The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
That something is to get better refs. That solves a multitude of problems without introducing new ones.
The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
That something is to get better refs. That solves a multitude of problems without introducing new ones.
The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
That something is to get better refs. That solves a multitude of problems without introducing new ones.
What would a better ref do?
Are you kidding?
They'll do what the working system in place allows them to do. They'll deduct a point and reset things to their previous position.
The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
The long established response to a fighter ignoring ref warnings is deduction of points, and eventually disqualification.
I think the low blow analogy is a good one. If you interrupt a power punch with an eye poke or groin kick, the other guy does not get a free shot. Regardless of whether the eye poke/groin kick was accidental or on purpose. If you're attempting a submission and the other guy punches you in the back of the head in the middle of it, you don't automatically get a free submission.
The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
That something is to get better refs. That solves a multitude of problems without introducing new ones.
What would a better ref do?
Are you kidding?
They'll do what the working system in place allows them to do. They'll deduct a point.
So, you're in favor of deducting a point, but you're against just putting the guy that committed the penalty on his back?
That seems like using a hatchet when only a scalpel is needed.
The argument is that SOMETHING should happen. As it stands now, fighters can grab the cage several times with no consequences aside from a verbal warning from the ref.
That something is to get better refs. That solves a multitude of problems without introducing new ones.
What would a better ref do?
Are you kidding?
They'll do what the working system in place allows them to do. They'll deduct a point.
So, you're in favor of deducting a point, but you're against just putting the guy that committed the penalty on his back?
That seems like using a hatchet when only a scalpel is needed.
Putting someone on their back is definitely the hatchet here.
Would you prefer the Japanese Pride system? Yellow cards and a pay percentage cut?
Putting someone on their back is definitely the hatchet here.
How is that a hatchet? That's what would have happened had the guy not cheated!
Deducting a point in a 3-round fight changes the entire fight. Literally, the whole damn thing. It turns a 30-27 blowout into a close fight that could hinge on a crazy judge. And it turns a solid 29-28 win into an unsatisfactory draw. And we want that? For grabbing a fence once to stop a single takedown?
Deducting points should be a last resort. It should be a "well, there's no other appropriate punishment short of a DQ". But here, we have another appropriate punishment for a penalty! Letting a guy get a free haymaker after a poke in the eye obviously isn't appropriate, but giving up position after a guy breaks a rule to avoid the takedown is totally appropriate.
"Dustin will be paid his full purse to show and win. Its not his fault."
That sucks because I was looking forward to seeing Hazelett fight again. At least there's a number of cards in the next few months that could use his help.
I'm guessing Dent/Snuffleupagus gets moved to the main card now.
Cage-grabbing is a consistent problem. There must be a solution, like putting a mesh over the cage or something. I've seen people escape takedowns by grabbing the cage many times, and I've never once seen a fighter penalized for it that I can recall.
Electricity.
Actually, I think being more aggressive on point deductions would get the message across to fighters. I realize that shit happens and sometimes fingers go where they go, especially when you're up against the cage. However, there's a difference between someone whose fingers just go there and someone who's grabbing at the cage over and over again as a leverage point. Same with "back of the head, back of the head, back of the head", "don't grab the shorts", "don't headbutt", "take your fingers out of his anus"... if it starts meaning something other than being nagged at, it will stop.
Right now, the only thing that seems to be universally enforced is kicking someone in the balls... probably because it's so obvious when you kick someone in the balls. Consequently, people really only kick each other balls on accident when someone changes angles while on the receiving end of high thigh kicks.
Deducting points should be a last resort. It should be a "well, there's no other appropriate punishment short of a DQ". But here, we have another appropriate punishment for a penalty! Letting a guy get a free haymaker after a poke in the eye obviously isn't appropriate, but giving up position after a guy breaks a rule to avoid the takedown is totally appropriate.
