# Wrestlers taking over MMA?



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

If we look at all the division in the UFC a trend is appearing!

*Heavy weight*

Champ: Brock - wrestler
No 1 contender: Cain - wrestler 

*Light heavy weight*

Champ: Shogun - striker 
No 1 contender: Evans - wrestler(Gone back to wrestling)
Up and comers: jones - Wrestler(Gone to wrestling thanks to greg)

*Middle weight* 

Champ: Anderson - Striker 
No 1 contender: Chael - Wrestler 

*W(restler)elter weight*

Champ: GSP - Wrestler 
No 1 contender: Kos - Wrestler (Gone back to pure wrestling)
Other top contenders: 
Fitch - Wrestler 
Shields - Wrestler 

*Light weight*

Champ: Frankie - wrestler 
No 1 contender: Maynard - wrestler

It really is shocking to see how many fighters are using wrestling to get to the top of the divisions. Some use it well with a mix of striking and take downs such as frankie but other just use it for lay and pray or for control such as KOS and Fitch. 

Why are so many using it now to dominate? and not years before ? since wrestling has always been around. One of the reasons i think is that in the early days fighters felt obligated to stand up for entertainment in fear of been boring and then been cut? but with the sport growing and top star GSP using it to dominate fighters now feel it ok to wrestle more? Or is it just the fact that the wrestlers know been BJJ and how to stop it by leaving little space(hugging) for it to be used that allows them to be more successful?

Why do you guys think it is ?

Do you think its potentially bad for the sport for wrestlers to dominate so much ?


----------



## kritter (Apr 22, 2007)

It's not a problem if they actually try to finish fights.


----------



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

kritter said:


> It's not a problem if they actually try to finish fights.


I named 11 wrestlers 2 of them don't regularly go the distance problem then ?


----------



## Finnsidious (Mar 14, 2009)

Wrestlers are starting to dominate, but it isn't surprising. The bottom line is, in any professional sport, or in fact, in any organized activity that rewards people with large sums of money, people will do whatever is necessary to win that money. Doesn't matter if it is MMA, baseball, chess, poker, whatever, there will be professionals who will analyze it and basically try to 'break' the system.

Whatever style gives the best chance to win is what you will see the most of at the highest level. It's like the dead puck era in hockey, when teams like the New Jersey Devils played this suffocating defensive style, but it worked, so others did it until almost everyone did. Coaches and players don't care how something looks, they don't care what the fans think, they want to win. Full stop. The reason wrestlers are slightly overrepresented in MMA is because if you have to have only one style without being effective at everything else, wrestler is by far the most effective. It is the style most likely to let a newer, less experienced fighter have success.

Wrestling in MMA isn't at that point, it isn't so dominating that no non-wrestler has a chance. You could argue it is trending that way. Lets not make the mistake of blaming the fighters though, even if it did reach that point, they are just going to do whatever is best for them.

It is up to the fighters who don't have the wrestling background to learn to defend a takedown well enough to stop it, or be physically strong enough to do it. It should be pretty obvious by now if you can't defend takedowns in the modern MMA world, or get up easily if you are taken down, or attack effectively from the bottom, you are going to lose. And if you can't do any of those things, you deserve to lose.

If MMA reaches the point where every champ and every contender is a primarily a wrestler, then it might be time to consider tweaking the rules the way other sports have, but we aren't there yet. To me, the onus is still on the fighters to defend themselves against it, and have a well rounded game.


----------



## pipe (Jun 15, 2008)

Yes they are taking over, yes its very boring to see.

It will only get worse aswell imo.

edit
Just like to add that I cant blame the fighters for this either, they are doing what they need to do for the moneyz


----------



## Foose (Feb 19, 2008)

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood today, but I am getting really irritated by some of the things said on here today. I guess I need to take my pill!!

Yes, wrestlers are having success. What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing!

Here is the deal. MMA is a sport of evolution. Fighers have to evolve. What we are seeing is the fact that today's fighters are evolving to encompass just one more tool to their bag of tricks to win fights. When MMA first started it was BJJ. Like him or not, Gracie showed the world that BJJ was a dominant tool to use in MMA. So EVERYONE started including BJJ in their training. Now, virtually every fighter has a high level of BJJ. 

The same will be said for wrestling at some point. We are seeing the guys that excel at wrestling dominate guys using that tool. But as sure as I'm typing this, in a few short years (maybe sooner) you will see virtually every fighter encompass a high level of wrestling into their arsenal. So I say good for the wrestlers!

