A solution to antics like Silva's, vs. Maia - the "reverse stand-up"

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » General MMA Talk » A solution to antics like Silva's, vs. Maia - the "reverse stand-up"
AchillesHeel
4/12/10 9:35:10AM
While watching Anderson Silva's ridiculous behavior against Demian Maia, it became clear that a key part of his bravado was Maia's inability to take Silva down. For all his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu prowess, Maia's takedowns are simply pathetic. (Demian should spend the Summer at Greg Jackson's camp, imho, wrestling with Evans, St. Pierre, et al. If he can reach a point where those guys have to actually defend his takedowns instead of just walking away from them, he'll be a much better fighter. Anyway...)

When either or both fighters appear to be stalling or stalled while grappling, on the ground or in the clinch, the referee is empowered to break them up, stand them up, and "restart" the match. Why not allow the ref to take two fighters unwilling to engage on the feet and put them on the ground?

Some kind of "reasonably-neutral" position would have to be agreed upon by the powers that be. If the "start position" for grappling is one-fighter-in-full-guard, the ref would have to decide or determine who should be on top and who should be on his back. If the standup came to a halt because of one fighter, then the fighter not being penalized could be given the choice of whether to start the grappling on the top or the bottom.

Another possible "start position" for grappling could be a standing clinch, with the fighters' arms in an "over-under" position, their chests touching and their chins on each other's shoulder. Wrestlers would be happy enough with it and jiu-jitsu fighters could jump guard. Muay Thai guys might also be fine with it, but that might be okay.

If there is no single, obvious, neutral position, then the referee could talk to each fighter in the locker room before the match and settle on which grappling "start position" they'll use, in the event that it becomes necessary. I think referees commonly chat with fighters before fights already, so this wouldn't add something that isn't already there. It would just be one more thing on each ref's pre-flight checklist.

This idea assumes that a quality striker can in fact engage when he chooses to, and that's not always true. Watching Silva-vs-Maia, it was clear that Silva was just hot-dogging. But what about a fight like Nate Quarry vs. Kalib Starnes? In some fights, putting the fighters on the ground or in a clinch might accidentally penalize the fighter who's trying to slug it out. The solution is actually very simple: Let the fighter who's not being penalized choose to decline the penalty. That would also preserve the importance of good takedown skills; a grappler couldn't just run away from a striker and force the ref to put them in a grappling position.

There may be other things that would have to be resolved in advance. Since I'm mostly coming up with this off the top of my head, I probably haven't anticipated all of the possible complications. I still think it's worth considering.
Jackelope
4/12/10 11:18:03AM
I'm more of a fan of the yellow card system from Pride.

Just go take a look at Rampage vs. Randleman if you wanna see the effects of how taking 10% of a purse can get someone fired up.
sbulldavid
4/12/10 11:41:41AM
I liked the yellow card system as well. I also think that the referees need to take charge a lot sooner, both fighters should have been warned sooner.
emfleek
4/12/10 11:55:40AM

Posted by sbulldavid

I liked the yellow card system as well. I also think that the referees need to take charge a lot sooner, both fighters should have been warned sooner.



It cracked me up that Miragliotta waited until there were 50 seconds remaining IN THE 5TH AND FINAL ROUND to say something to Silva.
spikerman19
4/12/10 12:09:42PM
I think the last time I observed this was UFC 56, Gonzaga vs. Jordan. Herb Dean grabbed both fighters pulled to the middle of the octagon and warned them both. Quite possibly the worst fight in UFC history.
AchillesHeel
4/12/10 12:19:36PM

Posted by spikerman19

I think the last time I observed this was UFC 56, Gonzaga vs. Jordan. Herb Dean grabbed both fighters pulled to the middle of the octagon and warned them both. Quite possibly the worst fight in UFC history.


Yeah, I remember that fight. Ugh.

Whichever system is implemented - and I hope they do something - the ideal would be that it isn't used often, that it's something that compels the fighters to act. And the truth is, there aren't that many fights where I think it would have been used, had such a system existed. The worst-case scenario, for me, would be a system being over-used. As it is, there are occasions where a referee stands up or breaks up fighters who I think should be left alone.
grappler0000
4/12/10 1:24:43PM

Posted by Jackelope

I'm more of a fan of the yellow card system from Pride.

Just go take a look at Rampage vs. Randleman if you wanna see the effects of how taking 10% of a purse can get someone fired up.



As a fan of exciting fights, I'll agree. But as a fan of the sport, I would never want it. A referee's main objectives should be preserving fighter safety and maintaining a fair fight. IMO, a referee should never have direct influence over a fighter's pay.
scoozna
4/12/10 2:11:33PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Jackelope

I'm more of a fan of the yellow card system from Pride.

Just go take a look at Rampage vs. Randleman if you wanna see the effects of how taking 10% of a purse can get someone fired up.



As a fan of exciting fights, I'll agree. But as a fan of the sport, I would never want it. A referee's main objectives should be preserving fighter safety and maintaining a fair fight. IMO, a referee should never have direct influence over a fighter's pay.