Actually, I think being more aggressive on point deductions would get the message across to fighters. I realize that shit happens and sometimes fingers go where they go, especially when you're up against the cage. However, there's a difference between someone whose fingers just go there and someone who's grabbing at the cage over and over again as a leverage point. Same with "back of the head, back of the head, back of the head", "don't grab the shorts", "don't headbutt", "take your fingers out of his anus"... if it starts meaning something other than being nagged at, it will stop.
Yep. Abusers will be obvious, and they should have points taken away. Better refs would definitely do that, not like Herb Dean who would allow a fighter to duck between the ropes 25 times in a match and have them win by decision.
Tell me more about the electric exploding barb wire solution.
Actually, I think being more aggressive on point deductions would get the message across to fighters. I realize that shit happens and sometimes fingers go where they go, especially when you're up against the cage. However, there's a difference between someone whose fingers just go there and someone who's grabbing at the cage over and over again as a leverage point. Same with "back of the head, back of the head, back of the head", "don't grab the shorts", "don't headbutt", "take your fingers out of his anus"... if it starts meaning something other than being nagged at, it will stop.
The thing I don't like being more aggressive with point deductions is because of how much they change fights and how little middle ground there is. What I mean by that is I can't imagine taking a point the very first time someone grabs the cage to stop a takedown, you know? Sometimes it's just reflex, and to immediately deduct a point for that?
But if the solution is to be more aggressive about deducting points, you have to be that aggressive. You can't simply warn the guy, because then you're just effectively giving him a couple free takedown stuffs by grabbing the fence. It's what we're seeing now. Refs are understandably hesitant to change the nature of a fight with a deduction, so they just keep warning. Even if they eventually do deduct a point, it still just means all those previous warning were freebies.
That's why I like the idea of just forcing the guy that committed the penalty to give up the takedown. That's something you can be consistent with 100% of the time. If a ref feels a guy grabbed the fence and stopped a takedown from it, then put him on his back and warn him that if it happens once or twice more or whatever, then he will deduct a point.
I'd like to see something similar for punches to the back of the head. I'd like those to be done similarly to groin shots. If a ref feels a fighter has been affected by a shot to the back of the head, he stops the fight, lets the guy recover, and then puts them either back into the position they were in with a warning that if it happens X many times, it's gonna be a point no matter what.
Stuff like that helps take the all-or-nothing aspect out of penalties.
"Dustin will be paid his full purse to show and win. Its not his fault."
That sucks because I was looking forward to seeing Hazelett fight again. At least there's a number of cards in the next few months that could use his help.
I'm guessing Dent/Snuffleupagus gets moved to the main card now.
Dana gives a guy a full purse and his win bonus for not being able to fight and some people say Dana screws fighters? Seriously? Sounds like he's helping a guy out who trained for nothing. And this isn't the first time he's done it, either. Dana may be a dick in some of his business dealings, but he's generally a fair employer.
Too bad Hazelett won't be fighting, though. Always a treat to watch him.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
While I am sure this is not a practical solution given the lay out of the buildings these events are held in, would supported canvas walls in a sub floor recess allowing the audience to still view the fight, albeit from a more birds eye view (which we get on the screens anyways) work? Yeah, I suppose I am totally suggesting a Colosseum arena thing come to think of it. Again, probably not practical being so elaborate just to solve fingers in the links. *shrug*
Too bad Hazelett won't be fighting, though. Always a treat to watch him.
Looking at the upcoming cards, I'd say the best bets would be to either have him fight Kampmann at 108 and move that to the main card or have him fight anyone and put it on the main card of the Fight Night on 1/11. Either way, it shouldn't be too long before he gets back in the octagon.
Tell me more about the electric exploding barb wire solution.
Similar "three strikes, you're out" policy. First offense, you get a little numbing shot like when you get static electricity from the car door on a Spring morning. Second, a good, solid pop like you're a retard who just got back from Home Depot but forgot to shut off the breaker. Third, well... if you had gull wings, you'd be able to get in line for the premier of East of Eden.
