If you don't follow MMA you might want to skip this post.
I'm writing this just as news of Alistair Overeem's failed Testosterone: Epitestosterone test are coming to light. As of right now his B sample hasn't been tested, nothing's been confirmed - as far as I know this is a huge mistake (not that I think it is).
Having said that, I've already read a few comments (some posted by professional reporters) that indicate that the authors don't understand this test or what it means. I thought I'd explain.
We're all probably familiar with testosterone, a sex hormone produced in naturally higher levels in males than in females. Testosterone positively influences muscle hypertophy (how big your muscles can be), recovery (how fast you can recover from a tough workout), mood, health, and a bunch of other things. People's levels vary naturally - men almost always have higher levels than women, levels tend to peak in early twenties or so then decline gradually, and levels can be affected by your genes, stress levels, sleep, nutrition, various legal herbs, and even looking at naked women (seriously). How much those things can influence T levels is relative - if you're at a 400, watching a bunch of porn and getting a good night's sleep might get you up to 500, but it won't get you to 1200.
Incidentally, one way to permanently decrease your T levels is repeated head trauma. Think about that in terms of fightsports for a moment. And one of the most serious consequences (in my opinion) of depressed T is increased risk for depression (along with heart disease)... think about that the next time a former fighter commits suicide.
So we can all imagine that if you're going to compete in almost any sport that involves strength and/or power, higher T levels, at least up to a point, are going to be beneficial. They'll allow you to train harder, recover faster, hold more muscle in the face of high stress, and generally be, all else being equal, a better athlete. How do you get higher levels of T? Sleep, nutrition, porn - they'll all help a little bit, but the most effective way is to add testosterone to your system - inject it, use a cream, whatever.
Of course, that's against the rules. Mostly. There's an exception - Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT).
You see, if a normal joe (like me) has low T levels - that is, significantly lower than those of an average male of our age (roughly mid-600's are average) - we can go to our doctor and get a nice legal prescription for injectable T or a T cream. Boom, levels go back up, but, depending on how much we take, our levels may not be very high - they may still be on the low side - just higher than they were. If your T level is 200 and you use a cream or injections to get up to 500 your T level is still lower than the average guy on the street.
Now to compete in MMA there are all kinds of hoops you have to jump through - just because something is legal doesn't mean it's okay with the athletic commission (see Nick Diaz, marijuana). They'll accept a fighter on TRT if they go to certain doctors, file specific forms, tell them ahead of time, etc. - like I said, there are hoops to jump through, but the use of TRT isn't banned outright. In theory, they would test you to make sure you weren't on a high enough dose of TRT to give you a competitive advantage. Basically, if I can show them that I'm using TRT to bring my 200 up to an 800 (still well within the range of "normal"), I'd be okay, but if I bring my 200 up to a 2000 I wouldn't be allowed into the cage.
There ARE tests that check your overall T levels - blood tests, not urine as far as I know - but that's not what Overeem failed.
You see, along with T, your body makes another hormone called Epitestosterone (E) that isn't very interesting - it doesn't do too much that we're aware of, and doesn't seem to help with athletic performance. About the only reason we do care about E is that humans tend to make about as much of it as they do of T - in other words, for pretty much everybody, whatever your T levels are, your E levels will be almost exactly the same. Have a lot of T (say, you're a teenager watching porn)? You'll have a lot of E. Have a low T? Low E. The ratio stays at around 1:1. But what if you inject a bunch of extra T? Well, the ratio gets out of whack, because it's the stuff your body makes that comes out in a 1:1 ratio - when you inject extra T there's no feedback loop that has your body ramp up its production of E.
Overeem's reported T:E ratio was 14:1. If that's true it ONLY means that he had a lot of artificial T swimming around in his system. As far as I know he doesn't have a TRT exemption - that information may be available - but we don't actually know if his T levels were really high OR if his natural T level was ridiculously low an he used supplemental T to get his overall levels to a high-normal range. I'm not saying that is the case - I'm just saying that we don't know if his T levels were very high, offering him some competitive advantage - only that he was injecting (or smearing through cream) extra T.
