MMA rules and judging

[Tez3]

I've seen several comments on threads stating that MMA rules favour groundwork and that stand up strikers are at a disadvantage. Looking at the rules and having judged and reffed MMA I can't see where they are coming from. The rules in fact favour no one 'type' of fighter if they are applied properly. As with other sports it's easy to judge and ref fights when sat in the crowd or watching it on the box but how many people konw how to apply the rules when judging? Sitting cage or ringside as a judge isn't a chance to watch fights for free, it actually stops any enjoyment you have in the contests as you are busy marking in your head the fighter's moves.

There's a huge amount to think about that I don't think the fans realise. I've heard many times for example that one fighter took down the other several times but didn't win the round, the question there is 'but what did he do after the takedown?' If its nothing, no he won't get the points. That's one example, there's loads more.

MMA is more complex than many realise I think, the rules are relatively simple, judging and reffing takes great concentration and knowledge of martial arts as well as how the rules should be interpretated. Anyone who reffs and judges in any sport deserves praise though as everyones a critic lol!

 

[MJS]

Actually, I like the way they do things now, vs. the way the ruleset used to be, back in the Gracie days. I mean, yeah, I understand the ground is your strong point, but come on....I'm paying how much to see 2 people roll around for 30min? Can ya say boring! LOL!

Like I said, I like the current rules. IMO, I dont think that they favor anyone in particular, but instead are more fair to both. If you're going to go to the ground, ya gotta be active and if you're not, you get stood up.

As for the judging...its not an easy task IMO. I think theres more that they have to consider than many people think. You made some great points about the takedowns. Ok, sure you took someone down....and then what? Did you get back up? Did you go down also and just hug the guy? Did you G&P? Were you actively trying to get a submission?

 

[Steve]

If anything, the current rules favor wrestlers and strikers. Rarely does the wrestler who takes his opponent down several times lose the round, regardless of what he does after. Lay and Pray is common. It's boring, but it's effective. Even if the guy on the bottom is aggressive and working consistently for submissions, the guy on top tends to win the round. That's just the way it goes.

The rules themselves will favor strikers, in that an opponent who is on the mat can be forced to stand if his opponent separates and calls for it. Also, all the guy on top has to do is stall for a bit and the ref will stand them both up.

Rounds themselves tend to favor the sprint vs the marathon. Strikers are geared for short, explosive bursts of activity. Grappling is a grind and works best over time. It's a different kind of cardio. Short rounds are inherently better for strikers, imo.

Don't get me wrong. It's a sport, and I understand that it needs to be entertaining. I'm just saying that, if anything, the rules favor strikers. Not the other way around.

 

[Tez3]

If anything, the current rules favor wrestlers and strikers. Rarely does the wrestler who takes his opponent down several times lose the round, regardless of what he does after. Lay and Pray is common. It's boring, but it's effective. Even if the guy on the bottom is aggressive and working consistently for submissions, the guy on top tends to win the round. That's just the way it goes.

The rules then aren't being used properly, if one fighter takes down his opponent but does nothing with it, he won't get the points. The fighter who is taken down a few times but defends themselves successfully and takes dominence will get the points. If the top guy is winning the round just for being on top then the judges aren't doing their job, the fighter working and is aggressive must get the points. It's ignorance on the judge's part there and something I admit annoys me when people who are judging can't see the fight as they should. Lay and pray can and is discouraged by using the rules properly too.


The rules themselves will favor strikers, in that an opponent who is on the mat can be forced to stand if his opponent separates and calls for it. Also, all the guy on top has to do is stall for a bit and the ref will stand them both up.


That's not in the rules, a grounded fighter can't call for the fight to be stood up. The only reason to stand up is that both fighters aren't working and that's after a certain length of time. If one fighter is working they shouldn't be stood up. If one fighter is stalling he gets a warning for 'pacifivity', more than one warning it's a point off. The fighter who doesn't chose to stand after his opponent does, doesn't have to stand. I've seen a KO of a standing fighter by a grounded one, a straight kick to the chin.

Rounds themselves tend to favor the sprint vs the marathon. Strikers are geared for short, explosive bursts of activity. Grappling is a grind and works best over time. It's a different kind of cardio. Short rounds are inherently better for strikers, imo.

MMA fighters train for their opponents, these days there are few fighters who are either one or the other. As MMA has grown so has the all round fighter.

Don't get me wrong. It's a sport, and I understand that it needs to be entertaining. I'm just saying that, if anything, the rules favor strikers. Not the other way around.

What do you consider short rounds? The length of rounds and how many seems to be the biggest difference between promotions now.

 

[Steve]

Question I should have asked first: what specific rules are you talking about? I'll try to generalize below, but just so that it's out there, the rules are going to be slightly different from promotion to promotion based on the local preferences and sanctioning requirements.

