UFC 119: Sept 25

[TN94z]

Elbows usually don't fights, just cause nasty cuts. A guy turtling on the ground can be finished with soccer kicks.

Do you think that soccer kicks have higher chances of causing permanent damage? My biggest thing about soccer kicks is that any thug can do them. It doesn't really take skill to do. I like the techniques that require some skill to land. There is some skill behind the elbow. With that being said, I don't like the fact that fighters use the elbow to inflict fight stopping cuts. IMO, that is a way out of a fight.

[newtogolf]

Do you think that soccer kicks have higher chances of causing permanent damage? My biggest thing about soccer kicks is that any thug can do them. It doesn't really take skill to do. I like the techniques that require some skill to land. There is some skill behind the elbow. With that being said, I don't like the fact that fighters use the elbow to inflict fight stopping cuts. IMO, that is a way out of a fight.

I think soccer kicks are appropriate when a guy is turtled up and is making no attempt to improve his position. It doesn't take any skill to turtle up, and 4 point knees and soccer kicks will discourage someone from laying there hoping for a stand up.

I agree 100% on elbows. Cuts are given too much value by judges in MMA fights, and often cost the guy that's cut the match in close fights. Some skill is required in throwing an elbow that will cut someone, but not much. Plus an good elbow can blind a fighter either by the direct hit to the eye or shattering of the orbital socket. Most soccer kicks are to the body when the guy is turtled up so I see them as less dangerous than an elbow to the eye of a downed opponent.

[TN94z]

I think soccer kicks are appropriate when a guy is turtled up and is making no attempt to improve his position. It doesn't take any skill to turtle up, and 4 point knees and soccer kicks will discourage someone from laying there hoping for a stand up.

Good points. I guess I was thinking more of the stomps to the head than soccer kicks to the body. Throwing elbows "correctly" takes some skill. Just smashing a guy on the ground with elbows doesn't take much skill at all. To throw them like Florian as glancing and cutting with no as much force takes skill. But I quickly learned in Muay Thai that there was much more technique involved in throwing them than I thought there was.

I agree about the soccer kicks the way you explained them. I can see them being beneficial

[alomar123]

Yup.. I completely agree. I think a solution would be for the ref to issue yellow-red flag penalties for LNP or Cage leans. Create three warnings so that during a prolonged LNP where the ref is always going "comeone guys action" but no one listens to him and he evantually stands them up and *boom takedown process repeats*. If instead after the ref calls for action 2x and they dont comply instead of standing them up issue a yellow flag for a 1point deduction for the round and a loss of position(aka stand them up).

Too many people blame the fighter on top for stalling when the guy on the bottom is equally to blame. Too many fighters do not take enough risks to get up, instead they hold the fighter on top from causing damage to them. As the fighter one the bottom you have choices. Hold the fighter, defend against strikes and position advancements, try and get up, or attempt submissions. Most fighters just hold the fighter or defend against strikes or position advancements, which is smart because if they do try a submission or try to get up the chance that they will get finished goes up. You cant keep blaming the fighter on top.

[TN94z]

Too many people blame the fighter on top for stalling when the guy on the bottom is equally to blame. Too many fighters do not take enough risks to get up, instead they hold the fighter on top from causing damage to them. As the fighter one the bottom you have choices. Hold the fighter, defend against strikes and position advancements, try and get up, or attempt submissions. Most fighters just hold the fighter or defend against strikes or position advancements, which is smart because if they do try a submission or try to get up the chance that they will get finished goes up. You cant keep blaming the fighter on top.

Well, I typed out a long explanation and somehow it didn't post and I can't get back to what I typed....so I'm going to shorten in now.

The guy that initiated the takedown should be responsible for pressing the action.....not the guy that got taken down. Man I had some good explanations in my original post too...

[BostonSully]

Well, I typed out a long explanation and somehow it didn't post and I can't get back to what I typed....so I'm going to shorten in now.

Oh man I firggin HATE THAT!

Like when I posting while taking the train and the wifi hiccups rite as a post and BOOOM gone forever always happens after really long posts too. Or when you click "go advanced" and sometimes you lose everything you wrote!

[TN94z]

Well, I had mine typed out, with some good examples and all that, and then I accidentally clicked "reply to thread." I hit the back button but everything I had typed was gone. But the shortened post was the point to all my typing...

[alomar123]

Well, I typed out a long explanation and somehow it didn't post and I can't get back to what I typed....so I'm going to shorten in now.

