Steve Mazzagatti: 'I Don't Work For Dana'

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Steve Mazzagatti: 'I Don't Work For Dana'
FastKnockout
7/27/12 5:32:07PM
UFC president Dana White is very fond of going after referees, and his favorite target has always been Steve Mazzagatti. Mazzagatti did an interview with Heavy, where they asked him about White's constant criticism and how he handles his job. He actually has some interesting stuff to say. He starts off with addressing Dana:

"[White] has criticized us and we get a lot of criticism for not standing them up - at least I do," Mazzagatti said in a telephone interview. "They say we let fighters lay on the ground too long and we're not doing anything. We don't make the rules. We enforce them. It's not our job to make sure the fight goes the way the promoter wants it to go. It's the fighter's job. It's their show.

"They've got to be the entertainer. I don't make the fight what everyone expects it to be. All we do is enforce the rules - period -- and make sure it's a clean and fair fight."

LINK
BeeR
7/27/12 5:56:36PM
good words from moustachagatti, I agree


but that has nothing to do with him making horrible, terrible calls/decisions as a ref, very early/late/wtf? stoppages while in the cage.
lll-lll
7/27/12 6:58:25PM

Posted by BeeR

good words from moustachagatti, I agree


but that has nothing to do with him making horrible, terrible calls/decisions as a ref, very early/late/wtf? stoppages while in the cage.




I agree with you. He was on point with what he said about Dana, but the reality is that he sucks as a ref. Dana might be the loudest critic he has, but there are probably more people who hate him than there are lawyers in hell.
tcunningham
7/27/12 7:52:28PM
sometimes fighters do need to get stood up, but like we have seen so many times, even if they are stood up that doesnt mean they will suddenly go to war. they will probably just go straight back to what they were doing before. i'm taking mazzagatti's side on this one.
grappler0000
7/27/12 8:42:21PM
I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. However, Dana rarely complains about standups...I know he did recently, but his biggest complaints are regarding bad calls by refs and judges. So, although I agree with what's being said, I'm not sure that it needed to be said. I would rather hear his opinion on late/early stoppages.
Twenty20Dollars
7/27/12 9:29:59PM
I think everybody knows Mazz doesn't work for Uncle Dana.

Rogan is usually the one hating on the stand ups.
bjj1605
7/28/12 1:03:46AM
I say get rid of stand ups all together.

This is a sport first, not professional wrestling. If you get taken down, do something about it.
fonduktoe
7/28/12 4:06:13AM

Posted by bjj1605

I say get rid of stand ups all together.

This is a sport first, not professional wrestling. If you get taken down, do something about it.

i wish i could give you negative props. i suppose we should get rid of the shot clock in basketball too, huh? advancing your position along with aggression are part of this SPORT. if you wanna watch two guys snuggle there are plenty of web sites out there for ya.
airkerma
7/28/12 1:05:19PM

Posted by fonduktoe


Posted by bjj1605

I say get rid of stand ups all together.

This is a sport first, not professional wrestling. If you get taken down, do something about it.

i wish i could give you negative props. i suppose we should get rid of the shot clock in basketball too, huh? advancing your position along with aggression are part of this SPORT. if you wanna watch two guys snuggle there are plenty of web sites out there for ya.


Idk about negative props... but I would fully disagree with removing standups. Imo, it is the only way to deal with point fighters. There is a difference between dominating wrestling and LnP. Distinguishing the difference is on the ref, but if we use examples: Chael/Weidman: advance positions, constantly wearing down the opponent with either strikes or sub attempts, have a very real chance at finishing the fight. This doesn't deserve a standup. Volkman and Pierce come to mind as point fighters, who hardly even through real strikes from the top. This is point fighting or just pure wrestling which deserves it's chance, but after too much inaction there needs to be a standup.
bjj1605
7/28/12 2:57:16PM

Posted by fonduktoe
i wish i could give you negative props. i suppose we should get rid of the shot clock in basketball too, huh? advancing your position along with aggression are part of this SPORT. if you wanna watch two guys snuggle there are plenty of web sites out there for ya.



I wish you could express your opinion with out being rude.