Too bad Hazelett won't be fighting, though. Always a treat to watch him.
Looking at the upcoming cards, I'd say the best bets would be to either have him fight Kampmann at 108 and move that to the main card or have him fight anyone and put it on the main card of the Fight Night on 1/11. Either way, it shouldn't be too long before he gets back in the octagon.
And although it sucks that he trained his ass off and now can't fight, it's a bit of a mixed blessing. He got base pay, win pay and it still 100% ready to (like you're pointing out) take another fight very quickly. He could easily make some good money in the next month or two if they pick him up for another fight.
I wish Hazelett and Maia were in the same weight class. I'd love to see that match.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Dana gives a guy a full purse and his win bonus for not being able to fight and some people say Dana screws fighters? Seriously? Sounds like he's helping a guy out who trained for nothing. And this isn't the first time he's done it, either. Dana may be a dick in some of his business dealings, but he's generally a fair employer.
Aww, what a nice guy that Dana is. Unlike that horrible horrible Karo Parisyan.
HE'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN, Y'HEAR!
Dana gives a guy a full purse and his win bonus for not being able to fight and some people say Dana screws fighters? Seriously? Sounds like he's helping a guy out who trained for nothing. And this isn't the first time he's done it, either. Dana may be a dick in some of his business dealings, but he's generally a fair employer.
Aww, what a nice guy that Dana is. Unlike that horrible horrible Karo Parisyan.
HE'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN, Y'HEAR!
We get it, he took your mother out to a nice chicken dinner and never called her again. A point other than why Kimbo is awesome and Dana sucks would be nice
Dana gives a guy a full purse and his win bonus for not being able to fight and some people say Dana screws fighters? Seriously? Sounds like he's helping a guy out who trained for nothing. And this isn't the first time he's done it, either. Dana may be a dick in some of his business dealings, but he's generally a fair employer.
Aww, what a nice guy that Dana is. Unlike that horrible horrible Karo Parisyan.
HE'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN, Y'HEAR!
Your amazingly humorous sarcasm aside, name another employer who regularly pays employees for not working. Granted, there may be other MMA head honchos that normally do it (Scott Coker, for instance), but since Dana obviously gets the most media coverage, he's the one I hear about.
If there are some other owners/presidents that normally do it, let me know. I'm not being sarcastic in the least. People who help out the guys I love watching deserve to be praised for doing what they do.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
David_TA fashion yes-man is no good to me.Copenhagen, DenmarkRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
"Don't breathe on the wall."
"Hey, don't breathe on the wall!"
"Last warning, stop breathing on the wall!"
David_T on
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
The other problem is that they would have less traction. I know, we're trying to cut down on people grabbing the cage, but in a recent episode of TUF we watched a demonstration of walking up a wall with your back to escape a takedown, and a Plexiglas cage would make that somewhat more difficult, if less painful, especially late in the fight where everyone's all sweaty.
Putting someone on their back is definitely the hatchet here.
How is that a hatchet? That's what would have happened had the guy not cheated!
There's no way to know what would have happened. Maybe the guy grabbing the cage would have pivoted and thrown the other guy down and ended up on top, maybe he would have thrown a knee to the gut and dropped the other guy, etc. We've all seen some fantastic takedown defenses before, we've also seen some really awful ones. You can't even tell what is going to happen.
So you're left with making a ruling on what actually did happen, and penalize the offender.
When a football team commits pass interference in the end zone, the other team doesn't automatically get a TD because it's assumed a TD would have happened. When a basketball player is fouled while shooting a layup, he doesn't automatically get 2 points because it's assumed the shot would have gone in.
And if fighters don't want points taken away, then maybe they should listen to the ref when he says "Stop grabbing the cage!" No one's saying points should be deducted on the first offense, just as they aren't on any other foul. But repeated violations? Go ahead and start docking.
