# Cormier telling the realest thing about MMA



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

It's kind of like pushing someone into the corner of the screen on Street Fighter II back in the day; if you don't like it then get out of the corner, bro. Many, many fans and fighters alike have made it known to the world that they don't appreciate the grinding style brought on by fighters with wrestling backgrounds, and Olympic wrestler Daniel Cormier had a little something to say to them on todays Heavyweight Grand Prix conference call.



> "It's not my job, it's not Jon Fitch's job, it's not Josh Barnett's job to actually team someone takedown defense," "It's their job to learn takedown defense. If they can't defend the takedown, then they deserve to lay on their back for 15 minutes."
> 
> 
> "I think it's always good to put on exciting fights," Cormier said. "I like to fight. This is my job. If that means I have to stand with him and fight, then I have to fight. What if I can't take him down? But at the end of the day, it's about winning."
> ...


Simple as that. Why blame a winner? Should a winner knowingly fight an easier fight just because the fans don't maybe like it?


----------



## Intermission (Oct 1, 2009)

This is what I have been saying about Jon Fitch forever now.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

I've said the same thing in the past but i hope it opens some eyes seeing as it's coming from a pro fighter.


----------



## HaVoK (Dec 31, 2006)

It's a very valid point and it's one that has been brought up many times in the past. In a street fight you do what you got to do to win. But, Sport is entertainment. Some people do not find the lay&pray style entertaining. As a fight fan, I do not mind watching a fight that consit of a lot of takedowns. What turns me away is the guy who takes an opponent down and does nothing but control him. Because they are so focused on not letting them up. Take a person down and do something with it, is what I prefer to see.

Fighters will find some success with the mindset...win at all cost. Take them down and keep them down. But they won't make a lot fans or a lot money. They will also be the first to get cut if they were to lose a couple.

I like the fighters who fight to win, rather than fighting not to lose. If a fighter goes out there and tries to finish and displays heart and will, I will always tune in to watch. I could care less if they ever win a title or what their record is. Most of the MMA fighters and Boxers I have preferred to watch over the years never won a title and had half a dozen or more losses.

Some people like it, some people do not. But in the in it's entertainment, and if people are not entertained they are not going to watch. It is, what it is.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

I don't blame the fighters, I blame the judging criteria that encourages lay 'n pray fighting.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> I don't blame the fighters, I blame the judging criteria that encourages lay 'n pray fighting.


That's a whole different thing yes. One thing is to take down wrestlers and do some damage in there, let's say GSP. But what happened in the Guida-Pettis fight was horrible.


----------



## Indestructibl3 (Apr 2, 2009)

Thank you Cormier. The fans who constantly whinge and moan about ground fighting, STFU. The fights who whinge and moan about it, learn to wrestle.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

This is all common sense really. I dont think many people would argue this point. 
But at the same time they have to realize that "FANS" the people that do NOT have to learn all areas of MMA are there to actually be entertained and not to win. So watching someone drag a person down and have Extra Soft Core Porn isnt very fun. I cant stand watching Soft Core Porn so Extra soft core porn is twice as bad. Even worse extra soft core porn is only guy on guy!! 









When fighters complain about wrestling being boring they might as well just come out and tell the truth *"I cant wrestle or stop people from taking me down which sucks really really bad when you are fighting someone who can do those things. But im going to try and pretend im saying this stuff cause i think the fans are not being entertained and that way i can score points with fans and hopefully lure my opponent into not using all his skills. AND if i do lose i can just play it off on wanting to be exciting and throw leather instead of just admitting that im not talented enough to learn high level wrestling"*
That right there is what i hear when fighters complain about wrestlers.

But when fans complain about wrestlers they do have a point. MMA is supposed to be fighting and wrestling is far from being considered fighting. Wrestling should be a method to take someone down and to keep him down while punching him in the face. It shouldn't be used to take someone down and hold him down, that is not fighting. So people that like to say "Well you just cant appreciate MMA" are pretty much full of it. Wrestling can be exciting when there is a clean shot or slam or slick transitions. BJJ can be exciting when there is some slick grappling or some slick set ups or some risky sub attempts, basically just keeping active. vice versa, striking can be boring if the guys arnt committing to anything and are just trying to jab and run.