This SPORT is about fighting. Takedowns and ground control are part of fighting. The more interference there is from the ref, the less realistic the fight is. Every time you stand two fighters up you give an unwarranted advantage to the fighter on the bottom.

I'd say that if you aren't interested in the technicalities of the ground game (you called it snuggling), you should go watch boxing, kickboxing, or really any other sport. How about professional wrestling? That's all about entertainment. No realism there. Which is exactly what you are advocating.


Posted by airkerma

Idk about negative props... but I would fully disagree with removing standups. Imo, it is the only way to deal with point fighters. There is a difference between dominating wrestling and Ln.P



No. The way you discourage lay and pray is through rule changes.

1. Allow knees and kicks to fighters on their knees but not on their backs. This would allow people to use knees as a defense against double leg take downs and also allow fighters to utilize up kicks more freely without worrying about a possible foul.

2. Allow all types of elbows (at least from the fighter on the bottom.) Currently 12 to 6 elbows where you strike with the point of the elbow are illegal. This takes away a powerful weapon for fighters on their backs.

3. Clarify in the judging criteria that takedowns are to be scored only minimally (as a means to an end rather than as an end in and of themselves) and that top position is not to be scored at all. Simply BEING on top in guard should not score you any points. It's what you do when you're there that matters. GNP, passing guard, establishing dominant positions....these things matter. You could even write a specific line like "A fighter on his back who is actively striking and attempting submissions should be scored more highly than a fighter on top who is merely maintaining position."

Make those three simple changes and you'd have more exciting fights and more fighters winning fights from their backs.

Stand ups ruin the realism and competitive nature of the sport.
lll-lll
7/28/12 7:04:57PM
This has to be the worst post I ahve ever seen on this forum. Give me a break. If you actually think your rules changes would influence action you are totally delusional. There is NOTHING I love better than a totally biased opinion from people Mr. bjj1605. Im sure you would like some unlimited time limits Gracie style. Ill break down your crap one by one.


This SPORT is about fighting. Takedowns and ground control are part of fighting. The more interference there is from the ref, the less realistic the fight is. Every time you stand two fighters up you give an unwarranted advantage to the fighter on the bottom.


I love takedowns and ground fighting as much as you do, but I do not want to see boring lay and pray.Your REALISM is a myth. This is a sport. This is not the streets, if you want to see streets go watch some Kimbo fights. There are rounds, there are judges, there are refs. This is not some Gracie style beach challenge. I dont want to see someone tie a guy up and try to wear him out trying to get the win. If the sport was Gracie style it would have died years ago, AND ALMOST DID!!!! If BJJ is so good (and I love BJJ) then you should be able to use it well.



1. Allow knees and kicks to fighters on their knees but not on their backs. This would allow people to use knees as a defense against double leg take downs and also allow fighters to utilize up kicks more freely without worrying about a possible foul.


I wouldnt have too much issue with this rule, but I would just like to say that I would guess the double leg (from the middle of the cage) is the least successful wrestling takedown in MMA. Most people use the single and many occur against the cage anyhow. Plus most people do not use knees to defend takedowns because if you miss you give up the takedown. So I do not mind the rule, but your reasoning for the rule is flawed.


2. Allow all types of elbows (at least from the fighter on the bottom.) Currently 12 to 6 elbows where you strike with the point of the elbow are illegal. This takes away a powerful weapon for fighters on their backs.


People still use elbows from their back fine. The REALITY is that they are not that effective, other than cuts. But who wants to see a bunch of lame ass cut stoppages? Kenny Florian?!!!! They can allow elbows like that all day, you are not going to see a bunch of KOs from the bottom.


3. Clarify in the judging criteria that takedowns are to be scored only minimally (as a means to an end rather than as an end in and of themselves) and that top position is not to be scored at all. Simply BEING on top in guard should not score you any points. It's what you do when you're there that matters. GNP, passing guard, establishing dominant positions....these things matter. You could even write a specific line like "A fighter on his back who is actively striking and attempting submissions should be scored more highly than a fighter on top who is merely maintaining position."