Still dont agree that the person on top is responsible for pushing the action. They are in an advatage position, gaining octagon control points. When you watch the lighter weight fighters on the bottom they are way more active(probably because it is easier since they are littlier), so the fight doesnt last long on the ground as they are able to get up, get a submission, or get submitted. If the heavier fighters would do more while on bottom people wouldnt be complaining about the ground game being boring. Which to me isnt. The word lnp first meant that the fighter on bottom would just lay there and pray till the round was over, but now that defientition has been angled towards the fighter on top. If the fighter on bottom cant get a submission or learn sweeps then they deserve to lose.

[TN94z]

Still dont agree that the person on top is responsible for pushing the action. They are in an advatage position, gaining octagon control points. When you watch the lighter weight fighters on the bottom they are way more active(probably because it is easier since they are littlier), so the fight doesnt last long on the ground as they are able to get up, get a submission, or get submitted. If the heavier fighters would do more while on bottom people wouldnt be complaining about the ground game being boring. Which to me isnt. The word lnp first meant that the fighter on bottom would just lay there and pray till the round was over, but now that defientition has been angled towards the fighter on top. If the fighter on bottom cant get a submission or learn sweeps then they deserve to lose.

So if I'm an MMA fighter, and I take the other fighter to the ground and lay on him without doing anything other than holding him down....that's ok? The point of the takedown is to score points and put yourself in adantageous position, like you said. But if you don't do anything with that position (LnP) then you should get any points. In Pride, you would be screwed for doing this. I am a BJJ guy, 100%. I love the art so I LOVE LOVE LOVE the ground game. Have you ever tried doing anything from the bottom with a well versed wrestler on top of you? It's almost impossible if the guy is strong, fast, and has good wrestling. Have you ever tried to control the posture of a guy that is strong as an ox? And now you have the wrestlers that are learning sub defense and it is making it even harder. If you think that the bigger guys are the only place this happens, then you are crazy. Sean Sherk has been known for years as a LnP guy. Cole Miller called out everyone in the LW division for stalling on the ground. LnP has never been pointed toward the guy on bottom and I have been watching MMA for 20 years now. LnP was started because guys would take someone down (to get the points) and then lay on them, doing just enough not to get stood up until the round was over.

From Bas Ruten a long time ago:

Lay and Pray. Lay and Pray is the opposite of ground and pound. Lay and Pray consists of getting your opponent on the ground and stalling a decision the entire fight by LAYING on him and PRAYING to win a decision. It's quite cheap and very gay.

Lay and Pray Lay and pray is similar to a ground and pound style, but instead of striking on the floor the fighter utilizes position and smothering techniques to ride out a decision. Many top wrestlers emphasize this style, oftentimes due to their inability to adapt to MMA rules. Many fighters with a double background in wrestling and Jiujitsu employ this style to the fullest, as their dominating ground games are light years ahead of most competitors. "Popular" lay and pray fighters include Ricardo Arona and Sean Sherk

Here are your top LnP related fighters:

Arona Sherk Shields Tibau has done it a few times Pelligrino did it to Neer Fitch does it GSP does it more and more Maynard did it (he's developing more standup now) Tito I could go on....but as you can see here, many are lighter fighters. So this doesn't just exist in the heavier guys. And don't get me wrong, I love watching a good ground battle. But laying on top of the guy and not trying to finish the fight is not a ground battle. I understand that the guy on bottom should learn sweeps or whatever, but sometimes that just isn't effective against a guy that has really good wrestling. How many times did BJ sweep GSP in their last fight? BJ is one of the best BJJ practitioners in MMA. What about Mir against Brock in their second fight? Mir is also one of the top heavier BJJ guys. What about Fitch and GSP? Fitch has a really good ground game and good wrestling and couldn't do anything from the bottom. Doing stuff from the bottom is not a cake walk by any means. Some of these guys just make it look easy because their level of BJJ is levels above most, so their guard is very active. But to say "all they need to do is get a sweep or get a submission" is easy....doing that against a guy that is trying 150% to stop you from doing that is a totally different thing. How many times have you heard people complain when the fighter on top is ground and pounding until the fight is stopped? NONE. There is a huge difference between LnP and GnP...and I think you are getting them mixed up. And I am not saying that you not agreeing is wrong....everyone has different opinions on this particular topic...I am just explaining my stand on it. So don't take this post the wrong way.

[BostonSully]

About only heavier fighters doing it.. Thats so wrong.