My point is you can be a boring wrestler but dont be surprised when you are winning but losing more fans then gaining them. Just come out and admit you dont really care about making it exciting for the people but instead you care about winning and only winning. I would actually probably really enjoy this answer instead of the typical playing dumb response we get "I have really no idea why fans dont like me, didnt they see how i transformed into a blanket and kept my opponent warm for 15-25minutes??" 

(Jeeze i wrote more then i wanted to but you guys should read it anyway :thumb02


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> I don't blame the fighters, I blame the judging criteria that encourages lay 'n pray fighting.


This. A hundred times.

Don't worry, I'm not going on a scoring system rant again.


----------



## LL (Mar 12, 2011)

Agree 110 percent.

This isn't Boxing, K1, ADCC, NCAA, this is MMA and it's these guys' job to be a well rounded fighter. If you can't get the fight where you want it, too bad.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

So is that statement for or against wrestlers who can take down their fighters? But anyways I agree that Fitch does a little too much lay and pray. If you take a guy down, beat him up!


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

It's perfectly fine if fighters use their wrestling skills to dictate where the fight takes place. If they want it to be on the ground and take their opponent down - good. If they want it standing up and defend their opponent's take down attempts - equally good. What's not perfectly fine is, when once they have the fight where they want it to stop fighting and just laying on the opponent.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I'm not saying that lay and pray is justified either. If an fighter takes his opponent down he should work towards doing damage if not finishing the fight. Unfortunately there are fighters who don't do that.


----------



## Intermission (Oct 1, 2009)

I AM saying LnP is justified. Wresting is a martial art just as much as BJJ or Muay Thai, should we take those out of MMA?

Its called MMA for a reason, learn to sweep from the botton or to stop a take down or stop fighting.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Takedowns is a part of wrestling, lay and pray is not. In any style of wrestling taking a guy down and not doing anything is stalling. In freestyle and greco they stand you up after ten seconds.


----------



## Intermission (Oct 1, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> Takedowns is a part of wrestling, lay and pray is not. In any style of wrestling taking a guy down and not doing anything is stalling. In freestyle and greco they stand you up after ten seconds.


What's your point? that's pure wrestling, this is MMA. You need to adapt to your situation.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Intermission said:


> I AM saying LnP is justified. Wresting is a martial art just as much as BJJ or Muay Thai, should we take those out of MMA?
> 
> Its called MMA for a reason, learn to sweep from the botton or to stop a take down or stop fighting.


And why should LnP win you a fight¿ In BJJ, also part of MMA, the guard is a neutral position. If nothing else happened in the "fight", then LnP should lead to a draw, not to a win.


----------



## Intermission (Oct 1, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> And why should LnP win you a fight¿ In BJJ, also part of MMA, the guard is a neutral position. If nothing else happened in the "fight", then LnP should lead to a draw, not to a win.


I agree, but what I am saying is LnP SHOULD be fine. People want to take it out of MMA, thats stupid. Draws would be cool with me.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, they should at least revise the scoring so that the most someone who does that should get is a draw. Active wrestling is taking a guy down and either working for a submission or ground and pound. The original wrestlers would ground and pound.


----------



## pipe (Jun 15, 2008)

kantowrestler said:


> Yeah, they should at least revise the scoring so that the most someone who does that should get is a draw. Active wrestling is taking a guy down and either working for a submission or ground and pound. The original wrestlers would ground and pound.


+1 

Wrestling is the only martial art where the opponent dosnt get finished, it should be used for takedowns, takedown defense and grappling en route to a stoppage. Not just to get top position and stall for a UD.

Rules are rules though and wrestling on its own wins a MMA fight so I cant really argue with Fitch/Sonnen/Askeren and the like.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Intermission said:


> I AM saying LnP is justified. Wresting is a martial art just as much as BJJ or Muay Thai, should we take those out of MMA?
> 
> Its called MMA for a reason, learn to sweep from the botton or to stop a take down or stop fighting.