The fact is that bottom fighters are in a BAD POSITION. Even your beloved BJJ scores it as such. You think Tito Ortiz and Ricardo Arona were running up awesome Abu Dhabi records by showing slick BJJ? The fact is that striking from bottom is not, and will never be effective. THAT IS WHY IT IS SCORED LESS EFFECTIVELY. You are never going to make people think that a guy from his back should be winning fights EVER! Only a delusional BJJ nutrider would even try to argue this point.

I personally think that judges do need to be educated better and score fights more accurately in terms of action from the bottom. For example I scored Torres/Johnson in favor of Torres. I thought Torres controlled the whole fight from the bottom with subs and sweeps, while Johnson did minimal damage from top. However the truth is that I see very few fights this way because very few guys do anything from their back. They do not take chances! The truth about why this is the case has nothing to do with the rules. The TRUTH is that some people are not naturally flexible nor long limbed enough to be effective from their backs with subs. It is a clear truth about MMA that lanky, flexible guys are better from their backs with subs. If you arent going to be effective trying subs from your back, why try them? Another truth is that people do not want to take punishment trying submissions. No one wants to be Mir getting throttled vs Monson, so it limits the types of subs people use and their agressiveness with the subs. Its all strategy. Not to mention the fact that you could give up mount or side control by trying subs too. Again being worried about a fighter moving to a superior position. The game has become a positioning match, and this is why many fighters do nto take chances with subs from top or bottom anymore. I dont like it that much, and would rather see people go for broke and try to get subs, but I can understand the thought process when they are trying to win.





You can blame the rules and the refs all you want, but the fact is the fighters fight. They are the ones who control the action. If they would take more chances the fights woudl be better. Whne Arona took people down and laid on their asses he couldve done more. When Sylvia started using his jab and pushing people into the cage holding them there he could have done more. Kongo/Jordan was the fighters fault. Lombard/Boetsch was the fighters fault. No one forces people to be boring. There are 10 exciting MMA fights for every boring fight IMO. The rules do not cause it, the refs do nto cause it, the fighters cause it. Can the refs lack of action contribute to a boring fight? YES! Does it cause the boring fight? NO!
bjj1605
7/29/12 12:26:57AM
I didn't say a fighter on the bottom should always be winning. I'm talking about situations in which they obviously are winning but still lose the fight.

Torres vs Johnson is a great example.

I'm also not a bjj "nutrider".... I wrestled a bit in high school and I respect the hell out of wrestling. The work ethic of American wrestlers is second to no other athlete in the world.

I think that the most effective grapplers are guys who combine wrestling and bjj to have a well rounded grappling game. Guys who can get on top consistently and finish fights once they are there.

What I don't like is the same thing you don't like. "lay and pray." I think that there are changes that could be made to the rules and judging that would make lay and pray a poor strategy. If fighters couldn't win fights by lay and pray then they would have to work from the top (throw punches or improve position.)

It seems like the single disagreement we have is about stand ups (which is why I'm not really sure what all those insults and tangents were for). You think they're good because they keep MMA exciting for the fans. I think they're bad because the hurt the integrity of the sport and could potentially change the outcomes of fights.

I can't remember any off the top of my head but I've seen fights where a fighter gets stood up and then goes on to knock out his opponent. I just believe in letting the fighters fight and only interfering when there is an illegal strike. Otherwise you risk changing the outcome, which IMO is the worst thing you can do because it undermines the whole spirit of what a "SPORT" is (namely competition.

_____________________________________________________________
And that my friend is how you have a debate with out being an insulting douche.

PS. Tito has not done that great in grappling tournaments. Arona is a jiu jitsu guy first. Both of them train heavily in submissions. You could never win a grappling tournament with pure wrestling. Watch Dan Severn vs Royce Gracie to see how well pure wrestlers do against pure jiu jitsu guys.
Aether
7/29/12 2:01:22AM

Posted by grappler0000

I agree wholeheartedly with what he said. However, Dana rarely complains about standups...I know he did recently, but his biggest complaints are regarding bad calls by refs and judges. So, although I agree with what's being said, I'm not sure that it needed to be said. I would rather hear his opinion on late/early stoppages.