Brock Lesnar sure he takes you down and holds you there but I dont think I have ever seen him stop throwing punches when on top. Then you got Mir and Nog who are just amazing BJJ and extremely dangerous off there back. While most the other big guys are just known for their striking Cro Cop Carwin etc..

The problems biggest in LW/WW/MW and a few guys LHW E.G Evans. Maynard Huge and Sherk are huge culprits GSP is probably the most notable and Fitch has made himself quite the Career using this and you know what? I dont like watching anyof them fight. Im looking forward to GSP, KOS though because if GSP sticks to his word and uses some of that explosive striking to dismantle KOS he could win me back over.

[newtogolf]

Still dont agree that the person on top is responsible for pushing the action.

I agree with TN94z, if you're on the bottom of a skilled wrestler or even BJJ black belt who's only goal is to not let you up, it's very difficult to get up or push the action. If you are prone and he has the right hooks in with his weight on your chest, you cannot sweep. It's for this reason, there are stalls called in wrestling, and wrestlers are stood up or put into referees position. Watch some DIV 1 wrestling, once a guy gets a lead in points it becomes very difficult for his opponent to score points unless the wrestler with the lead chooses to be aggressive.

It's the responsibility of both fighters to try to improve their position. Laying on a guy is not improving position or working towards a KO or submission.

[alomar123]

So if I'm an MMA fighter, and I take the other fighter to the ground and lay on him without doing anything other than holding him down....that's ok? The point of the takedown is to score points and put yourself in adantageous position, like you said. But if you don't do anything with that position (LnP) then you should get any points. In Pride, you would be screwed for doing this. I am a BJJ guy, 100%. I love the art so I LOVE LOVE LOVE the ground game. Have you ever tried doing anything from the bottom with a well versed wrestler on top of you? It's almost impossible if the guy is strong, fast, and has good wrestling. Have you ever tried to control the posture of a guy that is strong as an ox? And now you have the wrestlers that are learning sub defense and it is making it even harder. If you think that the bigger guys are the only place this happens, then you are crazy. Sean Sherk has been known for years as a LnP guy. Cole Miller called out everyone in the LW division for stalling on the ground. LnP has never been pointed toward the guy on bottom and I have been watching MMA for 20 years now. LnP was started because guys would take someone down (to get the points) and then lay on them, doing just enough not to get stood up until the round was over.

I was just trying to get my point across that the fighter on top is 100% to blame. He is not. And they arent going to change the rules to stop that whole heap of a mess of fighters you listed from "lnp" because it is mma. There are 3 ways to win a submission, a t(ko), or a decision, so you cant blame a guy for going in there with every intention to going to a decision, it is a sport. Sometimes it is better just to run the ball up the middle for 1 yard, instead of throwing 80 yard bombs every down.

Theres no difference from someone taking a fighter down and doing enough for it not to be stood up, and someone who stands the entire fight pawing, trying to score points, with no intention for a ko. With is a lot of fighters too. You cant make a fight be exciting. The only rule change I can think of that wouldnt make fighters fight extremely different is to make the guard a neutral position. And I didnt say that lighter fighters didnt stall on top, I said lighter fighters dont stall on bottom as much.

[alomar123]

I agree with TN94z, if you're on the bottom of a skilled wrestler or even BJJ black belt who's only goal is to not let you up, it's very difficult to get up or push the action. If you are prone and he has the right hooks in with his weight on your chest, you cannot sweep. It's for this reason, there are stalls called in wrestling, and wrestlers are stood up or put into referees position. Watch some DIV 1 wrestling, once a guy gets a lead in points it becomes very difficult for his opponent to score points unless the wrestler with the lead chooses to be aggressive.

Yeah but most fights where people complain about stalling it is done in the guard about 90% of the time over other positions. This position is not a huge an advantage for the person on top.

[TN94z]

I was just trying to get my point across that the fighter on top is 100% to blame. He is not. And they arent going to change the rules to stop that whole heap of a mess of fighters you listed from "lnp" because it is mma. There are 3 ways to win a submission, a t(ko), or a decision, so you cant blame a guy for going in there with every intention to going to a decision, it is a sport. Sometimes it is better just to run the ball up the middle for 1 yard, instead of throwing 80 yard bombs every down.