I have said this about GSP many times before. IF he is dominating people on the ground using his wrestlig then why in the hell would he change his gameplan? The fact of the matter is, it's up to the rest of the division to beat him! Take the Kos fight. If he doesn't spend his entire camp getting back to tip top wrestling shape then it's going to be a long night for him!

Bottom line is, we are seeing MMA evolution right before our eyes. We are watching fighters add EVERYTHING they can to their arsenal. This includes wrestling. Just like BJJ in the old days, once every fighter develops their wrestling game to the highest level, there will be a new discipline that one fighter uses that will set the stage for the next phase of MMA evolution. What will that be? Who knows! But I for one am excited to see this happening. Fighters are becoming so well rounded that it gets down to a pure game of strategy using every tool available. Ultimately, it will only make fights that much more exciting to watch!!


----------



## Vale_Tudo (Nov 18, 2007)

Well, there's a solution if you dont like wrestlers. Go watch boxing or K-1.


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

IMO it's more than just the technique of wrestling that makes wrestlers dominante, the attitude of wrestlers and experience with weight cutting are both huge attributes. IMO Eventually all the fighters will either be MMA trained from a young age or come from wresttling. Strikers, Judoka, and BJJ players will no longer make it to the top levels unless they are elite athletes like GSP.


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

The UFC just has to change it's rules and force the wrestlers to actually fight.

Nik Lentz won his fight 30-27 and in the 1st round he couldn't even get w takedown. He won the whole round based on fence stacking.


It's so stupid, you don't even score points in ACTUAL wrestling like that and guys win fights like that in the UFC. Wrestlers have to do LESS than thy do in the NCAA than the UFC. That's an obvious issue.


----------



## Fillerski (Aug 30, 2010)

I don’t think there is a problem with having to many wrestlers in the UFC. Fighters like Frankie Edgar, Chael Sonnen etc who use there wrestling skills to gain positions to attack. 
I do however think there is a big problem with the amount of fighters who just seem to purely wrestle in the UFC at the moment like Fitch, Maynard etc and the numbers seem to be growing. In fairness they are tough guys and i couldn't do what they do, but i personally find it very boring to watch.
The UFC seems intent on stacking there books with wrestlers, i just wish they would choose them a bit better and let it be known that wasting time leaning on someone against a cage or just laying on someone to eek out a win may earn them a victory on the night but not a new UFC contract.


----------



## cdtcpl (Mar 9, 2007)

I think a lot of people are forgetting a big factor here, and that is time in the sport. A lot of the wrestlers who are doing very well in MMA have been wrestling since they were 3 through college. Once you leave college if you aren't going to the olympics then your wrestling is pretty useless. MMA changed that and let a lot of these highly competitve and well decorated people keep challenging themselves. In most other art forms we don't see that. The occasional guy like Lyoto Machida who had been doing karate since he was that young, and look he is a top tier MMA fighter as well.

I don't see it as wrestling taking over, I just see it as people with the longest competitive history doing very well based on their solid foundation. With this new breed coming up we will have people who started MT and BJJ when they were 4 & 5 and we are going to see some interesting fights. There will always be wrestlers, and wrestling will always be important because deciding where the fight takes place may be the greatest advantage you can have in the cage. I just think we are 10 years or so out from a great evolution in MMA. 

(My wife already knows my son will be starting MT as soon as he can and he is only 3 months old. She calls him our future MMA champion.)


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

Also takedowns are ridiculously overrated in scoring. I fail to see how having a close striking battle for 4:50 of a round oy to score a completely meaningless takedown that has nothing to do with anything gives you a round.

We saw this retardation at hand in the Cruz-Benavidez fight. Benavidez landed the harder strikes in the 5 minute period in the I think 3rd round and Cruz just takes him down which apparently meant he won the round. Because of a meaningless takedown into full guard.

Terrible scoring criteria is what is ruining MMA, not wrestlers.


----------



## smokelaw1 (Aug 3, 2007)

TLC said:


> Terrible scoring criteria is what is ruining MMA, not wrestlers.


Agreed. A takedown means SOMETHING, though. It means you can control where the fight goes. BUT...I think one clean punch should count about as much as a takedown followed by zero damage, zero sub attempts, etc. 

