Should Referee's Stand Up Fighters That Are Inactive On The Ground?
by Kelvin Hunt on Oct 5, 2009 6:15 PM EDT
in News
Email
Print
I've been thinking about this all day for the most part. I can definitely see both sides of the coin on this one, but I want to get your opinion on this. This topic basically stems from the Travis Lutter vs. Jason MacDonald fight this past weekend at MFC 22: "Payback". Travis Lutter defeated Jason MacDonald via unanimous decision and/or lay and pray. Jason MacDonald even blogged bout the fight the very next day and questioned why the referee didn't stand the fighters up more. Keep reading after the jump.
I absolutely love a MMA fight were guys are transitioning like crazy on the ground like in Nick Diaz vs. Diego Sanchez fight. However, there's nothing worse than a fighter getting a takedown and doing absolutely NOTHING with it. The crowd begins to boo, I get sleepy, and well it's just not entertaining. In the Lutter/MacDonald fight, Lutter was able to get DOMINANT positions like the mount, side control, and he even took MacDonald's back. However, he wasn't offering ANY offense whatsoever while in these dominant positions. Now, I'm a firm believer in if a fighter has a dominant position, he should not be stood up from that position at any cost. Here's why:
1. It's a dominant position and he can begin to inflict damage at any time.
2. HE put his opponent in that position.
3. If the fighter on their back and/or bad position wants to get back up to their feet, then he/she should get himself up and not depend on the referee to do so
Now I believe most people agree with those sentiments. I mean the first round of Randy Couture vs. Tim Sylvia at UFC 68 is a prime example. However, let's look at this.
If fighter A takes fighter B down and isn't in a dominant position, and fighter B is able to obtain guard to nullify fighter A's offense for an extended period of time. Often times, fighters that get taken down will try to control their opponents posture long enough to cause a stalemate in the action resulting in a referee stand up. Should the referee stand the fighters up, or should the referee make the fighter that was taken down to the mat work himself back up to his feet?
I realize that stalemates on the ground are boring, and nobody likes to see those type of fights. However, try not to look at this from that point of view. Look at it as fighter A has put fighter B in this position, should the referee assist fighter B in getting out of that position? Build with me.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very good topic.
This is maybe a topic that there is mixed oppinions I believe if the top fighter doesnt do anything to advance their position then Yeah they should be stood up but if the guy on the bottom is doing work and the guy on the tp is just lying there I also think they should stand it up,But ofcourse if the guy who gets taken down is a striker he will hold on and stall till they are stood up….So IMO its fine but there were a few fights that should have been stood up and a few fights that were stood up to early….SO I guess its all oppinion well the fight is happening lol You know what we DO need is more good Refs!!
absolutely
If this was like the old school NHB, no time limits, no stoppages unless KO/Tap… Then I’d say absolutely not.
But this is MMA with sanctioned rules and 5 minute rounds. Lay n Pray doesn’t cut it. Monumental chess matches like the 90 minute Gracie vs Sakuraba epic DOESN’T CUT IT when there are time limits. And I mean, you really have to be into the ground game to get into that match. Just a complete battle of attrition. With time limits, there’s no room for that.
Are you talking about should they be stood up if: Fighter A has a dominant position on Fighter B, but Fighter A does nothing with that dominant position?
by The Bronzeville Bully on Oct 5, 2009 7:20 PM EDT reply actions
whoops
here’s another question:
what if they get the opponent in a dominant position and then just love-tap their opponents expecting to get a stoppage, like Roy Big Belly Nelson? Should the fight eventually be stood up if nothing of consequence is being done? Roy Nelson was saying that the fight with Kimbo should have been stopped in the 1st. I don’t agree. He was love-tapping him to death, thinking that he could get away with doing no damage. He even admitted he was “fighting smart” and trying not to rack up any injuries, like a broken hand, but come on… clearly Roy Nelson wasn’t doing enough to KO Kimbo, not even close. Should that fight have been stopped? I say no. Kimbo wasn’t hurt at all. In a bad position? Yeah, definitely. But he wasn’t getting hurt.
There should be standups, BUT it should be for a ridiculous amount of inactivity, in my opinion. If a guys just isn’t doing anything then stand them back up. If a guy is doing work, though, I put the burden on the guy in an inferior position to either improve his position or standup on his own. Getting a takedown is difficult and the burden should mostly be on the other fighter to get out themselves. Again, though, if it’s a ridiculous amount of inactivity then I’m cool with it.
Concerning full guard primarily
What’s to say that the guy with top control doing nothing would be the one to elicit a tap or a KO if there was no time limit? To me it’s pretty clear-cut: while grapplers and wrestlers must be given time to ply their trade, inactivity warrants stand-ups much like when two guys are just leaning on each other in the clinch. I like the refs who are straightforward with the fighters giving them ample warning in the form of a “improve your position, I’m going to stand this up” or “you got to work”.
It’s a harder call with dominant positions, but there’s a treshold there too if the fighter isn’t landing shots or attempting submissions.
Bloody hell.
no offense
but i hate when refs have to warn the top fighter to “keep busy” and such. usually the top fight er will hear the warning, posture up and throw some meaningless arm punches that staves off the stand-up. worst example-justin mccully vs anoni hardonk. every time herb dean would warn mccully “go to work” he would do just enough to keep it on the ground then lay his head back on harodnks chest, (hardonk was kicking his asss on the feet) and herb gave justin ALOT of warnings. if the fight is moving that slowly, the ref shouldn’t have to warn them, just go ahead and stand them up. i know there are fighters that have awful takedown defense and need to improve on that, and i love me some good ground game, but their are certain fighters that have made a career by l-n-p. everbody hates those kind of fighters, which is why guys like lindland,lutter, jake obrien and mccully himself are no longer in the ufc.
![From MMAJunkie.com:
Strikeforce heavyweight and former NFL great Herschel Walker (1-0 MMA, 1-0 SF) suffered a deep cut in training and has been forced to withdraw from next month's "Strikeforce: Henderson vs. Babalu" event.
Strikeforce officials today confirmed the change with MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com).
Featuring a light heavyweight matchup between Dan Henderson and Renato "Babalu" Sobral, "Strikeforce: Henderson vs. Babalu" takes place Dec. 4 and airs on Showtime.
"I feel terrible about this," Walker stated in today's official release. "I know things like this happen in all sports, but I had trained very hard and was excited to be returning to the cage again."
Walker had been expected to face one-time WEC veteran Scott Carson (4-1 MMA, 0-0 SF).
According to Strikeforce officials, a Daniel Cormier knee strike opened a "deep cut under [Walker's] left eye that required multiple stitches"...
Despite the setback, Walker said he hopes to return to action quickly.
"I hope to fight again as soon as the cut heals," Walker said.](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/161814/herschel-walker-2_small.jpg)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