He is 100% to blame if the guy on bottom is doing everything he can to get improve his position and the guy on top is not. There is something they can (and will) do about these types of things. That is what the whole judging problem has been and has even been critisized by Dana himself. What will happen is they will start standing these guys up more quickly during a stall. They will also start awarding less points for a takedown if nothing comes out of the takedown. Once these guys know that if they take a guy down and just lay there without improving their positions and won't score that many points by doing so....this will stop. Even in your example, if you run the ball up the middle for 1 yard at a time, you are improving your position and moving forward....LnP does not improve position and does not move forward. The 80 yard strike is like a KO or something. Not every fight has to have a KO to be exciting. Most "fights of the year" end in decisions....but they "fought" the whole time. They tried to end it the whole time...they didn't lay there and "pray" that they got the decision. The true essence of MMA is testing yourself to find out how your art stacks up against another man's art. Is wrestling all about taking your opponent down and laying on him? IMO, that doesn't make wrestling an art.

Theres no difference from someone taking a fighter down and doing enough for it not to be stood up, and someone who stands the entire fight pawing, trying to score points, with no intention for a ko. With is a lot of fighters too. You cant make a fight be exciting. The only rule change I can think of that wouldnt make fighters fight extremely different is to make the guard a neutral position.

You are right. There is no difference between LnP and the "pawing" that you speak of. But there is a big difference between "pawing" and good standup regardless of the KO. Look at GSPs standup. It is really good. He is aggressive, he has gotten good movement, and he throws a wide variety of strikes....but how many people has he KO'd? People who LnP are like Kalib Starnes' standup in the end of the Quarry fight. People with an aggressive ground game are like Jose Aldo in the standup. There are quite a few guys that have good standup but don't have a lot of KO's and don't go into the standup thinking about the KO. You are right, you can't make a fight exciting....styles clash sometimes. The guard a neutral position?? What about wrestlers that LnP from side control or nouth/south position? It's not that the takedowns shouldn't count. It's that they shouldn't weigh so heavy if the guy that gets the takedown does nothing with it. If a BJJ fighter jumps guard while standing and then lets go....does he get points for that?

And I didnt say that lighter fighters didnt stall on top, I said lighter fighters dont stall on bottom as much.

That's because 155 pounds on top of you is easier to deal with than 225! How many people do you know can "rep out" 155lbs on bench? Now how many people do you know can "rep out 225" on bench? Now imagine that 225 lbs fighting back...

Yeah but most fights where people complain about stalling it is done in the guard about 90% of the time over other positions. This position is not a huge an advantage for the person on top.

That is because the guy on bottom (whom you say makes no attempt at doing anything) improves his position by getting to guard and then controls the guy on top's posture to work stuff. The guy on top is just trying to stay on top, period. Being in someone's guard is not a huge advantage to the guy on top? Are you serious? Ever heard of GnP? Guys GnP to victory ALL of the time from the guard position. If you can't control a guy's posture from the bottom....guard doesn't mean anything.

[alomar123]

He is 100% to blame if the guy on bottom is doing everything he can to get improve his position and the guy on top is not.

This right here is the only point I am trying to make. The person on bottom does not do everything they can to improve their position. The fighter on bottom stalls just as much as the fighter on top in many cases. The only time I see the fighter on bottom give 100% to improve his position they either get finished or get back to their feet. I see fighters give their backs to a fighter in hope that in a scramble they can reach their feet. They give 100%, not those who just play defense, holding onto the wrists of the top fighter (not trying a submission) hoping for the round to end or a stand up.

I am not dogging the guy on bottom for doing that, it is a good strategy, but then you cant dog a guy on top for doing the minimal to not get stood up. Jake Shields didnt try to finish Henderson, but he did dominate him with control and that is an art. Not everyone can control Dan like he did.

[TN94z]

This right here is the only point I am trying to make. The person on bottom does not do everything they can to improve their position. The fighter on bottom stalls just as much as the fighter on top in many cases. The only time I see the fighter on bottom give 100% to improve his position they either get finished or get back to their feet. I see fighters give their backs to a fighter in hope that in a scramble they can reach their feet. They give 100%, not those who just play defense, holding onto the wrists of the top fighter (not trying a submission) hoping for the round to end or a stand up.

We can go back and forth on this for a long time...let's just agree to disagree

[alomar123]

We can go back and forth on this for a long time...let's just agree to disagree

Why spoil the fun.lol

You did watch the Korean zombie being taken out the only way a zombie can be killed right?

[TN94z]

Why spoil the fun.lol

I LOVE talking MMA man...I don't mind it!!

Oh yeah! Man what a kick! What about Aldo? Is that dude a beast or what? They need to get him out of the UFC. There is nothing there for him. And the Varner/Cerrone fight....Cerrone looked better there than I have ever seen him. If he can carry that kind of fight in the future, he will be looking at a title shot.