I am getting sick of this "if you don't like wrestling, watch K-1" BS. I don't want to watch a wrestling match. If you DO, go watch WRESTLING. I think UNPRODUCTIVE wrestling and lay-n-pray needs to be aggressively removed from MMA. Control without damage is not FIGHTING. COntrol without damage is not WINNING. It is just avoiding a loss. Chael vs. Anderson...masterful use of wrestling to get into dominant position. Wearing someone down on the ground, grinding them, and them going for the finish...that is, and SHOULD be what a top level wrestler does. But simply holding someone down with wrestling, and controling their position is not MMA. Yes, it is (and should be) a PART of winning a fight, but I think it does a disservice to MMA to allow it to continue unabated. 

There are those who argue that enforcing new rules to minimize unproductive wrestling would take away from the "as real as it gets" nature of MMA. I could not disagree more strongly. If this was "real" and a wrestler had me in side control or N-S...I would grab the jewels and pull-start the mower, if you know what I mean. But that is against the rules. You want to be able to lay-n-pray? OK, groin strikes and fish-hooking are now legal vs. wrestlers after 15 unproductive seconds. 

OK, I'm gonna step off my soap-box now.....

Short version: Wrestling is GREAT. Top level wrestling is a wonderful part of MMA. If you are not at least TRYING to do damage (not neccesarily finish, but do damage, do more than control position and lay-n-pray), you are NOT FIGHTING. If you're not fighting, I don't want to watch. I love grappling. I love striking. Let's not take the (first ) M out of MMA.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

I thought i'd do a bit of research into this to see if this "wrestling domination" was ruining the entertainment factor, and found some pretty interesting results, below are the stats for the main cards of events so far this year and for 2007:


*2010 16 main cards (so far):
*
KO/TKO finishes = 25 = 33% of total finishes

Sub finishes = 19 = 25% of total finishes

Decision finishes = 32 = 42% of total finishes


*2007 19 main cards:*

KO/TKO finishes = 31 = 35% of finishes

Sub finishes = 20 = 23% of finishes

Decision finishes = 37 = 42% of finishes

I know this doesn't neccaserily reflect on how interesting a fight is to watch, you can have decisions like Jung/Garcia that are amazing - but its just interesting that the amount of KOs and subs this year is pretty much identical to 3 years ago, im sure i'd find the same if i went back even further too!


----------



## MMAnWEED (Aug 8, 2010)

This is a good thing people. Shows that the sport is evolving. I believe this will be the trend for awhile and someone down the road will soon begin to realize the ground holes of a wrestler who also happens to be a black belt in jiu jitsu and exploit them. Also, within 10 years most guys are going to start to master wrestling which will call for far fewer takedowns. I dont mind it... did you mind it when jiu jitsu was the big thing where very few could defend? Just because its more aesthetically pleasing, doesnt make it more impressive than what a wrestler can do.


P.S. Yes i am a wrestler myself but im unbiased for the most part haha. I've been training in jiu jitsu and muay thai now for almost 3 years and i absolutely love those styles as well.


----------



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

I really hate people saying go watch this and that if you dont like lay and pray!

Look at the sport of wrestling it self you gain points for take downs and for pinning your opponent shoulders on the ground. After this "pin" guess what ? the fight is stood up why? because the skill is in getting the guy they not holding them in the pin as that is the easy bit!


----------



## Majortom505 (Jun 23, 2009)

TLC said:


> Also takedowns are ridiculously overrated in scoring. I fail to see how having a close striking battle for 4:50 of a round oy to score a completely meaningless takedown that has nothing to do with anything gives you a round.
> 
> We saw this retardation at hand in the Cruz-Benavidez fight. Benavidez landed the harder strikes in the 5 minute period in the I think 3rd round and Cruz just takes him down which apparently meant he won the round. Because of a meaningless takedown into full guard.
> 
> Terrible scoring criteria is what is ruining MMA, not wrestlers.


Watch the fight again.


----------



## Thelegend (Nov 2, 2009)

scoring needs to change and maybe a rule or two. no problem with guys like cain, jones, and edgar who are willing to stand and either beat you up or take you out when they get you to the ground. its guys like kos and maynard that piss me off a bit. i agree its the evolution of the sport, but at the same time i cant wait to see the day a wrestler shoots in, eats a knee and gets KTFO face down on the floor.


----------



## Majortom505 (Jun 23, 2009)

Thelegend said:


> scoring needs to change and maybe a rule or two. no problem with guys like cain, jones, and edgar who are willing to stand and either beat you up or take you out when they get you to the ground. its guys like kos and maynard that piss me off a bit. i agree its the evolution of the sport, but at the same time i cant wait to see the day a wrestler shoots in, eats a knee and gets KTFO face down on the floor.