This. Dana's complaints are almost always about things like bad stoppages, bad judging, bad calls like what happened in the Riddle/Clements fight, where the ref separated them for a liver kick and got all confused.

It's easy to pick out the ONE possible irrelevant complaint and ignore all of the incompetence that runs rampant in the sport's officials when absolutely no one holds you accountable, and the organization you work for would rather save face than do their job properly.

Really annoys me when refs and athletic commissions (*cough* Kizer *cough*) try to act like they're doing their jobs properly and there's no problem. Really bothers me a lot that they are not held accountable for anything they choose to do, and that the safety and financial stability of people's careers are entirely in their hands.

He's lucky he doesn't work for Dana, because he would be held accountable for his actions if he did, and he would've probably been fired a long time ago, like most of the other terrible, incompetent refs and judges that consistently make probably an average of 2-3 blatant errors per card, on average.
fonduktoe
7/29/12 2:18:31AM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by fonduktoe
i wish i could give you negative props. i suppose we should get rid of the shot clock in basketball too, huh? advancing your position along with aggression are part of this SPORT. if you wanna watch two guys snuggle there are plenty of web sites out there for ya.



I wish you could express your opinion with out being rude.

This SPORT is about fighting. Takedowns and ground control are part of fighting. The more interference there is from the ref, the less realistic the fight is. Every time you stand two fighters up you give an unwarranted advantage to the fighter on the bottom.

I'd say that if you aren't interested in the technicalities of the ground game (you called it snuggling), you should go watch boxing, kickboxing, or really any other sport. How about professional wrestling? That's all about entertainment. No realism there. Which is exactly what you are advocating.


Posted by airkerma

Idk about negative props... but I would fully disagree with removing standups. Imo, it is the only way to deal with point fighters. There is a difference between dominating wrestling and Ln.P



No. The way you discourage lay and pray is through rule changes.

1. Allow knees and kicks to fighters on their knees but not on their backs. This would allow people to use knees as a defense against double leg take downs and also allow fighters to utilize up kicks more freely without worrying about a possible foul.

2. Allow all types of elbows (at least from the fighter on the bottom.) Currently 12 to 6 elbows where you strike with the point of the elbow are illegal. This takes away a powerful weapon for fighters on their backs.

3. Clarify in the judging criteria that takedowns are to be scored only minimally (as a means to an end rather than as an end in and of themselves) and that top position is not to be scored at all. Simply BEING on top in guard should not score you any points. It's what you do when you're there that matters. GNP, passing guard, establishing dominant positions....these things matter. You could even write a specific line like "A fighter on his back who is actively striking and attempting submissions should be scored more highly than a fighter on top who is merely maintaining position."

Make those three simple changes and you'd have more exciting fights and more fighters winning fights from their backs.

Stand ups ruin the realism and competitive nature of the sport.


i think its hilarious that you refer me to other sports because i'm the one upholding the rules of the sport we're discussing. if that isn't ridiculous enough you than list rule changes to said sport you'd like to see. i was stating i like the way the current mma stand-up rules are. if you don't like them than watch jj tourneys, wrestling, karate, arm wrestling whatever. ur outta your element here donney.
lll-lll
7/29/12 6:03:57PM

Posted by bjj1605

I didn't say a fighter on the bottom should always be winning. I'm talking about situations in which they obviously are winning but still lose the fight.

Torres vs Johnson is a great example.

I'm also not a bjj "nutrider".... I wrestled a bit in high school and I respect the hell out of wrestling. The work ethic of American wrestlers is second to no other athlete in the world.

I think that the most effective grapplers are guys who combine wrestling and bjj to have a well rounded grappling game. Guys who can get on top consistently and finish fights once they are there.

What I don't like is the same thing you don't like. "lay and pray." I think that there are changes that could be made to the rules and judging that would make lay and pray a poor strategy. If fighters couldn't win fights by lay and pray then they would have to work from the top (throw punches or improve position.)

It seems like the single disagreement we have is about stand ups (which is why I'm not really sure what all those insults and tangents were for). You think they're good because they keep MMA exciting for the fans. I think they're bad because the hurt the integrity of the sport and could potentially change the outcomes of fights.

