Is there a solution to the problem of Holding Someone against the cage to win?

[campbecc]

The ref needs to break it up faster if nothing is being done and the judges need to stop giving so much credit for a clinch where nothing is happening.

The most ridiculous example of "winning" a round by holding someone against the cage was Cyborg vs Holly. Holly won two rounds where Cyborg dominated her in striking most of the round then Holly desperately held her just to stop her from beating her up with no attempts at takedowns or any offense for less than half the round and somehow won the rounds.

Edit: I looked up the stats. Cyborg outlanded her 16 to 5 in the first, and 21 to 4 in the second. Holly never even attempted a takedown, threw a single strike in the clinch in both rounds combined, had control for only around a minute in each round and yet Holly somehow won both those rounds. If it would have been a three round fight, or if Holly had known to just hold and do nothing in later rounds, that would have been one of the worst decisions ever

 

[Texan6533]

Lateral movement

 

[Bearknuckle]

Fight on a football field.

 

[Prologue]

The whole thing about wall and stall is that it's a one way street for using the cage to your advantage. The rules should allow for either full use of the cage (essentially legalize fence grabs to prevent takedowns) or to have MUCH quicker breaks against the cage. Personally I favor the latter.

I see the point that fighters should have the skill to defend against being wall and stalled, but the cage should really only be used to contain the action of the fight. And pressing someone against the cage for sustained periods of time should be considered as an improper use of cage. And if we don't go that direction, if a fighter is allowed to use the cage to wall and stall, another should be allowed to use it to prevent takedowns.

All or nothing.

 

[Yep]

I have no problem with winning by holding someone against a cage. However, if that person is beating your ass when not being held against the cage they should get the nod. I don’t care if you hold against the cage for 4:59 each round. If they blasted your face I. That 1 second and you look like you’ve been through a war and only had 5 seconds of action by the end of the fight you should lose. Now if you’re doing damage while holding against the cage then that’s different.

 

[richardjohnson]

Basically every card we see someone escape from being held against the fence or prevent their opponent from doing it altogether.

Seems to me like being able to get out of that position would be a good solution.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

According to your view,

I can carry a guy whenever I want if there was no cage, that's dominating.

And how do you think you get a point in wrestling? It's mix martial arts, not kick boxing.

The aim should be to reward working towards a finish, not holding someone like a security guard.

 

[Badger67]

Remove the cage.

And when one guy double legs the other onto the cement beyond the mat?

 

[PabloMEX]

Bring back the Pride ring.

 

[JJCc]

The aim should be to reward working towards a finish, not holding someone like a security guard.

You can get finished if you recklessly try to get off the cage. You can easily have someone on the cage to advance a situation where you can finish.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

They fight on a ground stands near to a cliff, they throw a guy to a cliff by pushing him there and by being a better wrestler, the guy is heavily wounded due to falling from that cliff. That's winning.

Or let's assume there is a jail, whoever puts the guy into a jail and locks behind the bars wins it? I can carry the guy to a jail, and lock him there and get out. He is in the jail, I am not. How is that not winning and not dominating?

The fight is in a cage dude, you're going off on a strange tangent here.

 

[Satan's Daddy.]

Well it reminds me of izzy vs Vettori but the judges wasnt corrupt for that one and gave the rightful victor the w despite the takedowns Vettori got. So people have a lot of short term memory in this industry.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

You can get finished if you recklessly try to get off the cage. You can easily have someone on the cage to advance a situation where you can finish.

And if you do that, that's fine. If you just stall there, that's not fine.

 

[bootsy]

Yellow cards

 

[JJCc]

And if you do that, that's fine. If you just stall there, that's not fine.

Your opponent doesn't want to work to get off the cage cause it can lead to losing cardio or getting into a positionally bad spot. Not the fault of the guy in the more dominant position, the guy controlling is the one who can capitalize off any mistakes made by the opponent.

It's on the guy being held there to take the risks and get out.

 

[Billthebutcher]

Pride used to re-position fighters to the center of the ring when they were stalled on the ropes. UFC probably caterogizes wall and stall as "octagon control".

 

[djason1988]

Can you imagine if the complainers were actually consistent? "Is there a solution for Moutinho getting punched in the head nonstop by O'Malley?"

Punching does damage. Holding does not. Did you really need that explained to you? These are not remotely the same things

 

[Horriblehim]

Get better at the position

 

[El Fernas]

Fans need to boo hard enough the ref has no choice but to intervene, seriously tho, its all on the ref, just holding without advancing or doing real damage shouldnt get rewarded, just like just holding on the ground shouldnt mean much either, remember "Prison Rules" Castillo vs Ferguson, the right guy won that decision.

 

[WHITE ANDERSON]

why is it a problem?

in a real fight, if i hold you down and you can't get up, i'm winning even if i don't throw a single strike. i'm controlling your body against your will and making you my weak sub

fighting doesn't mean two guys stand in front of each other and throw wild strikes. if that's what you want, go watch boxing.