The rules then aren't being used properly, if one fighter takes down his opponent but does nothing with it, he won't get the points. The fighter who is taken down a few times but defends themselves successfully and takes dominence will get the points. If the top guy is winning the round just for being on top then the judges aren't doing their job, the fighter working and is aggressive must get the points. It's ignorance on the judge's part there and something I admit annoys me when people who are judging can't see the fight as they should. Lay and pray can and is discouraged by using the rules properly too.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If a fighter takes down his opponent, he does get the points. Often. I am sure that your refs and judges are perfect, but I can't recall more than a handful of rounds where a fighter attacked from the bottom and won the round.

My experience locally, nationally and internationally (through events from Bellator, Strikeforce, KOTC, UFC and WEC among the rest) is that a good wrestler can be minimally effective from the top, but as long as he takes his opponent to the ground and controls him, he will win the round. Boring, but effective.

Under the rules, all he has to do is stay somewhat active on the top, throw some hammer fists, maybe a few elbows and look like he's trying to pass guard.

That's not in the rules, a grounded fighter can't call for the fight to be stood up. The only reason to stand up is that both fighters aren't working and that's after a certain length of time. If one fighter is working they shouldn't be stood up. If one fighter is stalling he gets a warning for 'pacifivity', more than one warning it's a point off. The fighter who doesn't chose to stand after his opponent does, doesn't have to stand. I've seen a KO of a standing fighter by a grounded one, a straight kick to the chin.

Maybe in the rules you guys use, but from the UFC down, the accepted standard is that it's the guy who separates who has control over whether he re-enters the ground game of his opponent or has him stand up. If we're fighting and I'm in your guard, I stand, back off and motion for you to get up... you have to get up. All I have to do is back off and let the ref know that I'm going to wait for you to stand. He'll stand you up. We see this all the time at every level of MMA.

Conversely, at a grappling tournament, if you back away like that, you'd be the one fleeing combat and would be made to reengage or be disqualified.

MMA fighters train for their opponents, these days there are few fighters who are either one or the other. As MMA has grown so has the all round fighter.

Fighters tend to train for 5 minute sprints, not 30 minute marathons. That's my point. You won't see a 36 minute fight between Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock anymore. You won't see a 90 minute fight like we saw with Royce and Sakuraba. That stuff just doesn't happen. At least, that's not what MMA fighters train for. These kinds of long, drawn out fights play very much into the control and grind of a grappler vs speed and dynamic action of a striker.

I'm not saying that modern mma fighters aren't competent grapplers. Come on. What I'm saying is that shorter rounds... rounds in general, are going to be an advantage for the striker over the grappler the vast majority of the time.

What do you consider short rounds? The length of rounds and how many seems to be the biggest difference between promotions now.

Really? I can't think of any major promotions with longer than 5 minute rounds. Some are 3 minutes. Are there any 10 minute rounds left?

 

[Tez3]

Steve I don't know why you have to make a sarky comment about our refs and judges. they are far from perfect. We are a small community here and we all agreed to use the same rules, we have minor differences such as some promotions won't allow heel hooks, other won't allow spinning back fists but it's easy for us to all use the same rules especially when we have a couple of exceptional refs, one of whom the UFC uses, to keep everyone on the same page. We literally only have a handful of refs in the whole country so how difficult do you think it is to keep to the same rules? It's us who decide these things we have no governing body or any officials to please.

Without sarcasm I can say I have seen fighters win a round from the bottom position, I've marked fighters as winning from there myself when judging.

Many of our fighters also enter BJJ comps and they aren't marathons lol! Recently we had a fight that was 5x5 min rounds, quite a funny fight in many ways.

 

[Steve]

While I have also seen fighters win rounds from the bottom, it's exceedingly rare. Now, maybe this is because there is a much more pervasive wrestling culture in the USA and so, without sarcasm, you might not have the number of competent wrestlers in your MMA ranks, particularly amongst your younger, less experienced competitors. So you and the other refs/judges in the UK might not see a competent wrestler take the fight to the mat and stay just busy enough to win the round very often. It happens over here all the time, and it happens in international events as well. Anywhere you see competent wrestlers.

The snarky remark was uncalled for, but frankly, I get tired of hearing about how wonderful MMA is in the UK always followed by implications (or sometimes overt statements) that the MMA here in the States is flashy, over-commercialized and sub par. You do that in every single thread where MMA comes up.

As for the BJJ comps, don't your black belts fight 10 minutes?

 

[Tez3]

While I have also seen fighters win rounds from the bottom, it's exceedingly rare. Now, maybe this is because there is a much more pervasive wrestling culture in the USA and so, without sarcasm, you might not have the number of competent wrestlers in your MMA ranks, particularly amongst your younger, less experienced competitors. So you and the other refs/judges in the UK might not see a competent wrestler take the fight to the mat and stay just busy enough to win the round. It happens over here all the time, and it happens in international events as well. Anywhere you see competent wrestlers.

The snarky remark was uncalled for, but frankly, I get tired of hearing about how wonderful MMA is in the UK always followed by implications (or sometimes overt statements) that the MMA here in the States is flashy, over-commercialized and sub par. You do that in every single thread where MMA comes up.

As for the BJJ comps, don't your black belts fight 10 minutes?