I can't remember any off the top of my head but I've seen fights where a fighter gets stood up and then goes on to knock out his opponent. I just believe in letting the fighters fight and only interfering when there is an illegal strike. Otherwise you risk changing the outcome, which IMO is the worst thing you can do because it undermines the whole spirit of what a "SPORT" is (namely competition.

_____________________________________________________________
And that my friend is how you have a debate with out being an insulting douche.

PS. Tito has not done that great in grappling tournaments. Arona is a jiu jitsu guy first. Both of them train heavily in submissions. You could never win a grappling tournament with pure wrestling. Watch Dan Severn vs Royce Gracie to see how well pure wrestlers do against pure jiu jitsu guys.





First off no one ever said Arona or tito didnt know or train BJJ. The guys who do it in the UFC train in subissions. The point is that they use wrestling and sub defense, JUST LIKE THE GUYS WHO WIN BORING LAY N PRAY IN THE UFC, to win BJJ tourneys. Arona is a legendary boring fighter, and he is like 12 or 13 and 0 in ADCC with all but one or two wins on pts. The point is that your beloved BJJ tourneys have rules and scoring that allow guys to do the exact same thing you detest, and win! The point is that even they realize, and any good BJJ trainer will tell you (including the Gracie instructional books) being on top is a superior position.


As far as it goes your whole logic is flawed, because if a guy on bottom had the BJJ needed to keep from getting LnPed to a loss he would do it. So all the rule changes in the world wont help that. Its never going to end. Stand ups are the ONLY thing that allows a fighter who is being LnPed a fair chance to win, short of no time limits. the reality is that LnP is the reason there are stand ups. People love good grappling fights.

BTW how could anyone see you as anything other than a BJJ nutrider when you are advocating for lowering the scoring of takedowns, giving no credit to being on top, and raising the scoring for sub attempts and sweep attempts for people on bottom. That is a total joke. Even BJJ tourneys do not score it that way. They may not give credit for ride time per se, but they do not give pts for failed attempts either. Even they know that's crap!
lll-lll
7/29/12 6:25:25PM

Posted by fonduktoe


Posted by bjj1605


Posted by fonduktoe
i wish i could give you negative props. i suppose we should get rid of the shot clock in basketball too, huh? advancing your position along with aggression are part of this SPORT. if you wanna watch two guys snuggle there are plenty of web sites out there for ya.



I wish you could express your opinion with out being rude.

This SPORT is about fighting. Takedowns and ground control are part of fighting. The more interference there is from the ref, the less realistic the fight is. Every time you stand two fighters up you give an unwarranted advantage to the fighter on the bottom.

I'd say that if you aren't interested in the technicalities of the ground game (you called it snuggling), you should go watch boxing, kickboxing, or really any other sport. How about professional wrestling? That's all about entertainment. No realism there. Which is exactly what you are advocating.


Posted by airkerma

Idk about negative props... but I would fully disagree with removing standups. Imo, it is the only way to deal with point fighters. There is a difference between dominating wrestling and Ln.P



No. The way you discourage lay and pray is through rule changes.

1. Allow knees and kicks to fighters on their knees but not on their backs. This would allow people to use knees as a defense against double leg take downs and also allow fighters to utilize up kicks more freely without worrying about a possible foul.

2. Allow all types of elbows (at least from the fighter on the bottom.) Currently 12 to 6 elbows where you strike with the point of the elbow are illegal. This takes away a powerful weapon for fighters on their backs.

3. Clarify in the judging criteria that takedowns are to be scored only minimally (as a means to an end rather than as an end in and of themselves) and that top position is not to be scored at all. Simply BEING on top in guard should not score you any points. It's what you do when you're there that matters. GNP, passing guard, establishing dominant positions....these things matter. You could even write a specific line like "A fighter on his back who is actively striking and attempting submissions should be scored more highly than a fighter on top who is merely maintaining position."

Make those three simple changes and you'd have more exciting fights and more fighters winning fights from their backs.

