedown, standup, takedown, standup etc.

I am shocked that there's people on here who think one fighter laying on another constitues some sort of point deserving event, where as giving the guy on top fits by controlling their wrists and throwing sub attempts out (i.e to some extent controlling them, which in some cases is all the top guy can say for himself) desevres no credit whatsoever.

Why does grappling get no points at all except for an executed sub attempt or laying on top of the other guy? Is there no control involved in grappling? Isn't neutralising the wrestler on top of you some sort of progress as far as being on your back is concerned?

The one who gets the takedown gets some score for that, no doubt. But then the situation is the guy on top has got himself into an advantageous position where he has gravity on his side, so from there if he just lays there then he's actually done pretty bad. 

If the guy on bottom controls the guy on top, he's doing especially good in this case. That deserves credit, the guy on top got his point for the takedown but now it's not an equal playing field and if the guy on bottom is being more threatening and having considerable control over what happens down there then he should get more credit. The guy on top is just a dead weight if he can't do anything, why should that get points?


----------



## Breadfan (Jan 3, 2008)

I was just talking with a coworker about this today. I think a lot would be different today if they made guard a neutral position. This way Guida might get points for the takedown, but might not get points for octagon control since he'd be controlled from sub attempts so often. 


To be fair - On one side, Pettis threw a ton of Sub attempts and was working hard... but Guida didn't get subbed, so he was defending them as well. With takedowns and full guard judged the way they are now, Guida won that fight in my unprofessional opinion. Pettis is awesome though.


----------



## satanius (Mar 28, 2010)

With so many crappy decisions lately, this doesn't even stands out (shouldn't be 30-27 though, but 10 point must system sucks anyway). What bugs me the most, fighters exploiting this flawed scoring system and getting wins while practically doing nothing. Wasn't there some japanese mma promotion once in a time (which one exactly skips my mind atm...) where every fight that didn't end with knockout/sub was automatically declared a draw? That could spice things up .


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

Breadfan said:


> I was just talking with a coworker about this today. I think a lot would be different today if they made guard a neutral position. This way Guida might get points for the takedown, but might not get points for octagon control since he'd be controlled from sub attempts so often.
> 
> 
> To be fair - On one side, Pettis threw a ton of Sub attempts and was working hard... but Guida didn't get subbed, so he was defending them as well. With takedowns and full guard judged the way they are now, Guida won that fight in my unprofessional opinion. Pettis is awesome though.


Just plain guard is a neutral position and your opinion is pretty much accurate. If the fighters just sit there holding each other no points are scored for either guy in terms of grappling(octagon control and aggression likely goes to guy on top though). Problem is the takedown scores and weak sub attempts are worth no more then the sub defenses so it goes something like the following. 

Guida gets takedown +1
Pettis sub attempt +1
Guida sub defense +1
Guida punch or shoulders +1
Pettis sub attempt +1
Guida sub defense +1

So on and so forth. Pettis is lucky to break even, the only time he gains a point is on attempts like his armbar that allow him to get back to his feet or actually put his opponent in serious danger. He only did that once though and even if you give him the 2nd round for that attempt and some better striking he still loses the fight 29-28.


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

Breadfan said:


> I was just talking with a coworker about this today. I think a lot would be different today if they made guard a neutral position. This way Guida might get points for the takedown, but might not get points for octagon control since he'd be controlled from sub attempts so often.
> 
> 
> To be fair - On one side, Pettis threw a ton of Sub attempts and was working hard... but Guida didn't get subbed, so he was defending them as well. With takedowns and full guard judged the way they are now, Guida won that fight in my unprofessional opinion. Pettis is awesome though.


This! make full guard a neutral postition, start using yellow cards & allow upkicks to the head when the guy on top has his knees on the ground, and this silly wrestle-fest will stop. Within the current rules Guida won the fight...it was ugly, boring and hard to watch but he won.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

mmaswe82 said:


> This! make full guard a neutral postition, start using yellow cards & allow upkicks to the head when the guy on top has his knees on the ground, and this silly wrestle-fest will stop. Within the current rules Guida won the fight...it was ugly, boring and hard to watch but he won.


I do think they need to allow upkicks. I agree with not being able to kick or knee a grounded opponent if you are the one with top control as it can lead to some very dangerous situations but if you are on the bottom then it is one of your only defenses and you should be allowed to kick your way out if you have that ability.