Intermission said:


> What's your point? that's pure wrestling, this is MMA. You need to adapt to your situation.


So you think that LnP is wrestling and that since its a part of wrestling that it deserves to be allowed in the UFC??
But then you turn around and say that those are "pure" wrestling rules and this is MMA??
Isnt that a bit contradictory? LNP is NOT wrestling, just as much running away from your opponent is not strking, or hugging against the fence is not clinch work. 
Wrestling is a mixed martial arts and SHOULD be allowed in every sense of the word but LnP is not a part of it. In a wrestling match you are NOT allowed to take someone down and stall, so why in MMA where you are actually allowed to punch,sub,knee,transition,slam,etc, is LnP so common and okay?? In wrestling you cant do any of those things and wrestlers still find ways to be extremely active. I think LnP does need to be looked at more carefully because its getting common and its ruining the sport of MMA. At the very least fighters need to do what Chael did in order to stop from being stood back up. Chael wasnt doing alot of damage with every punch BUT he was being active and allowed himself to give room for Andy to sweep him or roll or any other thing you can do to get back up. Fighters instead take someone down and throw a punch every 10 seconds and the other times are playing handsy. Its pretty hard to sweep someone if he just plans on holding you in the same position. These guys are usually the same size and close skill level. The way you sweep someone is by tricking them or taking advantage of a slip up. But when you dont do anything BUT hold on to the guy then your not giving any opportunity for the guy to trick you or for him to capitalize on something. Sure it will lead to you getting the victory but it will lead to the sport of MMA being a holding contest and many unsatisfied and angry fans. Simply put.. it ruins the sport of MMA. Being stricter on LnP does not mean getting rid of the art of wrestling.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

That is what I'm trying to say. I'm a wrestler and I am telling you that lay and pray is not a legitimate part of pure wrestling. In pure wrestling you either pin the guy or you take him down and work towards putting him on his back, you just sit on top of the guy then that is stalling and you either get penalized or they stand you up just like in MMA.


----------



## Hiro (Mar 9, 2010)

Laying on someone is fighting is it? No

Is striking fighting? Yes

Is BJJ fighting? Yes

Laying on someone will never ever result in a finish without striking or submissions, so don't lay there not doing anything, that's not a fight that's a game of control. 

His argument is utter bullshit.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, I agree with you and I'm a wrestler. Wrestling in it's pure form is a rough sport and never involves lying on someone. The best wrestlers use it their advantage and adapt with submissions and striking.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

> Laying on someone is fighting is it? No
> 
> Is striking fighting? Yes
> 
> ...


controlling someone for 15 mins is more convincing than getting a guillotine or flash KO.


Finishing fights has nothing to do with it you dont finish fights with rubber guard you use it to gain control for other things to finish the fight like wrestling.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, but things like that show a person can actually finish a fight. Leaving it to the judges doesn't always guarentee victory. If someone is a finisher they will win more then likely.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

***** de Amigo said:


> controlling someone for 15 mins is more convincing than getting a guillotine or flash KO.
> 
> 
> Finishing fights has nothing to do with it you dont finish fights with rubber guard you use it to gain control for other things to finish the fight like wrestling.


Controlling someone like Chael Sonnen does is very impressive. Controlling someone by just holding them is anything but..


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, a good wrestler is Chael Sonnen who controls and pounds opponents. That is a good wrestler who tries to finish an opponent. There were times that he got close to finishing Silva.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

kantowrestler said:


> Yeah, a good wrestler is Chael Sonnen who controls and pounds opponents. That is a good wrestler who tries to finish an opponent. There were times that he got close to finishing Silva.