Stand ups ruin the realism and competitive nature of the sport.


i think its hilarious that you refer me to other sports because i'm the one upholding the rules of the sport we're discussing. if that isn't ridiculous enough you than list rule changes to said sport you'd like to see. i was stating i like the way the current mma stand-up rules are. if you don't like them than watch jj tourneys, wrestling, karate, arm wrestling whatever. ur outta your element here donney.




Like I stated he cant even do that. Boring fighters like Arona win BJJ tourneys the same way they bore thier way to MMA wins. The guy is an undefeated ADCC legend and considered the poster boy for boring MMA fights.
bjj1605
7/30/12 5:20:05PM

Posted by lll-lll



BTW how could anyone see you as anything other than a BJJ nutrider when you are advocating for lowering the scoring of takedowns, giving no credit to being on top, and raising the scoring for sub attempts and sweep attempts for people on bottom. That is a total joke. Even BJJ tourneys do not score it that way. They may not give credit for ride time per se, but they do not give pts for failed attempts either. Even they know that's crap!



Dude you're putting words in my mouth and exaggerating the points I did make.

Most of the time a fighter on the top is winning, I agree with that. My point is that they aren't ALWAYS winning. You yourself mentioned Torres vs Johnson. Another horrible decision was Mizugaki vs Curran.

1. When a fighter on his back is landing the better shots and constantly threatening with submissions, he is winning the fight.

2. When a fighter on top is landing shots and avoiding submissions (prefferably also advancing his position), he is winning the fight.

Scenario number one is much more rare than scenario number two. About 80% of the time I agree that the guy on top is winning. My point is that in current MMA scoring, even when scenario number 1 does happen, the guy on his back loses. It simply shouldn't be that way.

The rule changes I mentioned would still allow top fighters to win the vast majority of fights. If you get a takedown, that scores (even though I'd score them less.) If you're landing the better shots on the ground, that scores. If you pass guard, that scores. The only thing that wouldn't score is sitting on top defending yourself from an active bottom fighter.

Also, just for the sake of accuracy, BJJ tournaments DO score failed submission attempts. Most tournament have three different ways you can score with a submission.

1. The lowest level attempt is scored as an "advantage" which is short of a full point. In the event of a tie on points, the fighter with the most "advantages" wins the fight.

2. If your submission attempt causes your opponent to have stop their offensive action and go on defense, it is scored as 1 point.

3. If your submission attempt causes your opponent to go on defense AND the submission attempt either causes them to give up position or is close to finishing the fight, it is scored as two points.

I'm not saying that in MMA every time a guy throws his legs up it should be scored.

But....If someone is caught in a good submission, that is just as close to finishing the fight as getting rocked is and the two should be scored the same.

Watch Mizugaki vs Curran. Mizugaki ends at least 2 of the 3 rounds in a close sub attempt (possibly all 3). The only reason he even survived is because he was saved by the bell. He also spent the majority of all three rounds eating shots from Top Guard and defending submission attempts.

Did he deserve to win the fight because he got a couple of takedowns and for the most part prevented himself from getting swept?

Or does Curran (by far the more offensive fighter and by far the fighter who was closer to finishing) deserve the decision?


EDIT: I should also add that I would score slams and judo throws very highly, probably more highly than they are now. These takedowns also cause damage and the should be scored as effective striking and grappling (an old joke in Judo is that Judo has lots of striking, striking your opponent into the ground.)
lll-lll
7/31/12 10:08:43AM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by lll-lll



BTW how could anyone see you as anything other than a BJJ nutrider when you are advocating for lowering the scoring of takedowns, giving no credit to being on top, and raising the scoring for sub attempts and sweep attempts for people on bottom. That is a total joke. Even BJJ tourneys do not score it that way. They may not give credit for ride time per se, but they do not give pts for failed attempts either. Even they know that's crap!



Dude you're putting words in my mouth and exaggerating the points I did make.

Most of the time a fighter on the top is winning, I agree with that. My point is that they aren't ALWAYS winning. You yourself mentioned Torres vs Johnson. Another horrible decision was Mizugaki vs Curran.

1. When a fighter on his back is landing the better shots and constantly threatening with submissions, he is winning the fight.

2. When a fighter on top is landing shots and avoiding submissions (prefferably also advancing his position), he is winning the fight.