----------



## satanius (Mar 28, 2010)

420atalon said:


> I agree with not being able to kick or knee a grounded opponent if you are the one with top control as it can lead to some very dangerous situations


C'mon dude, it was, and still is, allowed in japanese mma and nothing bad ever happened because of it, it's one of the rules that favors wrestlers for sure. Football kicks (since I'm european i won't call them soccer kicks )should also be allowed.


----------



## trimco (Feb 4, 2011)

Breadfan said:


> I was just talking with a coworker about this today. I think a lot would be different today if they made guard a neutral position.


This is a damn good idea.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

trimco said:


> This is a damn good idea.


It's a no brainer.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Except for the fact that its not a neutral position.


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

420atalon said:


> I do think they need to allow upkicks. I agree with not being able to kick or knee a grounded opponent if you are the one with top control as it can lead to some very dangerous situations but if you are on the bottom then it is one of your only defenses and you should be allowed to kick your way out if you have that ability.


yea exactly, well I do believe that knees and kicks should be allowed when the oponent has one or two knees on the ground as well, but not if he's flat on the ground. Maybe if both knees and hands/elbows are on the ground, then no knees/kicks, but the rule of just putting your hand on the ground & you can't knee him is just stupid. But especially from your back, IMO it,s crazy that it isn't allowed.



> Except for the fact that its not a neutral position.


Well thats a matter of opinion. In grappling it is considered neutral, so why not in MMA?
I actually believe that it's a neutral position, well depending who's guard it is but if it's not a good guard then you should be able to pass it anyway. To me it would make absolut sence to count it as neutral in MMA as well.


----------



## zath the champ (Feb 13, 2008)

This fight pissed me off too. 

Wrestling is a great way to get INTO MMA, but pinning someone down waiting for the clock to run out just ruins the entire fight.

If you do not try to finish from the top or at least do damage; it should be at best 10/10.

10 POINT MUST
1) Striking - Pettis easily
2) Grappling - I gave this to Pettis; just escaping and LNP is not going to end a fight.
3) Aggression - Really?
4) Control - There is a reason this is last and it should be the last damn thing that ANYONE uses to judge who won a round, especially when the other 3 criteria could go to the other fighter.

What is more effective grappling: 20+ Sub attempts with strikes from the bottom and damn near perfect wrist control, or humping someones leg?

Which is more aggressive?

Which is more likely to decisively win the fight?

Clay Guida may have "won"; but every time a fight ends this way: MMA loses.

PS. Not every wrestler does this:
Cain
GSP
Kos
Hughes 
Jones
Bader

The list goes on and on. Coming from a wrestling background does not mean you have to wet blanket your way to the cards.

/rant off


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Nefilim777 said:


> I think we can all rant and rave about how bullshit the scoring system in MMA is, but until the Athletic Commission gets their finger out and changes the scoring our anger is merely in vain.


Yes, it's the Athletics commission which is in charge for the rules and judges that interpret them, but it's Zuffa and Dana White who make the fighters' pay. If they decided that fighters who actually finish a fight and don't go for a decision would get a considerable higher pay, fighters may think over their strategies. And they make the match ups. If they decided that finishers get a contender fight considerably earlier then decisioners fighters might be more motivated to actually fight and target a finish instead of waiting for a decision in their favor.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

We had a similar discussion about the Johnson win.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> Yes, it's the Athletics commission which is in charge for the rules and judges that interpret them, but it's Zuffa and Dana White who make the fighters' pay. If they decided that fighters who actually finish a fight and don't go for a decision would get a considerable higher pay, fighters may think over their strategies. And they make the match ups. If they decided that finishers get a contender fight considerably earlier then decisioners fighters might be more motivated to actually fight and target a finish instead of waiting for a decision in their favor.


Fight Bonus?


----------



## zath the champ (Feb 13, 2008)

Voiceless said:


> Yes, it's the Athletics commission which is in charge for the rules and judges that interpret them, but it's Zuffa and Dana White who make the fighters' pay. If they decided that fighters who actually finish a fight and don't go for a decision would get a considerable higher pay, fighters may think over their strategies. And they make the match ups. If they decided that finishers get a contender fight considerably earlier then decisioners fighters might be more motivated to actually fight and target a finish instead of waiting for a decision in their favor.


Jon Fitch

I'd say that decision was made long ago.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Most importantly, get away from the Unified Rules first of all!! 

The Sport evolved ones again.. so should the Rules!


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Just watched Hansen/Ishida and I saw Pettis/Guida all over again (minus the suplex).


----------



## satanius (Mar 28, 2010)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Just watched Hansen/Ishida and I saw Pettis/Guida all over again (minus the suplex).


