The Throwdown 12.01.06: The Tables Have Turned
Posted by Jon Hartley on 12.01.2006
MMA, once a freak show, is now a sanctioned sport that has reached much of mainstream America. Now that the sport has gained popularity, is it time for promotions to use their leverage with athletic commissions and make some changes? Also, 411's Jon Hartley talks Jason "Mayhem" Miller vs. Frank Trigg this weekend, contrasting Tim Sylvia to Jens Pulver and more on The Throwdown!
We all know the story, or at least the Zuffa Myth version. Heroic investors buy the UFC to keep it from falling off the face of the earth, place a bold, aggressive executive in charge, save the sport. Right? Well...not so much. Everyone should know that the sport was already started down its long road to legitimacy before SEG sold the company, as before Dana White and company took the reins, certain rules and regulations were already in place and some athletic commissions had sanctioned the sport.
But alas, that's not what we're here to discuss today. After all, the important thing is that the sport became sanctioned by most of the top athletic commissions in the United States, and in the last few years viewership and awareness of the "fringe sport" of mixed martial arts has soared. Who takes and deserves the credit is, after all, small potatoes compared to the importance of the simple fact that those things at long last did happen.
The problem is that maybe the sport was too watered down when it finally bowed to regulation. After all, Zuffa and any other hopeful promoters in the U.S. had to take what they could get, since they had a small audience and badly needed legitimacy. Certain concessions were made, many of which were good (no headbutts, rounds with time limits, defined weight classes), and some of which were not so good (no knees to the head of a downed opponent). Now that the sport has become a great draw and has begun earning the respect of the major athletic commissions at least due to its earning power alone, it's time to go back to those commissions and tell them we need to make some changes.
The recent debut of Pride Fighting Championships here in the U.S. has shined a spotlight on one of the lingering problems in MMA; unified rules (or lack thereof). There's no doubt that a new MMA fan, or one who had only watched the UFC previously, would be confused by the rules in the Pride show, which included disallowing elbows to the head. If the same fan were to watch a Japanese Pride event, they'd be even more perplexed, as Wanderlei Silva mercilessly stomps and soccer kicks a downed opponent, or as Ricco Rodriguez loses a decision to Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira under a vastly different judging criteria than what is used in the States. With Pride looking to increase its stateside efforts next year, the time has come to put some pressure on not only the sport's organizations, but the sanctioning bodies to create truly unified rules. Here are some changes that I, for one, would like to see:
Knees Allowed To A Downed Opponent's Head
I don't mind letting the soccer kicks and stomps go, as its pretty damn hard to justify those and as brutally entertaining as they may be, they definitely provide ammunition to opposers of the sport. Not to mention that they can force referees into even quicker stoppages, as it only takes a flash knockout to the person on the ground to allow the other fighter to land a devastating (and dangerous) stomp to their head. Knees to the head, on the other hand, are a different matter entirely. Not only are they not nearly as dangerous as a soccer kick or stomp to the head, but they change the dynamics of the fight. Imagine how Tim Sylvia's fight against Jeff Monson or John Alessio's against Diego Sanchez might have looked if Sylvia or Alessio had been given the option to knee their opponents' heads after a failed takedown. It would literally change the strategy of every wrestler in the UFC, and would help keep them honest in regards to going for sloppy takedowns that are not likely to succeed. The way things stand now, a fighter can relentlessly go for takedowns without fear of any real repurcussions aside from wasting some energy. What if Forrest Griffin could have blasted Tito's head after some of those failed takedowns? Knees to the head on the ground are vital in MMA. Elbows should stay for the same reasons: they give you more weapons in different situations. How many times have we seen an elbow from the bottom change the complexion of the fight? Not that many, but the fact that the bottom fighter can still put the top one in danger with an elbow strike keeps the top man on his toes. Honestly, what suspense would there have been in Dewees-Ray or Sherk-Florian without elbows?
More Rounds, Please
I am in agreeance with those who believe that three rounds for a non-title fight is just not enough. Sure, we see fights where guys are just completely gassed after three rounds, or are so passive that another two rounds would be pure agony, but who wouldn't want another two rounds of Sanchez-Diaz or Penn-St. Pierre? The idea of having ascending numbers of rounds based upon experience and position in the sport has been kicked around, and though the idea wasn't mine originally, I think it's a great one: three rounds for preliminary fights or less experienced fighters, five rounds for main card fights between established fighters, and seven (yes, seven) rounds for title fights. I know what you're thinking right now: "two more rounds of Sylvia-Monson or Sylvia-Arlovski 3?" Hey, sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. Besides, maybe a guy like Sylvia would be more aggressive if they knew they would have to go seven rounds to make it to a decision. Plus, it's worth it to find out the true winners of close three-round fights.