Yawn!


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

Thelegend said:


> scoring needs to change and maybe a rule or two. no problem with guys like cain, jones, and edgar who are willing to stand and either beat you up or take you out when they get you to the ground. its guys like kos and maynard that piss me off a bit. i agree its the evolution of the sport, but at the same time i cant wait to see the day a wrestler shoots in, eats a knee and gets KTFO face down on the floor.


Gray clearly won the striking in the 2nd round of his fight with Florian. It was dead even in rounds 1 and 3.


----------



## Thelegend (Nov 2, 2009)

leifdawg said:


> Gray clearly won the striking in the 2nd round of his fight with Florian. It was dead even in rounds 1 and 3.


it was even imo because florian was too scared to throw anything because he knew that gray would take him down and just grind out a win. florians fear of the td was apparent from the beginning. i just want to see these guys finally find a more consistent way to defend the td or fight off their back.

it annoys me when people watch mma for the first time and complain about guys laying on top of each other. especially when i know they could actually do a lot of damage from top position if they wanted to.


----------



## elitemmagoer (May 24, 2008)

Toroian said:


> I really hate people saying go watch this and that if you dont like lay and pray!
> 
> Look at the sport of wrestling it self you gain points for take downs and for pinning your opponent shoulders on the ground. After this "pin" guess what ? the fight is stood up why? because the skill is in getting the guy they not holding them in the pin as that is the easy bit!


I dont know how much wrestling you have ever done or seen, but points are awarded for takedowns, and nearfall (shoulders held 45 degrees to the mat, aka nearpin) reversals, and escapes. What MMA should introduce, is a stalling system. If in a wrestling match, the wrestler with top control, does not actively work to turn the other wrestler and gain points, they are penalized. this would make MMA much more exciting. PRIDE used this system and it was far more exciting. Also takedowns into full guard shouldn't be awarded points (as in BJJ)


----------



## Majortom505 (Jun 23, 2009)

elitemmagoer said:


> I dont know how much wrestling you have ever done or seen, but points are awarded for takedowns, and nearfall (shoulders held 45 degrees to the mat, aka nearpin) reversals, and escapes. What MMA should introduce, is a stalling system. If in a wrestling match, the wrestler with top control, does not actively work to turn the other wrestler and gain points, they are penalized. this would make MMA much more exciting. PRIDE used this system and it was far more exciting. Also takedowns into full guard shouldn't be awarded points (as in BJJ)


Horrible horrible suggestions. It leaves way too much discretion to the refs. There would be no better way to fix a match than to give a ref that kind of power.

If you don't think so, look what Mustache Pete Masagotti did to Brock in Lesnar/Mir I.


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

smokelaw1 said:


> Agreed. A takedown means SOMETHING, though. It means you can control where the fight goes. BUT...I think one clean punch should count about as much as a takedown followed by zero damage, zero sub attempts, etc.
> 
> I am getting sick of this "if you don't like wrestling, watch K-1" BS. I don't want to watch a wrestling match. If you DO, go watch WRESTLING. I think UNPRODUCTIVE wrestling and lay-n-pray needs to be aggressively removed from MMA. Control without damage is not FIGHTING. COntrol without damage is not WINNING. It is just avoiding a loss. Chael vs. Anderson...masterful use of wrestling to get into dominant position. Wearing someone down on the ground, grinding them, and them going for the finish...that is, and SHOULD be what a top level wrestler does. But simply holding someone down with wrestling, and controling their position is not MMA. Yes, it is (and should be) a PART of winning a fight, but I think it does a disservice to MMA to allow it to continue unabated.
> 
> ...


It means something, but you know what's funny, even in the Unified Rules of MMA, it says RIGHT THERE that a sweep to a neutral or positive position effectively negates a takedown.

Yet in fights like Edgar-Penn 1, Edgar takes BJ down for 2 seconds and it's "OH, FRANKIE SCORED WITH THAT TAKEDOWN! BLABLBAL!" No...no he didnt...

And scoring via cage stacking is the worst thing about the sport.

Like I said, it's even a slap in the face of actual wrestling, because unlike MMA, simply pummeling for double underhooks using a foreign object to prevent a sprawl does not score you ANY points.