I agree, and would add that, as a general principle, we don't want *more* rules. I think the promotion needs to penalize him either in whom they give him to fight, or at contract negotiations. Where's he gonna go? He's either gonna stay in the UFC and "play by the rules" so-to-speak, or he's gonna go to another promotion where the competition is worse.
postman
4/12/10 11:04:20PM
I hate when a guy LNP's his way to a win but IMO there is no reason to stand them up. If a fighter is boring us with his LNP then he will not be around very long and the same can be said for a fighter running from the stand up game. Its your job to take the fight where you want it.

Anderson do nothing more then out class Maia for 3 rds won the fight then went into safe mode for the last 2. Boring yes anything new no. We see it all the time in Pro sports. Nothing should be done IMO. We as fans no have to decided will we buy Sinister shorts will we buy the next PPV with Anderson in it? Basicly will we support Anderson Silva? When people stop supporting things they don't like thats when things will change.
mrsmiley
4/13/10 8:14:34AM

Posted by AchillesHeel

While watching Anderson Silva's ridiculous behavior against Demian Maia, it became clear that a key part of his bravado was Maia's inability to take Silva down. For all his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu prowess, Maia's takedowns are simply pathetic. (Demian should spend the Summer at Greg Jackson's camp, imho, wrestling with Evans, St. Pierre, et al. If he can reach a point where those guys have to actually defend his takedowns instead of just walking away from them, he'll be a much better fighter. Anyway...)

When either or both fighters appear to be stalling or stalled while grappling, on the ground or in the clinch, the referee is empowered to break them up, stand them up, and "restart" the match. Why not allow the ref to take two fighters unwilling to engage on the feet and put them on the ground?

Some kind of "reasonably-neutral" position would have to be agreed upon by the powers that be. If the "start position" for grappling is one-fighter-in-full-guard, the ref would have to decide or determine who should be on top and who should be on his back. If the standup came to a halt because of one fighter, then the fighter not being penalized could be given the choice of whether to start the grappling on the top or the bottom.

Another possible "start position" for grappling could be a standing clinch, with the fighters' arms in an "over-under" position, their chests touching and their chins on each other's shoulder. Wrestlers would be happy enough with it and jiu-jitsu fighters could jump guard. Muay Thai guys might also be fine with it, but that might be okay.

If there is no single, obvious, neutral position, then the referee could talk to each fighter in the locker room before the match and settle on which grappling "start position" they'll use, in the event that it becomes necessary. I think referees commonly chat with fighters before fights already, so this wouldn't add something that isn't already there. It would just be one more thing on each ref's pre-flight checklist.

This idea assumes that a quality striker can in fact engage when he chooses to, and that's not always true. Watching Silva-vs-Maia, it was clear that Silva was just hot-dogging. But what about a fight like Nate Quarry vs. Kalib Starnes? In some fights, putting the fighters on the ground or in a clinch might accidentally penalize the fighter who's trying to slug it out. The solution is actually very simple: Let the fighter who's not being penalized choose to decline the penalty. That would also preserve the importance of good takedown skills; a grappler couldn't just run away from a striker and force the ref to put them in a grappling position.

There may be other things that would have to be resolved in advance. Since I'm mostly coming up with this off the top of my head, I probably haven't anticipated all of the possible complications. I still think it's worth considering.



I brought this very same solution up on another thread about another particular fight. I like the idea and would like to see if it could be applied in real time with sucsuss. If anything,it would sure make some of the standup snooze fest we encounter every once and awhile more entertaining.
vomitshovel
4/13/10 10:29:09AM
This could never work. It borderlines stupid.
All they need to do is take a point away. Simple.
Once the fighter thats kiting gets 2 points taken away, he will HAVE to fight or lose.
MIrgliotta should be slapped, for not taking a point away from Silva in R4.
Let alone not taking ANY away.... with a pathetic warning 50 seconds before the end of round 5
BlueSkiesBurn
4/13/10 6:00:20PM


I don't like the idea of a ref having influence over pay but I suppose if you have a fighter like Starnes who is running maybe you could implement a 2 point deduction?
mrsmiley
4/14/10 10:08:59AM

Posted by vomitshovel

This could never work. It borderlines stupid.
All they need to do is take a point away. Simple.
Once the fighter thats kiting gets 2 points taken away, he will HAVE to fight or lose.
MIrgliotta should be slapped, for not taking a point away from Silva in R4.
Let alone not taking ANY away.... with a pathetic warning 50 seconds before the end of round 5



I agree with the bulk of your arguement but the only objection I have is that if you come out and your fighting like Kalib Starnes,then your not fighting. If your not fighting,perhaps whether you win or lose doesn't matter to you either since your getting paycheck out of the deal anyways.
I would much rather see a yellow card given with a deduction of a fighters purse than just a point taken away. Perhaps both, but I don't believe a point deduction would be enough in every case.
But I do have a question. Does a point deduction lead to a decrease in a fighters pay within the UFC?
If so, disregard my question.
Boo_Radley21
4/14/10 11:51:05AM

Posted by spikerman19

I think the last time I observed this was UFC 56, Gonzaga vs. Jordan. Herb Dean grabbed both fighters pulled to the middle of the octagon and warned them both. Quite possibly the worst fight in UFC history.



That was the first PPV I ever watched with my friends haha Jordan kept falling sleep in the middle of the fight
Related Topics