Basically the reason i dont mind Chael is because he is constantly working. You know how much easier it would be for Chael if he just held on and threw a punch every 10 seconds?? There would be absolutely no way to get him off you. When you are constantly throwing punches then you leave openings for opponents to sweep or reverse or even pull a submission like a triangle off. Sure if Chael fought like Fitch or GSP then he probably would have walked away as the champion. But Chael and everyone else knows that MMA is a fighting sport, you HAVE to fight. If you dont do that then dont complain when you have zero fans. Why should people pay to watch someone when all they do is hug their opponents to a decision?? Sure the fighter gets the win so he is happy. But the crowd doesn't get anything except boredom, disappointment, angry, ETC. The sport loses its appeal and leaves room for comments such as "All they do is hug on the floor, ufc is boring". And sometimes no matter the amount of knowledge you have, you will be sitting there with your non mma fan friend and you will literally not have a single way to disagree with him. The best you will be able to say is "Yeah bro but this isnt normal this guy is just lame". And TBH i kind of DONT think that GSP fits in that LnP category. But when you know what GSP can do it pisses you off to watch him threading that line. 

*LnP is not wrestling. If anyone ever goes to a wrestling meet they would NEVER see the type of laying on opponent strategy that you see in MMA. Wrestling is very high speed normally i dont know where this rumor came from that LnP is wrestling. Comments like that are completely absurd. You dont call hugging someone a clinch do you? *


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

***** de Amigo said:


> controlling someone for 15 mins is more convincing than getting a guillotine or flash KO.


Well, hugfest-blanketing control means "My opponent hopefully can't finish me as long as I lay on him"-control, while a finish is the ultimate control over your opponent like "I could pull down his pants and play 'hide the Tabasco bottle' or do whatever I want to him"-control.

If it weren't for the rules that stop a fight after a finish, a fighter could decide after a finish to do just the same LnP on his opponent, so LnP is included in a finish while the other way around a finish is not strictly included in LnP. Or mathematically speaking LnP (A) is just a subset of a finish (B): 









That makes: finish > LnP


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Voiceless said:


> Well, hugfest-blanketing control means "My opponent hopefully can't finish me as long as I lay on him"-control, while a finish is the ultimate control over your opponent like "I could pull down his pants and play 'hide the Tabasco bottle' or do whatever I want to him"-control.
> 
> If it weren't for the rules that stop a fight after a finish, a fighter could decide after a finish to do just the same LnP on his opponent, so LnP is included in a finish while the other way around a finish is not strictly included in LnP. Or mathematically speaking LnP (A) is just a subset of a finish (B):
> 
> ...


Well LnP is certainly worse then a finish. But its also worse then dominating a opponent and having your way with him. To me LnP means that you really cant hang with this guy so you have to lay on him and pray the fight finishes, since you certainly wont be finishing it...

Btw
The overlapping concept is a pretty stupid thing to say when talking about this subject. A for effort and thinking outside the box though. lol :thumb02:


----------



## MMAnWEED (Aug 8, 2010)

It's been mentioned before that the full guard position in BJJ should count as much as a wrestler on top not doing any damage. 

Now, IMO I think a BJJ fighter pulling guard should count as much as a wrestler getting a takedown. Hypothetically, if nothing happens after this, I say the BJJ fighter who pulled guard should win the round. Obviously, the fight would be stood up well before the round ended which leads to the next scoring sequence. 

I say GnP should count as much as submission attempts. How much GnP to equal one submission attempt would be determined in the eyes of the judges. 

Additional points would be awarded from the fighter on top who is able to pass the guard and additional points will also be awarded to the fighter on the bottom who is able to land effective strikes off of his back.

Perhaps a successful sweep from the bottom could count as much as a takedown as well.

Now with all of this being said, I think a defended takedown should also be awarded points. Definitely not as much as a successful takedown but perhaps 1/2 or 1/3 the value. Some say this shouldn't be installed because the fighter going for the takedowns is the aggressor and should be awarded the points but I don't put takedown aggression in the same light as striking aggression. A striker who throws 10 punches that are all blocked should still be awarded points rather than his opponent who successfully defended the strikes. However, when a takedown is stuffed, I feel as if the fighter who stopped it seems the more dominant one in that situation because they were able to keep the fight where they wanted it. 