I also think fighters should be able to grab the fence. Stupid rule in my opinion. Sure, it was cheap when people used it to avoid takedowns, but it's even cheaper now with fence stackers like Nik Lentz using it as an exploit to win a round without doing anything(not even scoring a takedown)...

The problem isn't that I should be watching boxing or K-1...the problem is that isn't wrestling. Wrestling is actually more exciting and entertaining than the bastardization of it that is a result of the exploitation of terrible and vague scoring criteria.


----------



## Toroian (Jan 3, 2009)

TLC said:


> It means something, but you know what's funny, even in the Unified Rules of MMA, it says RIGHT THERE that a sweep to a neutral or positive position effectively negates a takedown.
> 
> Yet in fights like Edgar-Penn 1, Edgar takes BJ down for 2 seconds and it's "OH, FRANKIE SCORED WITH THAT TAKEDOWN! BLABLBAL!" No...no he didnt...
> 
> ...


I argee with Nik Lentz fight i mean wtf ? he trys to score a take down fails! yet still wins the round? surely winner was controlling where the fight went by stopping him from taking it to the ground? i thought it was madness that he won the first round MADNESS!


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

Toroian said:


> I argee with Nik Lentz fight i mean wtf ? he trys to score a take down fails! yet still wins the round? surely winner was controlling where the fight went by stopping him from taking it to the ground? i thought it was madness that he won the first round MADNESS!


Well Winner actually landed several nice shots in the 1st, including Thai knees to the body. That'll always sway me more than cage stacking...cage stacking, I dont even understand how that scores.

I actually scored the fight for Winner 29-28 but I knew that he wasn't going to win because of how MMA is scored.



elitemmagoer said:


> I dont know how much wrestling you have ever done or seen, but points are awarded for takedowns, and nearfall (shoulders held 45 degrees to the mat, aka nearpin) reversals, and escapes. What MMA should introduce, is a stalling system. If in a wrestling match, the wrestler with top control, does not actively work to turn the other wrestler and gain points, they are penalized. this would make MMA much more exciting. PRIDE used this system and it was far more exciting. Also takedowns into full guard shouldn't be awarded points (as in BJJ)


Exactly. The tards that constantly spout off that "Go watch boxing or K-1" I doubt even watch wrestling. Wrestling is much more dramatic and exciting than a typical Jon Fitch fight. The scoring criteria actually forces the wrestlers to...you know.....actually wrestle.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

I think this is largely an illusion of an upcoming title fight between Edgar and Maynard.

The UFC welterweight division is heavily wrestler-centric, but that's the only serious division that's dominated by wrestlers, and a quick meta-analysis of the top ten heavyweights in the top five divisions (that's fifty fighters) will yield you this:

17 "wrestlers" (I'm being hugely generous with this number, by the way; if you count only NCAA DI wrestlers, you end up with 11 and lose Shane Carwin and Jon Jones)
20 BJJ blackbelts

The numbers for strikers are trickier, because its hard to qualify what, exactly, qualifies someone as a "striker." Is Nogueira a striker? He has a high caliber boxing background. Is Junior Dos Santos a striker? He doesn't have many accomplishments in striking competitions, but is an incredibly accomplished striker in terms of MMA.

So that whole thing is tricky.

But I think it has a lot to do with a shift in the particular title holders.

Division by division, look at it this way.

The UFC heavyweight division has always fluctuated between being dominated by strikers and being dominated by wrestlers. Up until 2002, it was controlled by wrestlers, with the exception of Pete Williams and Bas Rutten holding the title once apiece. Then we had the period of Sylvia and Arlovski, with the Frank Mir interlude and the Nogueira and Mir transition (very briefly, in the large scheme) to Brock Lesnar, which takes us back into a wrestling period.

The lightheavyweight division has actually gotten less wrestler-centric as the years have gone on. From 2000-2007, the title was held by a wrestler (if you want to count Ortiz, who doesn't have an DI background) with the exception of Belfort's one win over Couture before losing the belt again. Rampage Jackson is the first non-wrestler to hold the belt, and since he took it, we've had one wrestler win a title fight, to four different strikers (of five title defenses).

The middleweight belt has been held by a striker since Rich Franklin won the belt in 2005. Of course, this is largely due to the fact that Anderson Silva has been the champion for a long damn time. Just for a quick meta-analysis of top contenders against Rich and Anderson: two wrestlers, three BJJ blackbelts and six strikers (four if you exclude Rich and Anderson themselves, who each fought the other for the belt as a challenger once).