My word you have got a complex haven't you! How on earth do you read into things stuff I don't put in? Hell I don't even have it in my head the things you seem to think I say!


Look, lets get this right now. When I started posting about MMA and spoke about it generally, many times I was shot down by people saying I shouldn't generalise about MMA as I had no knowledge of MMA in the USA, that I shouldn't write stuff about American MMA so fine I don't. I preface and qualify my comments about MMA saying this is how we do it here because I can only speak for here. If you think it's because I think MMA here is better you are on the wrong track totally.

I have never criticised American MMA, I have criticised and I'm not alone in this one promotion in particular and that's the UFC. I don't know if you are aware that the UFC management wrote to a lot of us (including our promotion) in the UK who use certain words threatening us with lawsuits saying they had copyright and we should stop using them. You may not be aware either of the dirty tricks campaign waged by them against the most succesful British promotion but you don't actually have to know why I don't like them. No, I don't like the UFC, nobody says I have to like it and it doesn't mean I hate all American MMA.

Only you have been reading it as criticism of American MMA, only you.

MMA in the UK is tiny, you have people on MT with TKD clubs with more students than we have MMAers in the whole of the country. I can't talk about MMA in America, I don't know it so I am careful to make sure it's understood that I can only talk about what I know which is British MMA. so I tend to say here in the UK a lot so you know I'm not treading on anyones toes. How you can think this means I think British MMA is better than American MMA only you can say.

I have said many times we have very few wrestlers here, its not part of our game, we don't have the same heritage of wrestling you do. We are more BJJ and Judo orientated as Judo has been here for over a hundred years now.Whe I've said that before again I've been shot down by you assumeing I'm saying our MMA is better, no it's a bit different.

I have already explained we have only a handful of refs, I know all of them. All the promoters here know each other so rules are easy to reach agreement on. Again by saying thats how we do it, it's not a criticism of American MMA where I imagine it would be impossible to do this.


You would be less tired of my posts if you read and understood them properly instead of finding meanings in my words that simply aren't there.

 

[Steve]

What can I say? I'm a complex guy.

So, let's back up just a bit. You say:

The rules then aren't being used properly, if one fighter takes down his opponent but does nothing with it, he won't get the points. The fighter who is taken down a few times but defends themselves successfully and takes dominence will get the points. If the top guy is winning the round just for being on top then the judges aren't doing their job, the fighter working and is aggressive must get the points. It's ignorance on the judge's part there and something I admit annoys me when people who are judging can't see the fight as they should. Lay and pray can and is discouraged by using the rules properly too.

Instead of suggesting that the rest of the world is simply not applying the rules as they should, perhaps you guys just don't have the experience locally with strong wrestlers. You agree that you tend to be BJJ/Judo players in your community, but then make a sweeping comment about how everyone else scores an MMA bout. Maybe, just maybe, if you had more wrestlers, you'd better understand my point. You could, if you choose, look to larger promotions and see what I'm talking about.

I'll try to make it more clear. if a wrestler takes someone down and just lays there without any activity whatsoever, of course they'll get stood up. Any competent coach will give even the greenest wrestler enough of a game plan to ensure that he stays somewhat active. Once again, this really equates to a few hammer fists, some basic submission defense and the occasional, lackluster attempt to pass guard. 4 minutes of this and the wrestler will win that round 99 times out of 100, regardless of how active the bottom guy was.

You would be less tired of my posts if you read and understood them properly instead of finding meanings in my words that simply aren't there.

I'll accept full responsibility for this. If I have truly misunderstood you, I apologize.

But maybe you should consider how often and in how many threads you write something very much like this. In just about every thread you participate, you will almost always accuse someone of misreading your posts, misunderstanding your words and finding meanings that simply aren't there.

 

[Tez3]

What can I say? I'm a complex guy.

So, let's back up just a bit. You say: Instead of suggesting that the rest of the world is simply not applying the rules as they should, perhaps you guys just don't have the experience locally with strong wrestlers. You agree that you tend to be BJJ/Judo players in your community, but then make a sweeping comment about how everyone else scores an MMA bout. Maybe, just maybe, if you had more wrestlers, you'd better understand my point. You could, if you choose, look to larger promotions and see what I'm talking about.

I'll try to make it more clear. if a wrestler takes someone down and just lays there without any activity whatsoever, of course they'll get stood up. Any competent coach will give even the greenest wrestler enough of a game plan to ensure that he stays somewhat active. Once again, this really equates to a few hammer fists, some basic submission defense and the occasional, lackluster attempt to pass guard. 4 minutes of this and the wrestler will win that round 99 times out of 100, regardless of how active the bottom guy was.
I'll accept full responsibility for this. If I have truly misunderstood you, I apologize.

But maybe you should consider how often and in how many threads you write something very much like this. In just about every thread you participate, you will almost always accuse someone of misreading your posts, misunderstanding your words and finding meanings that simply aren't there.

Ok fine it upsets you so much I'll do the decent Capt Oates thing, Bye.

 

[Steve]

Ok fine it upsets you so much I'll do the decent Capt Oates thing, Bye.