Yeah, but Hansen won


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

satanius said:


> Yeah, but Hansen won


Exactly my point. :thumb02:


----------



## pipe (Jun 15, 2008)

No win bonus for a decision, that might liven it up.


----------



## Fieos (Mar 26, 2007)

Very few guys would risk a loss for the win bonus. You only have so many years to compete in MMA and a loss sets you too far back in the UFC.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

mmaswe82 said:


> Well thats a matter of opinion. In grappling it is considered neutral, so why not in MMA?
> I actually believe that it's a neutral position, well depending who's guard it is but if it's not a good guard then you should be able to pass it anyway. To me it would make absolut sence to count it as neutral in MMA as well.


Its never been considered a neutral position at our Dojo. Its always considered a position of advantage regardless of scoring or how skilled the guy on bottom is.

Like I said in another thread, if you cloned (insert fighter here)lets say GSP and put the clone in GSP's guard who would have an advantage? The clone right, I can do that with most fighters, few of them make me think hmm the bottom position is more adventitious for this guy than top.

I also feel the fighter on top has less risk (not 0 risk just less) and more options than the fighter on bottom, the fighter on top can chose to stand the fighter on bottom can not.

I do think pulling guard should count as a TD, I have to take the kids to school Ill be back!


----------



## THE MADSCOTSMAN (Mar 14, 2008)

Its boring as hell and does nothing good for the sport. Guida didnt try yo end the fight Pettis did, he was throwing kicks like he was Tony Jaa. I dont buy the hype with Guida I want to like him cause he never fuckin stops. And to take that kick from sanchez and get up took balls. But most of these Greg jackson trained fighters do the same thing: lay and pray.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> Just watched Hansen/Ishida and I saw Pettis/Guida all over again (minus the suplex).


This is the Fight every MMA Fan in America should be commend about!!

This is how it's should be done and is a role model for the entire Sport!!



WE NEED DREAM RULES!!!


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

slapshot said:


> Except for the fact that its not a neutral position.


You're right it's not actually... but currently the guy on top gets the bias when it should be the guy on bottom who has this if any such bias has to exist. In MMA the guy on top has a clear advantage, which is why if he does shit all apart from keep the guy there he shouldn't score barely any points. But if the guy on bottom is managing to control despite gravity being against him, throwing out subs etc i.e being the better grappler given the circumstances, the bottom guy should get points for that.

Your attitude is the crux of why this issue exists. Judges think that just because a guy is on top he's somehow doing better than the guy on bottom. No, in many cases the guy on top can't even manage to pass, attempt to sub or land any decent strikes at all. See Rashad Evans, see Clay Guida the other night.

End of story.


----------



## UKMMAGURU (Nov 15, 2009)

Hiro said:


> You're right it's not actually... but currently the guy on top gets the bias when it should be the guy on bottom who has this if any such bias has to exist. In MMA the guy on top has a clear advantage, which is why if he does shit all apart from keep the guy there he shouldn't score barely any points. But if the guy on bottom is managing to control despite gravity being against him, throwing out subs etc i.e being the better grappler given the circumstances, the bottom guy should get points for that.
> 
> Your attitude is the crux of why this issue exists. Judges think that just because a guy is on top he's somehow doing better than the guy on bottom. No, in many cases the guy on top can't even manage to pass, attempt to sub or land any decent strikes at all. See Rashad Evans, see Clay Guida the other night.
> 
> End of story.


The thing is though, if you compared how many fights were ended in the full guard position, Top VS Bottom we can safely say Top position wins.

I really don't know what a good solution would be to LnP though.

:confused02:


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

gazh said:


> The thing is though, if you compared how many fights were ended in the full guard position, Top VS Bottom we can safely say Top position wins.
> 
> I really don't know what a good solution would be to LnP though.
> 
> :confused02:


Maybe youre right but it's not very common to finish someon from the full guard either, some fighters manage to do it but it's fairly uncommon...nowadays finishes from the bottom are as well tho so who knows.
Thats why I feel that guard should be nutral because more often than not neither fighter is able to do anytjing with it.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

mmaswe82 said:


> Maybe youre right but it's not very common to finish someon from the full guard either, some fighters manage to do it but it's fairly uncommon...nowadays finishes from the bottom are as well tho so who knows.
> Thats why I feel that guard should be nutral because more often than not neither fighter is able to do anytjing with it.



More fights have been finished from bottom via triangle than from ground and pound inside guard, that's for sure.