^^^ This is the closest set of scoring rules I could come up with that would make everything more fair for the non wrestler and also leave them with no more excuses. 

This is also coming from a guy who wrestled all his life


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

The takedown definitely should count for something. Its an extremely demanding physical motion, it takes all kinds of different muscles and nerves firing just the right way, at just the right intensly. 

But top control is what is overrated. The guard position (on the top or the bottom) should not be considered dominant. What one does in the guard is what matters. The difference would be Jones vs Guida. The guard itself, which is where most grinders win, should be considered a neutral. EFFECTIVE STRIKING in the guard should gain points, as well as any position, side control, half guard, etc, should gain favor with the judges. 

TDD isn't the problem. Overrating the guard is the problem with grappling in MMA.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well unless the guy has no takedown defense or the takedown just happens by accident. But when done right yeah it's intense. Though I don't agree that top control is overrated.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Stuffing takedowns is as underrated as being in a closed guard on top is overrated.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

This sport is mixed martial arts, if someone wants to take you down and control you for the whole fight while laying on top of you, you should learn to prevent the takedown and learn to stand back up.

With that said, if you do fight like this, expect to lose fans, and like Fitch, not get your title shot. This is a sport, this is not "fighting". We call it fighting, but it's not "fighting". It's a sport, and in a sport, you have fans, and these fans need to be entertained in order to keep the sport alive.

Take someone down and hold them for the duration of the fight, just don't expect to get your title shot anytime soon or any sort of solid fan base.

A boring fighter is a boring fighter, no one wants that as a champion, let's be real here.


----------



## Squirrelfighter (Oct 28, 2009)

Rauno said:


> Stuffing takedowns is as underrated as being in a closed guard on top is overrated.


Seconded.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, I third that. In order to stuff a takedown from an elite wrestler it takes quite a bit. That isn't an easy thing to do.


----------



## Intermission (Oct 1, 2009)

M.C said:


> This sport is mixed martial arts, if someone wants to take you down and control you for the whole fight while laying on top of you, you should learn to prevent the takedown and learn to stand back up.
> 
> With that said, if you do fight like this, expect to lose fans, and like Fitch, not get your title shot. This is a sport, this is not "fighting". We call it fighting, but it's not "fighting". It's a sport, and in a sport, you have fans, and these fans need to be entertained in order to keep the sport alive.
> 
> ...


With that being said, Chad Mendes looks like hes next in line for Aldo.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

What Fitch does isn't wrestling. The thing that Fitch does is being lazy. He should learn to try and finish a fight on the ground.


----------



## MMAnWEED (Aug 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> What Fitch does isn't wrestling. The thing that Fitch does is being lazy. He should learn to try and finish a fight on the ground.


I still don't understand how he is classified as Lay N Pray or being lazy. He's constantly working and pushing the pace. As a wrestler all my life I see the little mistakes in his wrestling but they're so minimal. You have to understand that overall he's not quite a world class wrestler but he still has incredible skill. The fact that he isn't world class makes his takedown ability even more impressive because he has to work harder and be more aggressive which he does every single match up. 

When fans don't see Fitch put on an exciting fight (which I consider extremely exciting considering I can appreciate the technique that goes into his gameplan)their view on him becomes distorted and they overlook the incredible skill and worth ethic he possesses. 

If what Fitch does is so easy, every fighter would go out there and execute the same strategy but theres very few like Jon Fitch out there who can completely dominate his opponent on the ground especially like round 3 against BJ Penn.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

BJ Penn was gassed and tired at that point. The first two rounds, Penn picked Fitch up, tossed him on the ground, got his back and went for a choke, and Penn could make 145, where as Fitch is a huge man at 170.

I don't think Fitch is being lazy, however, I think that he doesn't have the skill set to finish people. He's really the opposite of GSP, where as GSP does have the skill to finish people yet chooses not to, Fitch actaully tires but simply doesn't have the skill to do it. I respect Fitch for this, but he is still not an entertaining fighter.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, BJ is usually out of shape at welterweight. I do agree that BJ could make featherweight and should maybe look into it. Though I think Fitch should start looking into things.