RE Karo -
I don't see the cause for all the RAGE! by White. According to Karo, he couldn't get licensed because Nevada fined him $32k for testing positive for (prescribed) painkillers, and he can't pay it because he doesn't have the money. Apparently him not being willing to take out a mortgage on his house = "screwing" the UFC.
Maybe Karo should have went to the bank. On the loan application, he could have written the reason for the loan was "To pay state fine for drug violations." That would have turned out well.
It would have to be extremely strong, as well as very flexible so fighters smashing into it wouldn't be hurt too badly. It'd also get super dirty and wouldn't carry sound.
I like the idea of positional penalties for various infractions. Guy does something wrong? The other guy gets to have a dominant position, or perhaps the choice of positions. This could be anything from double under-hooks while standing to full mount depending on the severity of the infraction. Letting the fighter choose from a couple options (of course still dependent on the severity of the infraction) could throw some interesting variety into the mix, as different styles of grapplers may prefer different positions.
And if fighters don't want points taken away, then maybe they should listen to the ref when he says "Stop grabbing the cage!" No one's saying points should be deducted on the first offense, just as they aren't on any other foul. But repeated violations? Go ahead and start docking.
How many warnings does a guy get? How many times can the guy break the rules and gain an advantage because of it before you penalize him?
And if fighters don't want points taken away, then maybe they should listen to the ref when he says "Stop grabbing the cage!" No one's saying points should be deducted on the first offense, just as they aren't on any other foul. But repeated violations? Go ahead and start docking.
How many warnings does a guy get? How many times can the guy break the rules and gain an advantage because of it before you penalize him?
I dunno, how many free groin kicks can he get away with? Right now it seems to be up to the ref's discretion. I wouldn't be opposed to officially setting a certain number, though.
And if fighters don't want points taken away, then maybe they should listen to the ref when he says "Stop grabbing the cage!" No one's saying points should be deducted on the first offense, just as they aren't on any other foul. But repeated violations? Go ahead and start docking.
How many warnings does a guy get? How many times can the guy break the rules and gain an advantage because of it before you penalize him?
I dunno, how many free groin kicks can he get away with? Right now it seems to be up to the ref's discretion. I wouldn't be opposed to officially setting a certain number, though.
But at least with groin kicks, the kicker doesn't really gain an advantage. The ref stops the action and gives Mr. Sore Nuts up to five minutes to recover. You can argue that there's still some advantage, but the rules at least minimize it as much as possible.
With what you're talking about for fence-grabbing, though, not only is there no immediate penalty, but there's a notable and sometimes significant advantage that doesn't get minimized at all. What good does a warning do for the guy who now doesn't have the takedown he probably would have had?
That's my problem with the current system and the system you're proposing. Not only is there not a penalty until some undefined number of warnings, the guy committing the foul gains an advantage and that advantage doesn't get taken away.
Posts
That something is to get better refs. That solves a multitude of problems without introducing new ones.
What would a better ref do?
Are you kidding?
They'll do what the working system in place allows them to do. They'll deduct a point and reset things to their previous position.
The long established response to a fighter ignoring ref warnings is deduction of points, and eventually disqualification.
I think the low blow analogy is a good one. If you interrupt a power punch with an eye poke or groin kick, the other guy does not get a free shot. Regardless of whether the eye poke/groin kick was accidental or on purpose. If you're attempting a submission and the other guy punches you in the back of the head in the middle of it, you don't automatically get a free submission.
So, you're in favor of deducting a point, but you're against just putting the guy that committed the penalty on his back?
That seems like using a hatchet when only a scalpel is needed.
Putting someone on their back is definitely the hatchet here.
Would you prefer the Japanese Pride system? Yellow cards and a pay percentage cut?
How is that a hatchet? That's what would have happened had the guy not cheated!
Deducting a point in a 3-round fight changes the entire fight. Literally, the whole damn thing. It turns a 30-27 blowout into a close fight that could hinge on a crazy judge. And it turns a solid 29-28 win into an unsatisfactory draw. And we want that? For grabbing a fence once to stop a single takedown?
