By Tim Gilmour:
It’s time for a revolution in MMA. Or more accurately, it’s time for a revolution in MMA judging. There needs to be but one measure for determining a winner – damage inflicted. This is partly subjective – hard to tell sometimes how hurt someone is or isn’t – so the more objective “strikes landed” will of course be taken into account. The idea of octagon control or aggression should play little to no part in this process.
Leonard Garcia is arguably the most aggressive fighter out there, but also wildly inaccurate. Should points be awarded to every swing-and-a-miss? Lyoto Machida is arguably the least aggressive fighter, spending much of his time retreating and waiting to attack. Should he be punished for every second that he’s not moving forward?
Clay Guida set a UFC record Saturday night for most shoulder strikes landed in a fight (more than one) and most wins predominantly using shoulder strikes (one). It was fascinating to watch. And by fascinating, I mean horrific. Three solid rounds of top control and nothing more, with a predictable unanimous decision.
Anthony Pettis dominated the standup striking, although failing to utilize his shoulders, and was more active from the bottom position with strikes and submission attempts. The only area Pettis lost the fight was in positioning. It’s hardly the first time this has happened.
Did Royce Gracie teach us nothing at UFC 1? Being on top doesn’t necessarily mean you’re winning the fight. Certain fighters – Nate Diaz comes to mind – don’t mind fighting from the bottom and just barely resist going there, but it costs them Ws.
In fairness to Guida, he’s fighting within and taking advantage of the rules and the judging trend. Wrestling is heavily rewarded. You can’t blame him and others for using a proven strategy.
I don’t dislike wrestling, but I dislike how much the judges like it. It’s gotten to the point where even failed takedowns can win a round if one fighter can hold onto the other for long enough. Landing 50 elbows and nearly submitting an opponent isn’t enough to overcome being on your back. It’s not exactly the way a street fight might be judged.
To make a football analogy, a takedown might be considered a first down. You’ve improved your position, but haven’t yet scored any points. It’s merely a means to an end.
Octagon control and aggression should be effective tiebreakers, nothing more. No strikes landed by either fighter? Everything else about equal? Fight’s exclusively grappling? OK, give it to the guy in better position. That I can tolerate. But in all other cases, I’m in the camp that says if you want to win a fight, you should probably have to hurt somebody a little.
***
Previously on The Beatdown …
***
Tim Gilmour is a sports reporter and author of the humor blog LetMeThinkForYou.com. His column appears each Monday.
-
- baredon - Jun 6, 2011 at 5:20 PM
-
Just a bunch of “punchy”, broken nose’s and califlower ears mostly foreigner beating each other into early graves… Who cares…??
-
- sasquash20 - Jun 6, 2011 at 8:46 PM
-
For every good fight I see there are 3 bad ones to watch. I’ve been thinking of going back to boxing
-
- s1xxx - Jun 7, 2011 at 4:59 AM
-
So missed punches don’t earn points, but failed submission attempts do? You sound like you really want to give credit to Pettis for the constant stream of attempts. Even if you do, you would seem to have to give equal credit to Guida for defending all of them.
I actually agree with you that damage inflicted should be practically the only factor in judging. But that leaves you with no credit for takedowns, ride time, missed punches, or failed submission attempts. And in this fight, I think that may leave you with a draw. Pettis’s hammerfists from the bottom are no more damaging than Guida’s shoulder blocks.
And even in professional boxing, where damage inflicted is supposed to be the critical factor, judges can’t agree on how many jabs to the face it takes to outweigh a hard body shot. Throw leg kicks into the equation, and you will still have as many controversial decisions as you do now.
-
- fthrvic - Jun 9, 2011 at 3:25 PM
-
I think that’s the beauty of MMA though. Sometimes you’ll get two guys standing up going after each other, other times it will be a battle of “ground game”. And yet other times it will be a combination of the two. Which ultimately leads to a more challenge in judging the fight altogether. Either way it still beats the pants (trunks) off boxing in my opinion because of the variety of the fighters and their skills sets.