Scenario number one is much more rare than scenario number two. About 80% of the time I agree that the guy on top is winning. My point is that in current MMA scoring, even when scenario number 1 does happen, the guy on his back loses. It simply shouldn't be that way.

The rule changes I mentioned would still allow top fighters to win the vast majority of fights. If you get a takedown, that scores (even though I'd score them less.) If you're landing the better shots on the ground, that scores. If you pass guard, that scores. The only thing that wouldn't score is sitting on top defending yourself from an active bottom fighter.

Also, just for the sake of accuracy, BJJ tournaments DO score failed submission attempts. Most tournament have three different ways you can score with a submission.

1. The lowest level attempt is scored as an "advantage" which is short of a full point. In the event of a tie on points, the fighter with the most "advantages" wins the fight.

2. If your submission attempt causes your opponent to have stop their offensive action and go on defense, it is scored as 1 point.

3. If your submission attempt causes your opponent to go on defense AND the submission attempt either causes them to give up position or is close to finishing the fight, it is scored as two points.

I'm not saying that in MMA every time a guy throws his legs up it should be scored.

But....If someone is caught in a good submission, that is just as close to finishing the fight as getting rocked is and the two should be scored the same.

Watch Mizugaki vs Curran. Mizugaki ends at least 2 of the 3 rounds in a close sub attempt (possibly all 3). The only reason he even survived is because he was saved by the bell. He also spent the majority of all three rounds eating shots from Top Guard and defending submission attempts.

Did he deserve to win the fight because he got a couple of takedowns and for the most part prevented himself from getting swept?

Or does Curran (by far the more offensive fighter and by far the fighter who was closer to finishing) deserve the decision?


EDIT: I should also add that I would score slams and judo throws very highly, probably more highly than they are now. These takedowns also cause damage and the should be scored as effective striking and grappling (an old joke in Judo is that Judo has lots of striking, striking your opponent into the ground.)



Some fights are tough to call and always will be. I have no problem scoring subs that are close or guys who end teh round in a close sub, but they arent like rocking someone. Where is the credit for not getting subbed? There has to be some credit for not getting subbed if subs are that good. Then defending subs would have to be scored more highly too. Also I dont like the idea of comparing them to being rocked because people want to give a round over being rocked, and that is stupid IMO. If all you do in a round is rock a guy and he wins the rest of teh round then he wins it IMO. Too many people give too much credit for being rocked. This IS NOT BOXING! I wouldnt want to see something else like a near sub muddy already dirty waters. I like everything the way it is. If the refs do their job, like in the case of Kongo/Jordan or Guida/Maynard, then fights should be less boring. The judges could use some work, but its just the way it is. A lot of people felt Johnson beat Torres, I didnt see it that way at all. The difference to me in the Johnson/Torres fiasco is that Torres not only had some near subs, but also several sweeps too. The issue for the judging in that fight to me was that they appeared to judge Johnson takedowns, but not Torres' sweeps. IMO they shoudl be judged equally, and Johnson should be given les credit when he gets a takedown and gets swept. However, sweeps are an under used part of MMA IMO. There just arent that many fights where I can compare them to Johnson/Torres. That just doesnt happen very often, and when it does sometimes it is scored correctly IMO. Issues such as sweeeps not being used properly in MMA, people being afraid to get hit or give up position are the problems IMO. Its like armbars from the top, especially mount, I see clear chances to end fights with armbars, but people do not want to risk superior position. However a long drawn out fight can be ended with an armbar that is there for the taking. But armbars from top have almost went the way of the dinosaur.
Bubbles
8/1/12 12:12:59AM
insert popcorn eating gif here
bjj1605
8/1/12 1:57:15PM

Posted by lll-lll


Where is the credit for not getting subbed? There has to be some credit for not getting subbed if subs are that good. Then defending subs would have to be scored more highly too.



That's not the way fights are scored. Offense is always scored, defense rarely is.

If its a stand up fight and one guy is moving forward throwing punches and the other guy is blocking the punches, who is winning?

Scoring sub defense would be like scoring blocking punches.
lll-lll
8/5/12 9:35:54PM
People score takedown defense all the time.
Related Topics