Deducting points should be a last resort. It should be a "well, there's no other appropriate punishment short of a DQ". But here, we have another appropriate punishment for a penalty! Letting a guy get a free haymaker after a poke in the eye obviously isn't appropriate, but giving up position after a guy breaks a rule to avoid the takedown is totally appropriate.
http://twitter.com/danawhite
"Karo Parisyan has fucked over the UFC, the fans and his opponent again!!! He will not be fighting saturday or ever again in the UFC!!"
edit: Here's more:
"Pulled out of the fight the day before weigh ins again with a laundry list of excuses!!! Let the press ask karo why! Let him explain."
What, did he not bend over for Dana White or something?
From hearing about the Brown-Aldo fight alone, it was good. But that's just basing it off of one fight.
The undercard was ok, but it wasn't as good as 105. The main event, though, is definitely worth seeing.
"Dustin will be paid his full purse to show and win. Its not his fault."
That sucks because I was looking forward to seeing Hazelett fight again. At least there's a number of cards in the next few months that could use his help.
I'm guessing Dent/Snuffleupagus gets moved to the main card now.
Dana: "Karo said his throws are the best, but he wouldn't toss my salad!"
Actually, I think being more aggressive on point deductions would get the message across to fighters. I realize that shit happens and sometimes fingers go where they go, especially when you're up against the cage. However, there's a difference between someone whose fingers just go there and someone who's grabbing at the cage over and over again as a leverage point. Same with "back of the head, back of the head, back of the head", "don't grab the shorts", "don't headbutt", "take your fingers out of his anus"... if it starts meaning something other than being nagged at, it will stop.
Right now, the only thing that seems to be universally enforced is kicking someone in the balls... probably because it's so obvious when you kick someone in the balls. Consequently, people really only kick each other balls on accident when someone changes angles while on the receiving end of high thigh kicks.
I can see where you're coming from here.
Yep. Abusers will be obvious, and they should have points taken away. Better refs would definitely do that, not like Herb Dean who would allow a fighter to duck between the ropes 25 times in a match and have them win by decision.
Tell me more about the electric exploding barb wire solution.
The thing I don't like being more aggressive with point deductions is because of how much they change fights and how little middle ground there is. What I mean by that is I can't imagine taking a point the very first time someone grabs the cage to stop a takedown, you know? Sometimes it's just reflex, and to immediately deduct a point for that?
But if the solution is to be more aggressive about deducting points, you have to be that aggressive. You can't simply warn the guy, because then you're just effectively giving him a couple free takedown stuffs by grabbing the fence. It's what we're seeing now. Refs are understandably hesitant to change the nature of a fight with a deduction, so they just keep warning. Even if they eventually do deduct a point, it still just means all those previous warning were freebies.
That's why I like the idea of just forcing the guy that committed the penalty to give up the takedown. That's something you can be consistent with 100% of the time. If a ref feels a guy grabbed the fence and stopped a takedown from it, then put him on his back and warn him that if it happens once or twice more or whatever, then he will deduct a point.
I'd like to see something similar for punches to the back of the head. I'd like those to be done similarly to groin shots. If a ref feels a fighter has been affected by a shot to the back of the head, he stops the fight, lets the guy recover, and then puts them either back into the position they were in with a warning that if it happens X many times, it's gonna be a point no matter what.
Stuff like that helps take the all-or-nothing aspect out of penalties.
Dana gives a guy a full purse and his win bonus for not being able to fight and some people say Dana screws fighters? Seriously? Sounds like he's helping a guy out who trained for nothing. And this isn't the first time he's done it, either. Dana may be a dick in some of his business dealings, but he's generally a fair employer.
Too bad Hazelett won't be fighting, though. Always a treat to watch him.