While we're at it, Elaina Maxwell and Gina Carano are set for an MMA fight on the upcoming Strikeforce card...in a bout that will feature two two-minute rounds! Four minutes of fighting! What can be decided in that time period??!?! Give the ladies at least three rounds of three-minutes a piece in pro MMA bouts, guys.
Judging That Makes Sense
It's not easy to come up with the best possible solution to the judging issues in American MMA lately, but it's pretty easy to see that there is a problem. Judges don't seem to understand the ground game and have widely differing opinions on how to score takedowns and defended takedowns, submission attempts and escapes, and everything else including foot stomps. Not to mention that the 10-point "must" system doesn't seem to work, at least not for a three-round fight. I personally like the Pride system of judging fights as a whole rather than as seperate rounds. Too many times, judges don't seem to know what constitutes a 10-9 round rather than a 10-8 round and vice versa, and they are also too reluctant to score 10-10 rounds. Hence, you end up with a fight like Penn-St. Pierre or Ortiz-Griffin, where controversy ensues as one fighter clearly wins one round and then seemingly loses two very close ones. Those fights would likely be tough to score even with a "whole fight" judging system, but at least we'd be putting quality over quantity. Too many fighters simply try to win rounds when they should be trying to win the fight.
As far as how the fights should be judged, that's harder to put your finger on. After all, who's to say whether a submission attempt should be worth more than an escape or great position work? And shouldn't a deeper submission attempt be scored as more than a lackluster attempt that is quickly shrugged off by the opponent? Where does aggression factor in, and what about takedowns? Does standing up from the ground or reversing to top position negate a takedown? What about pulling guard? These are all tough questions, and to me, it's not so much how they're answered, but that everyone understands how they're answered that is important. You can disagree all day long about how things should be scored, but at least if judges had consistent criteria and if fighters knew that criteria, they would know how to prepare accordingly. It's pretty hard to win a decision when you really don't know what they're looking for. Also, the organizations need to try to get their criteria and judging methods as similar as possible to provide a level playing field for the fighters and a consistent basis for evaluation for the fans.
Things I'm Willing To Live Without
As I said, stomps and soccer kicks can stay gone in the U.S. I don't mind seeing them in Japan, but I also don't think they're nearly as important as knees to the head on the ground. I couldn't care less about having same-day tournaments reinstated, as they are great for entertainment but don't provide a basis for meaningful fights, since the fighters are banged up and tired after their first bouts. I don't particularly care whether fights take place in a cage or a ring; fighters will adapt their strategies accordingly. I also don't see the need for fighters to be allowed to wear gis, shoes, etc. again in the U.S. Leave your pajamas and luchador masks at home, fighters.
Quick Thoughts-
--Pride Fighters Probably Hope Yellow Cards Are Next To Go: Last week, I heard on Sherdog.com that Travis "Don't Call Me Why-Uff" Wiuff, Josh Neer and Joe Doerksen had been signed to Pride contracts, mostly for the purpose of fighting on 2007 Pride shows on U.S. soil. For some reason, I forgot to mention it in my column. What really made me think was the fact that Neer is a welterweight and Doerksen a middleweight, neither of which are represented in Pride's non-Bushido shows. This could only mean one of two things: either Pride was planning on running Bushido shows in the U.S., or they were planning on scrapping Bushido altogether and having Pride shows incorporate all the weight classes from now on. It appears the second option was the correct one.
That's right, no more Pride Bushido, folks. Along with that change, there will only be one tournament per year, with each of Pride's four weight classes having its own tournament only ever four years. This means that titles will be defended much more often. My thoughts? Bravo on all accounts. Ditching Bushido will help ease confusion with new American fans and help the transition into the U.S. and other non-Japanese markets. I'm more excited about having less frequent tournaments, though. Tournaments provide great matchups and storylines and create new stars while providing fading ones a chance at redemption, but they have become way overdone in the last few years. Now if Nobuyuki Sakakibara had only said that champions wouldn't be involved in tournaments, and that non-title matches would be done away with, I'd be even more pleased. However, by specifying that there will be at least one title match in every Pride show, he's basically closed the door on non-title matches. After all, with just four champions and likely between 8-12 shows per year, when could they possibly have them? (source: Gong Magazine by way of MMAWeekly.com)
--Well, They Pulled Off The First One...: Speaking of Pride Fighting Championships, they are planning on running four shows stateside in 2007, including one on February 24 at the Thomas & Mack Center. The others are likely to occur around late April/early May, sometime in the summer, with the possible fourth coming (obviously) sometime after that. This was confirmed by no less than indecisive former retiree and Pride commentator Frank Trigg on Sherdog.com's Savage Dog radio show.