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

khoveraki said:


> More fights have been finished from bottom via triangle than from ground and pound inside guard, that's for sure.


yea thats what I figured as well.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> More fights have been finished from bottom via triangle than from ground and pound inside guard, that's for sure.


You think there have been more subs from the bottom than on top?


----------



## mmaswe82 (Feb 22, 2010)

BobbyCooper said:


> You think there have been more subs from the bottom than on top?


not from all top positions ofcourse, just guard.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

mmaswe82 said:


> not from all top positions ofcourse, just guard.


ohh got ya  thats a different story then^^


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

slapshot said:


> Except for the fact that its not a neutral position.


As long as you don't GnP or pass and go for a submission it actually IS, because just laying in the opponent's guard without doing anything to really "win" the _fight_ is just stalling. It does literally *nothing* to the opponent. So why give the top guy any points for being in the opponent's guard¿ Because he _could_ do GnP or something similar to really win the fight¿ Hell, then he should actually DO the GnP or something similar to earn the points, just as the bottom guy should go for submissions to win the fight.


----------



## minimal crimina (Apr 1, 2011)

Voiceless said:


> As long as you don't GnP or pass and go for a submission it actually IS, because just laying in the opponent's guard without doing anything to really "win" the _fight_ is just stalling. It does literally *nothing* to the opponent. So why give the top guy any points for being in the opponent's guard¿ Because he _could_ do GnP or something similar to really win the fight¿ Hell, then he should actually DO the GnP or something similar to earn the points, just as the bottom guy should go for submissions to win the fight.


I just don't see how the hell judges point for top control while submissions attempts remains unaccounted for. Not taking credit off takedowns, but as brazilian and BJJ black belt I have to defend it, in my conception wrestling is far more simple and straight foward than JJ. 

JJ is an art, wrestling is not. It takes a lot more to form a BJJ black belt than a wrestling top fighter, so the sport should consider that in scoring.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> As long as you don't GnP or pass and go for a submission it actually IS, because just laying in the opponent's guard without doing anything to really "win" the _fight_ is just stalling. It does literally *nothing* to the opponent. So why give the top guy any points for being in the opponent's guard¿ Because he _could_ do GnP or something similar to really win the fight¿ Hell, then he should actually DO the GnP or something similar to earn the points, just as the bottom guy should go for submissions to win the fight.


Well I think half the people that complain dont like wrestling period not everyone but a lot. If the fight is slow on the ground everyone wants to cry lay & pray, and just forget that guida landed more strikes than pettis and you know he probably landed more strikes because he was in top position.

If its a neutral position then the guy on bottom should just get up if he doesn't like the way its going...

but in the context that we are talking about it here he cant because its not a neutral position no matter how mind numbing or boring it can get one fighter is still imposing his will on the other IE control. 

I also think in fights like the Danny Downes fight the damage from the sub attempt should be scored but Pettis didn't do any damage. I've always felt if a fight is slow and you have to decide the round by control whoever had it longer should win the round when everything else is even.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

minimal crimina said:


> JJ is an art, wrestling is not. It takes a lot more to form a BJJ black belt than a wrestling top fighter,


Wrong. What on earth are you basing that statement on? Both are difficult but I would bet that you need significantly more hours of practice to become a top wrestler (depending on the definition of "top") than to get a BJJ black belt. If being a top wrestler was easier than getting a black belt in BJJ then why don't we see more guys do it given that wrestling has virtually always dominated MMA?


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

Hey all beings this has been off track for a bit now lets Finally let this thread die and start a new one on the new topic


----------



## minimal crimina (Apr 1, 2011)

Drogo said:


> Wrong. What on earth are you basing that statement on? Both are difficult but I would bet that you need significantly more hours of practice to become a top wrestler (depending on the definition of "top") than to get a BJJ black belt. If being a top wrestler was easier than getting a black belt in BJJ then why don't we see more guys do it given that wrestling has virtually always dominated MMA?


Only because wrestling is much more difficult to find good gyms and trainers outside the US. Here in Brazil, for instance, its very difficult to come across them. We train wreslting even in my taekwondo gym (for the black belts that compete in IMAS, a variation of MMA), but our trainers are not wrestlers, so we just go for the basics. 

If I could, I would train wrestling, but its impossible for me, at least where I live. 

A BJJ Black belt takes in average 10 years to get. I know nowadays anyone can get a black belt in BJJ, but that doesn't mean everyone who gets it EARNS it. I understand BJJ masters giving black belts to anyone, only for the lights and fame from MMA, but if you walk into a Gracie's gym here in Brazil and wants a black blet, you will have to prove yourself (and is not easy, believe me).