The welterweight division really has two eras, with some upsets built in. You have the pre-Matt Hughes era, which is all about Pat Miletich (who I'd count as a striker, but it also a BJJ blackbelt) and then you have a division dominated by wrestlers from Hughes through St. Pierre; though it's hard to say that St. Pierre was a wrestler when he initially won the belt. So that division has pretty much always been run by a wrestler, at least since 2001. Of the challengers faced by Hughes: two wrestlers (only counting Trigg once), three strikers, one BJJ blackbelt. Of the challengers faced by St. Pierre: two BJJ blackbelts, two strikers and a wrestler. I'm setting aside the three Hughes vs. St. Pierre belts, but you can do the math.

The lightweight division has gone through all three. You have Pulver in the beginning, then the removal of the belt. You have Sherk, then him being stripped of the belt. And then Penn. Even with Edgar vs. Maynard coming up, its a wide open division. Two of the next serious contenders are BJJ blackbelts, Sotiropoulos and Dunham. So it's an open game.

By the way, my favorite statistic about the lightweight division: Until Frankie Edgar upset B.J. Penn in Abu Dhabi, an incumbent UFC lightweight champion had never lost his belt.


----------



## mastodon2222 (Feb 4, 2010)

Toroian said:


> If we look at all the division in the UFC a trend is appearing!
> 
> *Heavy weight*
> 
> ...


Not so sure that "wrestlers dominate MMA"...a few thoughts:

HW: Lesnar - clearly a pure wrestler, but I think part of his domination is that he outweighs msot of his opponents by 30-40lbs of muscle. 

LHW: Rua - not a 'wrestler'. 

MW: Silva - not a 'wrestler'.

WW: GSP - not a pure wrestler, he's truly a more of a mixed martial artist who trains in wrestling (like they all do), but he's not a 'wrestler' who took up MMA. 

LW: Edgar - wrestler

Wrestling is a key component of MMA, but I'm not ready to say MMA is 'dominated by wrestlers.'


----------



## mastodon2222 (Feb 4, 2010)

Toroian said:


> If we look at all the division in the UFC a trend is appearing!
> 
> *Heavy weight*
> 
> ...


Part II of my rebuttal of why "wrestlers" aren't dominating MMA is this: the sport has evolved and styles are merging. 
If a wrestler trains how to avoid and escape a triangle choke, guillotine, arm bar etc: isn't he then training in BJJ??
If a "wrestler" trains in avoiding getting KOed with a right cross by keeping his hands high, isn't he traiing in boxing?
If a wrestler trains in not catching a knee while shooting, isn't he training Muay Thai? 

My point is that, unlike the 90s when you had one dimensional fighters--today the martial arts are truly merging into a modern day MIXED martial arts, and it's fun to watch.


----------



## Majortom505 (Jun 23, 2009)

TLC said:


> It means something, but you know what's funny, even in the Unified Rules of MMA, it says RIGHT THERE that a sweep to a neutral or positive position effectively negates a takedown.
> 
> Yet in fights like Edgar-Penn 1, Edgar takes BJ down for 2 seconds and it's "OH, FRANKIE SCORED WITH THAT TAKEDOWN! BLABLBAL!" No...no he didnt...
> 
> ...


You are blinded, you should just stop.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

mastodon2222 said:


> Part II of my rebuttal...


Merge your posts, please.


----------



## Majortom505 (Jun 23, 2009)

Toroian said:


> I argee with Nik Lentz fight i mean wtf ? he trys to score a take down fails! yet still wins the round? surely winner was controlling where the fight went by stopping him from taking it to the ground? i thought it was madness that he won the first round MADNESS!


Because he had a failed TD he lost the round?


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

No, he should've lost the round because he did absolute shit, and Winner actually landed some nice strikes.


----------



## LuckyPunch (Aug 31, 2010)

Another reason why mma (especially the ufc) is getting dominated is because there are no kicks allowed to the shooting fighter. I remember bach in the day of pride there where fighters thath kneed or kicked shooting opponents an knocked them out.

And from what ive heard the ground in the octagon isnt good for fast sidesteps to get away from shoots!


----------



## TLC (Apr 5, 2010)

Getting rid of the 3 point rule would be great.

I'm all for banning soccer kicks and knees to prone opponents, because they are most often used when people are already rocked and laid out and thats just overkill and dangerous.

But if they are on their knees, they should be fair game.


----------

