Ever since I started watching MMA (1997), I've always tended to fall on the UFC side of the proverbial fence. Whether it was watching a small 5'9 Brazilian guy make fighters built like Greek gods squeal (Royce Gracie), or the fact that I had been watching the UFC for about half a decade before being exposed to PRIDE, it was just the brand I identified with better. To me, it seemed ludicrous that elbows to the head of a downed opponent was illegal, but you could soccer kick and stomp the head of that same downed opponent seemed backwards.
As a mixed-martial arts fan, I find it atrocious that wrestlers are sometimes allowed to simply lay on top of their opponent, and win simply because they are better wrestlers. Jon Fitch has made a career of out-wrestling his opponent and grinding out boring unanimous decisions. While I understand that Fitch is doing what is necessary to win (and ultimately, that's what every fighter competes to do), the rules that are currently in place allow for top-level wrestlers to do just that.
While PRIDE has been gone for almost five years, it wasn't without its fair share of good ideas. A couple of ideas that would make sense for the UFC to adopt include:
1) Allow north-south knees - By doing this, it will prevent a wrestler from being lazy and using a lazy shot to try and get to his foe to the mat.
2) Institute yellow cards - Similar to the previous guideline, this will prevent fighters from stalling during a fight. So if a fighter were to "lay-and-pray" (staying inactive while in someones full guard), they would be stood up, and docked a percentage of their purse for doing so. Also, should a fighter continually back away from their opponent while not hurt (like Kalib Starnes did against Nate Quarry in the now-famous "Rock Hammer" fight), they would also be docked a percentage of their purse. PRIDE used 10% for each yellow card, the third resulting in the fighters disqualification, and I think that would be appropriate for the UFC.
The UFC currently scores fights on a ten-point must system, with the winner of a round getting 10, the opponent 9 or less. Their scoring is based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and octagon control. While this isn't a terrible system, it could be improved upon. PRIDE didn't score based on rounds, but rather they scored the entire fight. PRIDE judging criteria was (in order): The effort made by a fighter to finish the fight (KO or submission); damage given to the opponent; standing combinations and ground control; takedown and takedown defense; and aggressiveness. In my perfect world, here's how the judging criteria would look:
- Instead of round scoring, the fight will be scored as a whole (doing away with round scoring, which is inadequate in a sport with relatively few rounds compared to boxing).
- Importance of criteria (in order): damage given to the opponent, effort made by the fighter to finish the fight (KO or submission), aggressiveness and takedowns (and takedown defense). In this, I'd be doing away with standing combinations and ground control, as those are pretty much covered in the other categories. This puts a premium on fighters working towards a finish.
The Ian McCall-Demetrious Johnson fight is a perfect example for the revised judging criteria. While the fight was judged a majority draw under the 10-9 system, McCall had by far the most dominant round of the entire fight, twice dealing significant damage to Johnson in dominant positions (back-mount and mount), and would clearly have been the winner of the fight. Instead of the sudden-victory fourth round (due to it being a part of the new flyweight four-man tournament), both the fans and fighters had to deal with a "kiss your sister" situation after a majority draw due to a miscalculation of the judges' scorecards, which also will result in a delayed crowning of the inaugural flyweight champion.
If Dana White and the rest of the UFC are truly concerned about putting on a good show for their fans that often put down $50 bucks apiece for their pay-per-views (which I believe they are), then they should seriously consider some tweaking to some of their rules. The company already does a great job of rewarding fighters who have been on the wrong end of questionable decisions (as they frequently reward those fighters with their win bonuses), but with these tweaks to their rules and criteria, the company will have a lower risk of putting on the occasional "clunker" shows, which will inevitably result in the continued growth of the sport.
No comments:
Post a Comment