Answering your question, I'm basing my statment on the fact that BJJ is much more of a Martial Art than wrestling. For me wrestling is just a sport, although effective in MMA. Therefore, BJJ techniques should score more points, even when not successful. The thing is when fighters BJJ techniques are successful, the fight ends, and I think thats the main reason why judges don't score for submissions atempts.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

minimal crimina said:


> Only because wrestling is much more difficult to find good gyms and trainers outside the US. Here in Brazil, for instance, its very difficult to come across them. We train wreslting even in my taekwondo gym (for the black belts that compete in IMAS, a variation of MMA), but our trainers are not wrestlers, so we just go for the basics.
> 
> If I could, I would train wrestling, but its impossible for me, at least where I live.
> 
> ...


Your saying unsuccessful Sub attempts should have more value than successful wrestling? I agree that BJJ is more complex however you should have to be able to determine some type of advantage gained from the attempt for it to count IMO. 

Otherwise I can just throw up loose ass shit that I was never going to be able to use and keep the scorecards close.

I would think that if avoiding a TD wile standing counts as maintaining control then sub defense in top position could be looked at in the same way, just a thought. If the NSAC web site was less of a chore Id go look to see if they even have a guideline.


----------



## minimal crimina (Apr 1, 2011)

slapshot said:


> Your saying unsuccessful Sub attempts should have more value than successful wrestling? I agree that BJJ is more complex however you should have to be able to determine some type of advantage gained from the attempt for it to count IMO.
> 
> Otherwise I can just throw up loose ass shit that I was never going to be able to use and keep the scorecards close.


If by successful wrestling you mean TDs than no, but if you mean just being on top, then it should. I think maintaining top control after a TD should score the same as being on your back trying to submit! The Pettis/Guida is a reference to that. If octagon control on the ground means only being on top, than no fighter would have the incentive to try submissions from their backs, and BJJ fighters are conditioned to do so, even if only for pride (AS vs Sonnen).


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

slapshot said:


> Otherwise I can just throw up loose ass shit that I was never going to be able to use and keep the scorecards close.



The equivalent of the wrestling butt-scoot?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

minimal crimina said:


> If by successful wrestling you mean TDs than no, but if you mean just being on top, then it should. I think maintaining top control after a TD should score the same as being on your back trying to submit! The Pettis/Guida is a reference to that. If octagon control on the ground means only being on top, than no fighter would have the incentive to try submissions from their backs, and BJJ fighters are conditioned to do so, even if only for pride (AS vs Sonnen).


Its tricky because most times you need some degree of control to attempt a sub however its very rare that the fighter can control from bottom for any length of time.

My major disagreement with most here is over top position being neutral. I see a lot of people talking specifically about full guard and maybe full guard is the least advantageous top position but if a fighter like Clay is still striking in between defending subs then that's not lay n pray IMO. 

If you are on your back trying to submit, you are still *attempting*, if I pull off a dbl and then land in full guard and Im able to hold you down Im past attempting, Im controlling and that should count for more than a attempt because I am actually imposing my will you are not.

The closest scoring system (in MMA) that Ive seen to what people are asking for is fightmetric and most here dont like their criteria.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Torres was on the Savage Dog show saying in his next fight if he gets full mount or a position like that, he'll just lay on top of the guy and win the decision.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

I agree that holding a guy and DOING NOTHING but defending Subs shouldn't been seen as a victory.... Unless he does damage or advances to a very good posistion and attempts to sub them....

I think there should be a lot more fights won off there back... When someone is on top but is taking elbows and defending subs all day, shouldn't be winning the fight

The main problem is that fighters are seeing that this is the way to win, and people from the Greg Jackson camp usually go purely for the LnP system, and if they started giving BJJ and strikes off there back more credit it would limit the amount of LnP artists UNLESS there very good at ground control and are actually active when they take them down


----------



## Absed (Sep 21, 2010)

I just gotta state that being inside someones guard isn't a neutral position! The guard is a neutral position in BJJ but in MMA there are strikes involed so the one on top has the advantage. So in my view the guard is a slightly favorable position for the top guy... In my view Guida barely won rounds one and two and won round three so I don't see this as a big robbery. If Pettis can improve his wrestling a bit I'm sure he will be a force to be reckoned with. Though there are a lot of good wrestlers in the lightweight division which will make things difficult for Pettis.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

Absed said:


> *I just gotta state that being inside someones guard isn't a neutral position! The guard is a neutral position in BJJ but in MMA there are strikes involed so the one on top has the advantage*. So in my view the guard is a slightly favorable position for the top guy... In my view Guida barely won rounds one and two and won round three so I don't see this as a big robbery. If Pettis can improve his wrestling a bit I'm sure he will be a force to be reckoned with. Though there are a lot of good wrestlers in the lightweight division which will make things difficult for Pettis.