--Monkeys Unite: Trigg, of course, is prepping for his title fight with Jason "Mayhem" Miller in Icon Sport. Miller, of course, is the 185 lb. champion of the Hawaiian promotion, and leader of thousands of "monkeys", as he calls his faithful fans. I'm excited for the fight, but would be even more so if, you know...I could actually see it. I am more than a bit perplexed by the fact that smaller promotions like Icon will pay pretty good money for fighters like Mayhem, Trigg, and Robbie Lawler without giving the continental U.S. (or the rest of the world) much of a chance to see the actual fights. If anything, I hope this sport gets to the point where big fights like this have some way of being seen by the masses. Until then, look for clips of the fight as next week's Random YouTube Moment, I guess.
--Opposites Attract:Team Miletich fighters Tim Sylvia and Jens Pulver have plenty in common. They both had rough upbringings, they both represent the same team and have held UFC titles, they...okay, they don't have that much in common. One thing they certainly don't share is their mentality when it comes to fighting. Sylvia has, of late, been much less aggressive than in the past (although, to be fair, he's always been an opportunistic counterpuncher), especially in the late rounds of his title defenses. Meanwhile, Pulver has long abandoned his ground and pound instincts and wrestling background for a crowd-pleasing, brawling style. Now, Pulver has good hands and has even had some success as a professional boxer, but this approach has gotten him into trouble, most notably in a momentum-stopping KO loss to Duane "Bang" Ludwig in 2003 and his recent upset loss to Joe Lauzon in his UFC return. He also fought and lost to Takanori Gomi in a great fight that nonetheless resembled a boxing match for most of the bout. What's the result? Well, Sylvia still hasn't gained the respect he deserves, even after standing toe-to-toe with a "more explosive" fighter in Andrei Arlovski to beat him twice and holding more than his own against super-grappler Jeff Monson on the mat. He has, however, picked up possibly the largest collection of anti-fans in the entire sport, many of which blame his "boring" fights as the cause. Contrast to Pulver, who despite openly admitting he caters to the fans, still doesn't have one of the largest fanbases in the sport (he does have his fair share), but has sacrificed results to an extent to appeal to the masses. Sure, Pulver has more fans than Sylvia, but how many pundits would put him in their lightweight top tens? If Sylvia had came out in the fifth round determined to push the pace and knock out Monson and had gotten taken down and submitted or rocked with a counter punch and lost, how many of his detractors would have given him credit then? Seems to me that sometimes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Non-MMA Thought: It kills me how sports leagues like the NFL and the media that covers them pretend to be so conservative and full of good old fashioned "values", whatever that means. Want an example? Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons recently flipped off some heckling fans while leaving the field in a disappointing loss, and the whole thing was caught on tape and showed again and again. Now, whether or not Vick should have done that and whether or not he should be punished is not what I care about. What bothers me is that during every replay I've seen of the bird-flip, Vick's offending finger has been blurred out. That's right, the same sport that has allowed us to see vicious injuries time and time again doesn't want to appear insensitive to its fragile fans, most of whom are adult males. And networks like ESPN, who delighted in showing us reply after replay of Albert Haynesworth giving a helmet-less player a cleat tattoo while he laid defenseless on the ground all while feigning disgust, is afraid to show us a man's finger. Show us all kinds of helmet-to-helmet hits that leave players motionless on the ground for minutes at a time, but for God's sake, don't show us THE MIDDLE FINGER!!! I was similarly pissed off when producers refused to show Randy Mosspretending to moon Green Bay Packer fans after a touchdown not too long ago; all the while idiot moral pedestal climber Joe Buck acted as if he'd seen Moss climb into the stands and slap a paraplegic in the face. "Oh, I just can't believe that. What a CLASSLESS MOVE...that has NO place in the sport", blah blah blah blah blah. And don't even get me started on Janet Jackson's Super Bowl titty, and all the parents aghast that their eleven year old saw a naked boob. Parents: your eleven year olds have SEEN titties. Believe me. It would be nice if networks and the media would stop insulting our intelligence to pander to ultraconservative psychopaths under the guise of good taste.
Random MMA YouTube Moment
Apparently, the man who has helped Georges St. Pierre learn some devastating striking is Phil Nurse, a Muay Thai fighter who has been working with GSP lately. If Matt Hughes had seen this video of Phil, maybe he would have tried a few more takedowns?