----------



## Sousa (Jun 16, 2007)

And I keep saying, its not about wrestling its the fact that theres no killer instinct from most wrestlers. He's just another butt hurt wrestler. People wont complain if fights are finished but the fact that these wrestlers just simply refuse to finish a fight people are going to be annoyed.

Its not about fighting how the fans want, not at all if you can't finish a guy you cant it happens. Like GSP vs Fitch, GSP beat the shit out of Fitch but just couldn't finish him. No one complained but people complain about guys who just hold onto their opponent not looking to ko the guy or for a sub. People will always respect a guy who FIGHTS, not just holds on for dear life and hope to get a decision. I respect all disciplines of MMA but some guys just refuse to fight or finish a fight


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

I don't have a problem with wrestler using wrestling but it is a fight and hugging isn't fighting. Try to hit or submit them after you get them down or in the clinch if you can't get them down and there isn't a problem.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah, the clinch isn't the best way of fighting. But even though Cormier said that he clearly doesn't need his wrestling. He knocked out Bigfoot so he has alot more then wrestling.


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

Never had problem with wrestlers in general. What bothers me is the guys who got zero offense on the ground. Take Koscheck during TuF s1 and few fights after it for example. Sick takedowns he still has, but he actually got stood up by the ref several times because he didn't even try to deal damage on the ground.
What personally bothers me about Fitch is that he is going to decision against guys he 100% surely is able to finish. 30-27 decision wins against pretty much unranked guys just doesn't cut it for a guy who is/was supposed to be #2 WW in the world. Fitch himself has said that he needs to improve his submission game etc. to be able to finish the matches better, so I don't think anyone criticizing his previous matches is going too far.

But yeah, if you can't stop the takedowns of some of the most elite wrestlers in the business, then try to do something about it on the ground. Silva couldn't do anything about Sonnen's takedowns either, but instead of crying about how unfair it was he decided to sub him instead. 

Basically... wrestling and jitsu (well all the other ground disciples aswell) are 2/3 of the elements of MMA. If you either a) can't stop atleast some of the takedowns or atleast get back up eventually or b) don't have good enough sub game to either sub/sweep the wrestlers from bottom or scare them into keeping the fight standing completely, you likely deserve to lose the match anyway.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well when wrestlers usually first come into MMA they are fresh off wrestling. They are used to not being allowed to punch. That only makes an excuse for beginners and not veterans.


----------



## madrappa (Dec 8, 2009)

I agree. dont blame the wrestling

Its just this: there are exciting fighters and non-exciting fighters. look at brock lesnar, all he has is wrestling but his fights are always very entertaining. 

Even in boxing, there is snooze fest fights and boxing fans do the same to complain about the defensive style/technical boxing.

its just the way its gonna be, you can either complain or appreciate everyones style of fighting and respect the technical skill they posses


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

madrappa said:


> I agree. dont blame the wrestling
> 
> Its just this: there are exciting fighters and non-exciting fighters. look at brock lesnar, all he has is wrestling but his fights are always very entertaining.


But, like him or not, Lesnar doesn't use his wrestling to impose a cuddle-fest. Even though his technique isn't great, he DOES strike in the stand-up and GnP on the ground. Wrestling is great as long as it's used for/to defend take downs and on the ground for gaining/ advancing to a dominant position and used as a base to inflict damage. It's just not great when it's used to make a "fight" into a 15min romantic soft porn cuddle-fest.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Voiceless said:


> But, like him or not, Lesnar doesn't use his wrestling to impose a cuddle-fest. Even though his technique isn't great, he DOES strike in the stand-up and GnP on the ground. Wrestling is great as long as it's used for/to defend take downs and on the ground for gaining/ advancing to a dominant position and used as a base to inflict damage. It's just not great when it's used to make a "fight" into a 15min romantic soft porn cuddle-fest.


----------