Of coarse he has the slight advantage being on top, but if he doesn't do anything with it, and the guy off his back is throwing sub after sub i would say that gives the guy off his back the slight advantage because at least Pettis was trying to end the fight and Guida was enjoying himself while doing squat...


----------



## minimal crimina (Apr 1, 2011)

Machida Karate said:


> Of coarse he has the slight advantage being on top, but if he doesn't do anything with it, and the guy off his back is throwing sub after sub i would say that gives the guy off his back the slight advantage because at least Pettis was trying to end the fight and Guida was enjoying himself while doing squat...


Thats just about it. Its like the judges see the sub atempts and think "Lets see if he can wrap it up with that" and if the fighter can't finish with the submission, the judges don't even remember to score it. That makes no sense to me, if its MMA, and active striking and TDs scores even when not successful (considering the opponent do nothing) submission atempts should score too. Its only fair.

I mean, look at some of Maia's fights. How can anyone say his transitions off his back, swepts and grapling on the ground wouldn't count for nothing if he haven't finished the fights?


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

"Thank you" Brenneman for taking the lay and pray to a whole new level - GOD LEVEL! :thumbsdown:


----------



## anderton46 (Apr 23, 2010)

limba said:


> "Thank you" Brenneman for taking the lay and pray to a whole new level - GOD LEVEL! :thumbsdown:


The first two rounds it was more Story holding on that prevented Brenneman really doing anything. Once Story loosened up on the ground he started getting close to sub attempts,the triangle to triangle transition was pretty slick. ,


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

No worse than wall & stall, IMO. Story isn't really that great, so it was nice to see him lose in this manner.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

Woodenhead said:


> No worse than wall & stall, IMO. Story isn't really that great, so it was nice to see him lose in this manner.


If that's what you think, i'm just gonna say: i stronhly disagree with you.

I'm not a fan of Story. This isn't about him.
It's about a guy, hugging another guy on the ground for 10 minutes and people calling this fighting.

At least Story tries to punch his opponents from time to time when leaning on the fence.

All i've seen was Brenneman holding on to Story like he was auditioning for a leading actor in a romantic movie...


----------



## xbrokenshieldx (Mar 5, 2007)

Agreed. This lay and pray stuff is almost getting as played out as the threads bitching about it.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

It was Story's job to prevent the hugging, not Brenneman's job to stop doing something that was so effective just to please Limba.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

khoveraki said:


> It was Story's job to prevent the hugging, not Brenneman's job to stop doing something that was so effective just to please Limba.


Honestly...can you call Brenneman's performance as MMA?!


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

meh I'm not a fan of LnP either, but in the case of Brenneman/Story, it was just a 1 dimensional fighter doing it to a 1.1 dimensional fighter...

And until they somehow change the rules, the onus is on the fighter to prevent LnP (or Wall n Stall), not the fighters who utilize it.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

MMA - Mixed Martial Arts - A group of talented fighters who fight style vs style with the use of different martial arts.

Wrestling is part of MMA, it's a fighting style. Whether it's boring or not, is irrelevant, it's still a dominant part of MMA and, as a MMA fighter, you must defend that wrestling, if you can't, then you are the lesser mixed martial artist that night, as your gameplan did not work, and your skills could not overcome another person's skillset.

Story lost to a guy who had a base better than his own, what can you say?


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

I wasn't able to see the fight. I listened live to Joe and Goldy. It SOUNDED like an active and very technical fight.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

M.C said:


> Story lost to a guy who had a base better than his own, what can you say?


I'll say: i'm gonna stop watching Brenneman fight.

Simple as that.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

limba said:


> I'll say: i'm gonna stop watching Brenneman fight.
> 
> Simple as that.


Okay, there are fighters that I also don't watch. I'm even done watching GSP fight for the very same set of reasons.

You shouldn't go around saying it's not an MMA fight, though, as it is an MMA fight, Brenneman used a skill in MMA to defeat Story, and Story had no answers for it.

