Should Fighting be like RUNNING???

[sdpdude9]

Sounds like a great way to have boring fights. Little reason to open up until the end of the fight/round then being extra cautious you’re not caught at the end.

 

[DarthChen731]

In a race your opponent doesn't actively try to stop you from finishing it tho

 

[HHJ]

"Fighting should be more like a fight in real life"
but also:
"Fighting should be more like a sport that has nothing to do with fighting"

 

[GrantB13]

Then you’re arguing judging the fight as a whole and not by round. You can’t get both. 10-8s and 10-7s give more weight to those examples you’re talking about but the judging math is tallied up regardless of what took place at what point in the fight.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

"Fighting should be more like a fight in real life"
but also:
"Fighting should be more like a sport that has nothing to do with fighting"

I'm fucking tired of the Olympics shutting down full contact cross country. Thrown me out of their offices like 5 times now, the bastards.

 

[TriangleMonkey]

Carlos Condit ran a 5k in the Diaz fight iirc

 

[HavokHarmon]

Suppose you're running a mile race.

You start out fast, you take the lead, you dominate.

One lap ... two laps ... three laps ... rou stay ahead of your opponent / fellow runner.

However, if on the 4th lap, you start to get tired — and your opponent starts to come on — passes you — and crosses the finish line FIRST ... who wins?

Does runner say, "I was ahead for three laps" — or does the entire world agree he was simply "ahead early," but lost in the end?

Really, in running (as in life), the race doesn't go to the individual who "starts out fast" ... it goes to the individual who finishes strongest.

All of the BS that happens in the beginning doesn't really matter; it's who wins in the end that matters.

This is why I think Grasso won via the third round (even though Shevchenko "looked good early"), and it's also why Chimaev won over Burns (even though Burns dominated most of the third) ... was because both Grasso and Chimaev were looking to finish in the end.

Even though all of the rule makers have their "criteria" ... I think any good judge is watching the momentum of the fight.

It's really hard to give a "win" to somebody who's wilting, backing up, or on bottom and getting smacked ... at the end of a fight.

Like a race, all that ship in the beginning doesn't mean a GD thing, if someone else passes you and is crossing the finish line in the end.

Even if you think that fights should be scored differently you can’t retroactively apply that standard to fights that have already happened.

 

[trenton123]

Each round is a separate fight, it's best of 3 or 5, and I like it that way.

 

[DS66]

You can twist this analogy in so many ways. Even in running, it's not just about who is running the fastest at the end. You could build a good lead for the first 80%, then start to fade, but hold on enough to just cross the finish line in advance of the 2nd place runner who was gaining steam and running much faster at the end. It's still the totality of the race that counts. Same goes for MMA- If you build enough of a lead and win the majority of the fight, and then fade at the end, but hold on to not get finished and make it to the bell... you're the winner of the totality of the fight.

 

[IronGolem007]

Even if you think that fights should be scored differently you can’t retroactively apply that standard to fights that have already happened.

It's amazing how many people can't think correctly.

I never said that should be done.

What I said was, "being ahead early" means nothing ... if you lose in the end.

 

[IronGolem007]

Sounds like a great way to have boring fights. Little reason to open up until the end of the fight/round then being extra cautious you’re not caught at the end.

Sounds like you never actually watched the original UFCs.

The fights were far more electric than these "point-fighting efforts" of today.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Sounds like you never actually watched the original UFCs.

The fights were far more electric than these "point-fighting efforts" of today.

They had no real official endings. They had rounds some times, but they were limitless, or they'd have a total time limit of up to 35 minutes, and there were no judges whatsoever, so any non-finish was a draw anyway.

How they fought then has fuckall to do with what you suggested now

 

[CerebralKnievel]

Subjective anyway, so pretty dull as a discussion goes. If things were consistent with judges, then things would be different, but they're not, because it's human interpretation. Move on.

PS. Nate Diaz beat the shit out of Dong Hyun Kim at the end of their fight and still lost a 3 round decision.

 

[HHJ]

Sounds like you never actually watched the original UFCs.

The fights were far more electric than these "point-fighting efforts" of today.

YES for sure guys circling each other 17 mins until falling over gassing is electric

 

[sdpdude9]

Sounds like you never actually watched the original UFCs.

The fights were far more electric than these "point-fighting efforts" of today.

You mean when guys with little training in legitimate disciplines fought for peanuts? The game has changed, guys are far more knowledgeable and know how to play the game. And now there’s much more money on the line. They will take the safe route. This idea will have the opposite intended effect.

 

[blaseblase]

Suppose you're running a mile race.

You start out fast, you take the lead, you dominate.

One lap ... two laps ... three laps ... rou stay ahead of your opponent / fellow runner.

However, if on the 4th lap, you start to get tired — and your opponent starts to come on — passes you — and crosses the finish line FIRST ... who wins?

Does runner say, "I was ahead for three laps" — or does the entire world agree he was simply "ahead early," but lost in the end?

Really, in running (as in life), the race doesn't go to the individual who "starts out fast" ... it goes to the individual who finishes strongest.

Races are won by who ran faster overall, not by who finished the strongest.

 

[HavokHarmon]

It's amazing how many people can't think correctly.

I never said that should be done.

What I said was, "being ahead early" means nothing ... if you lose in the end.

You did say that. You still are. Because fights just aren’t scored that way. Because based on the way fights are scored currently the person who won the first 3 rounds of a 5 round fight will win assuming there are no 10-8s given.

The example you give of a person being ahead early but losing the fight in that way doesn’t exist unless you retroactively apply your suggested changes in judging criteria.

 

[AmonTobin]

I usually have reservations about TS’s threads, but this one actually has merit. The boxing system does not translate so well to mma because it allows (sometimes, at least) to point fight to a decision even if a fighter gets mauled in the last round and it leaves a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. It is actually a hard one to solve. Going for damage inflicted as primary criteria was a step in the right direction, but we can all see that rule changes confuse judges and scorecards are all over the place. Going for the finish should always be the plan, but again, it is not always doable. I’m with @jitzmonkey on this one: impose penalties more seriously - a knee to a downed opponent or hit to the back of the head (as seen recently) are cause for a dq, but the first two eyepokes or groin shots get you a verbal warning? Fence grabbing for the first, what, 5 times? Point deductions should be a thing. Also, close rounds should be scored 10-10 more frequently and very dominant rounds likewise as 10-8 to make it count. But this has been discussed many times and nothing much happens. I guess we just have to be patient and hope that things eventually change for the better. If not, we still had early UFC and Pride.

More close rounds should be 10-10. Too many close rounds are arbitrarily given away to one side or the other when in reality they were even down the middle.
A 10-9 should be an incredibly obvious won round. And more spectacularly dominant or blow out rounds should be 10-8. I’ve noticed all types of rounds from insanely one sided to razor thin even are often all scored the same: 10-9. This is just one of many big problems.

 

[Trabaho]

You need to take a break from sherdog. Come back in 2 weeks. Fresh head

 

[Dr. Rose]

UFC 1 may not have but 2 definitely had no rounds and it was unlimited time until people got too bored because some of the early fights were quite boring during the single numbers.

Good point, that is correct. According to Big John (take it for what that is worth), they wanted simpler rules to play off the NHB thing, then people were bored and the concept of NHB was becoming politically taboo with John McCain et al so the quick change to more rules and using MMA instead of NHB.