Looking at the upcoming cards, I'd say the best bets would be to either have him fight Kampmann at 108 and move that to the main card or have him fight anyone and put it on the main card of the Fight Night on 1/11. Either way, it shouldn't be too long before he gets back in the octagon.
And although it sucks that he trained his ass off and now can't fight, it's a bit of a mixed blessing. He got base pay, win pay and it still 100% ready to (like you're pointing out) take another fight very quickly. He could easily make some good money in the next month or two if they pick him up for another fight.
I wish Hazelett and Maia were in the same weight class. I'd love to see that match.
Aww, what a nice guy that Dana is. Unlike that horrible horrible Karo Parisyan.
HE'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN, Y'HEAR!
We get it, he took your mother out to a nice chicken dinner and never called her again. A point other than why Kimbo is awesome and Dana sucks would be nice
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Your amazingly humorous sarcasm aside, name another employer who regularly pays employees for not working. Granted, there may be other MMA head honchos that normally do it (Scott Coker, for instance), but since Dana obviously gets the most media coverage, he's the one I hear about.
If there are some other owners/presidents that normally do it, let me know. I'm not being sarcastic in the least. People who help out the guys I love watching deserve to be praised for doing what they do.
"Hey, don't breathe on the wall!"
"Last warning, stop breathing on the wall!"
There's no way to know what would have happened. Maybe the guy grabbing the cage would have pivoted and thrown the other guy down and ended up on top, maybe he would have thrown a knee to the gut and dropped the other guy, etc. We've all seen some fantastic takedown defenses before, we've also seen some really awful ones. You can't even tell what is going to happen.
So you're left with making a ruling on what actually did happen, and penalize the offender.
When a football team commits pass interference in the end zone, the other team doesn't automatically get a TD because it's assumed a TD would have happened. When a basketball player is fouled while shooting a layup, he doesn't automatically get 2 points because it's assumed the shot would have gone in.
And if fighters don't want points taken away, then maybe they should listen to the ref when he says "Stop grabbing the cage!" No one's saying points should be deducted on the first offense, just as they aren't on any other foul. But repeated violations? Go ahead and start docking.
RE Karo -
I don't see the cause for all the RAGE! by White. According to Karo, he couldn't get licensed because Nevada fined him $32k for testing positive for (prescribed) painkillers, and he can't pay it because he doesn't have the money. Apparently him not being willing to take out a mortgage on his house = "screwing" the UFC.
Maybe Karo should have went to the bank. On the loan application, he could have written the reason for the loan was "To pay state fine for drug violations." That would have turned out well.
http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=10041&zoneid=2
It would have to be extremely strong, as well as very flexible so fighters smashing into it wouldn't be hurt too badly. It'd also get super dirty and wouldn't carry sound.
I like the idea of positional penalties for various infractions. Guy does something wrong? The other guy gets to have a dominant position, or perhaps the choice of positions. This could be anything from double under-hooks while standing to full mount depending on the severity of the infraction. Letting the fighter choose from a couple options (of course still dependent on the severity of the infraction) could throw some interesting variety into the mix, as different styles of grapplers may prefer different positions.
How many warnings does a guy get? How many times can the guy break the rules and gain an advantage because of it before you penalize him?
I dunno, how many free groin kicks can he get away with? Right now it seems to be up to the ref's discretion. I wouldn't be opposed to officially setting a certain number, though.
But at least with groin kicks, the kicker doesn't really gain an advantage. The ref stops the action and gives Mr. Sore Nuts up to five minutes to recover. You can argue that there's still some advantage, but the rules at least minimize it as much as possible.
With what you're talking about for fence-grabbing, though, not only is there no immediate penalty, but there's a notable and sometimes significant advantage that doesn't get minimized at all. What good does a warning do for the guy who now doesn't have the takedown he probably would have had?
That's my problem with the current system and the system you're proposing. Not only is there not a penalty until some undefined number of warnings, the guy committing the foul gains an advantage and that advantage doesn't get taken away.