I mean, I dislike GSP for jabbing someone to death and having no intentions whatsoever to finish anyone, yet I don't say his fights are "not MMA". It's all MMA, just sometimes a fighter is boring/not entertaining to you. 

It happens.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

nick diaz is coming to save the welterweight division come october 29 hear me now, GSP will not lay and pray his way to another defense


----------



## music5x5 (Jun 9, 2010)

UFC_OWNS said:


> nick diaz is coming to save the welterweight division come october 29 hear me now, GSP will not lay and pray his way to another defense


Once Nick Diaz gets knocked out, he'll most likely become more cautious and may even start laying and praying.


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

music5x5 said:


> Once Nick Diaz gets knocked out, he'll most likely become more cautious and may even start laying and praying.


You should be permanently banned for this ridiculous comment alone.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Without getting into technicalities... the fight bored me. I stopped watching mid way through round 2. Right or wrong, that's how I felt.

*SPOILERS*

Meanwhile, buried in the prelims was a most enjoyable deconstruction of Nick "teh lay-n-pray" Lentz by Oliviera. How beautiful was that? Just when BJJ is seemingly losing its effectiveness against wrestlers, this fight has given me hope. If you haven't seen it, please do. Especially if you hate LnP. It's a wonderful fight.


----------



## Abrissbirne (Jul 4, 2010)

Mckeever said:


> You should be permanently banned for this ridiculous comment alone.


wrong, he gets repped from me for that


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Without getting into technicalities... the fight bored me. I stopped watching mid way through round 2. Right or wrong, that's how I felt.
> 
> *SPOILERS*
> 
> Meanwhile, buried in the prelims was a most enjoyable deconstruction of Nick "teh lay-n-pray" Lentz by Oliviera. How beautiful was that? Just when BJJ is seemingly losing its effectiveness against wrestlers, this fight has given me hope. I you haven't seen it, please do. Especially if you hate LnP. It's a wonderful fight.


BJJ will never die!


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Without getting into technicalities... the fight bored me. I stopped watching mid way through round 2. Right or wrong, that's how I felt.
> 
> *SPOILERS*
> 
> Meanwhile, buried in the prelims was a most enjoyable deconstruction of Nick "teh lay-n-pray" Lentz by Oliviera. How beautiful was that? Just when BJJ is seemingly losing its effectiveness against wrestlers, this fight has given me hope. I you haven't seen it, please do. Especially if you hate LnP. It's a wonderful fight.


i knew oliviera would do that in his fight which is the exact reason me and mckeever and i think oldie think diaz will do the exact same thing that oliviera did to lentz to gsp


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

UFC_OWNS said:


> i knew oliviera would do that in his fight which is the exact reason me and mckeever and i think oldie think diaz will do the exact same thing that oliviera did to lentz to gsp


Hold your horses there beach boy. Never in a million years will Diaz vs GSP resemble Olivera vs Lentz. Not even close. If it does, I'll give you all my credits. No catch.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Hold your horses there beach boy. Never in a million years will Diaz vs GSP resemble Olivera vs Lentz. Not even close. If it does, I'll give you all my credits. No catch.


then be prepared young stallion you will be flat broke in october


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Soojooko said:


> Without getting into technicalities... the fight bored me. I stopped watching mid way through round 2. Right or wrong, that's how I felt.
> 
> *SPOILERS*
> 
> Meanwhile, buried in the prelims was a most enjoyable deconstruction of Nick "teh lay-n-pray" Lentz by Oliviera. How beautiful was that? Just when BJJ is seemingly losing its effectiveness against wrestlers, this fight has given me hope. If you haven't seen it, please do. Especially if you hate LnP. It's a wonderful fight.


what does an illegal knee KO have to do with bjj?


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

oldfan said:


> what does an illegal knee KO have to do with bjj?


He didn't KO him, he subbed him and any time it went to the ground before the knee, Oly was dominating him.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Mckeever said:


> He didn't KO him, he subbed him and any time it went to the ground before the knee, Oly was dominating him.


he choked a semiconscious victim of an ILLEGAL KNEE

The official record should say that he won by stupid ref


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

oldfan said:


> he choked a semiconscious victim of an ILLEGAL KNEE
> 
> The official record should say that he won by stupid ref


I'm not disagreeing, but you said he won via KO, technically he won via BJJ submission.

And as I said, even before that, the wrestler Lentz was getting dominated by the BJJ fighter on the ground.


----------



## UFC_OWNS (Jul 7, 2010)

oldfan said:


> he choked a semiconscious victim of an ILLEGAL KNEE
> 
> The official record should say that he won by stupid ref


yeah but he was gonna win anyways by RNC oldie, it was just a matter of time, the knee was illegal but it would have been same result 2 minutes later, but pennslyvania dont know how to ref, oh look story has a triangle lets stand him up because he isn't doing anything, oh look story is trying for a kimura nothing happening hear lets stand him up, charlie is laying on rick like a heavy sack of potatoes lets let them still 'work'


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

At the end of the day, that knee will hurt Oliveira more than it hurt Lentz.
He will be left without a win, which i think it´s pretty obvious he was gonna get anyway, and some of the people/haters that don´t understand (and don´t want to) that it was an accident will give him bad blood for that.

What i do know, is that i wasn´t expecting Oliveira BJJ to be that good to the point where he can neutralize a Wrestler of Lentz caliber. I´m more of a fan of him now.


----------



## chosenFEW (Oct 25, 2009)

Mckeever said:


> I'm not disagreeing, but you said he won via KO, technically he won via BJJ submission.
> 
> And as I said, even before that, the wrestler Lentz was getting dominated by the BJJ fighter on the ground.


I wouldn't say charles dominated on the ground. from what I remember, he was definitely more active once they hit the ground, but it was a constant back and fourth there. Now the stand up, thats where charles really blasted him with some sharp shots.


from what I remember they both had some pretty tight chokes locked on each other


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

chosenFEW said:


> I wouldn't say charles dominated on the ground. from what I remember, he was definitely more active once they hit the ground, but it was a constant back and fourth there. Now the stand up, thats where charles really blasted him with some sharp shots.
> 
> 
> from what I remember they both had some pretty tight chokes locked on each other


Ahh, that's true actually, I remember Lentz trying to secure a choke on Oliveria right before he almost got choked out.

I'll have to watch it again tbh, I was a bit drunk, maybe it wasn't as dominating as I thought.


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Maybe I'm wrong but, they don't usually give FOTN bonuses for one sided dominations do they?


----------



## Mckeever (Apr 26, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Maybe I'm wrong but, they don't usually give FOTN bonuses for one sided dominations do they?


Chris Lytle vs Brian Ebersole was awarded fight of the night and lytle got dominated pretty bad in that fight.


----------



## Hexabob69 (Nov 8, 2008)

Damn look at this resurection, you all should finally let this thread die or sticky it. I do not think it is sticky worthy but it seems to keep getting trudged up. I agree that it may need to stop, but until there is some rule adjustments and different scoring rules we are stuck with all this. It is far from the fighting Jhn McCain wanted to ban, but like all things in America it either goes Way too Left or Way to Right... Let it die or come up with a unique perception of this...


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

oldfan said:


> what does an illegal knee KO have to do with bjj?


Thats not my point. Forget the who won this and that. My point is that a strong wrestler like Lentz had his wrestling negated by a strong aggressive BJJ game. Unlike the recent Torres and Pettis fights, where the dude on the bottom was attacking but still on the bottom. Olivera was constantly escaping Lentz as well as his aggressive BJJ. It was a beautiful thing to watch. 

Why did it get FoTN? Maybe because Dana was as impressed as I was.


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

M.C said:


> It happens.


I just hope it "stops from happening".

That's all.

At least GSP sent Koscheck to surgery with his "jab and pray" and sidelined him for a year.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

oldfan said:


> he choked a semiconscious victim of an ILLEGAL KNEE
> 
> The official record should say that he won by stupid ref


It looks like it's now a no contest anyway. lol


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

The more i think about it the worse I feel for Story, They went and found a Ref that was so incompetent he stood them up when Story had a triangle and was attempting a kimura.

Lets go back to no time limits lol.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

LOL this old chestnut , hahaha what a stupid thread.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Thats not my point. Forget the who won this and that. My point is that a strong wrestler like Lentz had his wrestling negated by a strong aggressive BJJ game. Unlike the recent Torres and Pettis fights, where the dude on the bottom was attacking but still on the bottom. Olivera was constantly escaping Lentz as well as his aggressive BJJ. It was a beautiful thing to watch.
> 
> Why did it get FoTN? Maybe because Dana was as impressed as I was.


But Oliveira is truly exceptional! He's a Future Champion for a reason. 

It's pretty impossible for 98% of the people out there to become as great as Oliveira already is with his guard and JJ Game.

It's like saying people should learn to have as exceptional TDD as Machida.. it's Impossible for almost everyone!


----------