Now if Overeem hadn't applied for a TRT exemption and was still applying/ injecting extra T then it doesn't matter if his overall levels were higher than normal or not - he broke the rules, he'll be punished for it.
Please note that I'm not arguing in favor of the current regulations (or against them), I only think we should be clear on what the various test results actually mean. I'm a little sympathetic to the view that the athletes should be allowed to drug up however much they want to - we're not seriously worried about their health, are we? If we cared about the long term health of athletes they'd all be in headgear, if combat sports were even legal. Forget football. Or marathon running. High level sports is not good for people!
One last note - if you're an amateur athlete buying illegal drugs to improve your performance then you're an idiot. Overeem makes hundreds of thousands of dollars to risk his health - if you're an accountant who trains in martial arts for fun, to risk your health at 60 for your hobby is just dumb. When you buy steroids from some guy at your gym you don't know what's in them, the purity level, etc. Now if you have low (or low-ish) T levels and you want to get TRT from your doctor, that's another story (the pharmacy will sell you real T, no rat poison in it). I don't claim to be an expert on Hormone Replacement Therapy, but I suspect that artificically replacing your T levels back to where they were when you were in your mid-20's will have only positive side effects for most people (but I'm NOT positive about this).
So, stay away from illegal drugs, but consider legal ones. Osu!
Showing posts with label MMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMA. Show all posts
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
"Cheating" During Sparring
I imagine most karate schools today have some form of jiyu kumite - free sparring - in their training. I'm sure it is emphasized in some places more than others, while the rules vary quite a bit from style to style. I'm also sure that noboy has a "no rules" jiyu kumite. (Why? Becasue if you free-fought without rules your practice wouldn't last very long - nobody can take eye gouges, groin kicks, small joint locks, etc. all together without an unacceptably high rate of injury).
There is a fundamental problem with fighting with rules - no matter what the rules are, they change the way the game is played. For example, in kyokushin, historically, punches to the face weren't allowed. That significantly alters the stances used when compared to, say, kickboxing. Kyokushin fighters held their hands lower, defended differently, etc. Or compare an MMA fighter to someone fighting in a real no rules streetfight. Look at their stance - often we'll see MMA fighters standing square to their opponent with legs spread slightly. They do that to help defend against the takedown. Do you think that stance would be as popular if groin kicks were allowed? Or think about a BJJ guard. I know that art was developed for streetfighting, but it really seems vulnerable to groin attacks. Perhaps groin strikes weren't used by people fighting for honor on the streets of Brazil.
Regardless of what "rules" are imposed, certain fighting styles will gain an advantage. If you don't allow strikes to the head, nobody's going to fight with their hands in a high guard, up by their cheeks. If everyone wears big gloves nobody's going to base their strategy on pressure point techniques.
You have to figure out what game you want to get good at playing - do you want to have the skill set of a streetfighter? A bar brawler who usually fights with a limited (but not empty) set of rules? A kickboxer? A point fighter? A cage fighter? I have nothing against any of those choices - I personally (for no rational reason) want the skill set of a K-1 f ighter, even though it's unlikely I'll ever step into a ring.
Depending on what you want to be good at you may or may not be able to spar with those same rules all the time. Even kickboxers don't really do ring-style kickboxing all that often - they usually wear headgear and extra protection for sparring purposes, at least a majority of the time. MMA fighters do most of their sparring with extra protection as well (you see funny results from that - watch how lots of MMA fighters guard - they'll hold their fists in place up in front of their face. Sadly, this works much better when you wear full boxing gloves, as they do in sparring, than with 4 oz. gloves, so they'll sometimes get hit, hard, and not know what happened. I've seen Tito Ortiz do that a bunch of times. The strategy that worked under the "rules" of big glove fighting didn't work under small glove, cage "rules.")
If you can't fight under the "real" rules (the rules of your chosen game) then you have to be careful. It's natural to want to "win" while sparring. You want to score points/ tap out/ beat up your opponent. The problem is that sometimes the strategies that can get you a "win" in a sparring session (whether or not you keep score) don't make you better where you wnat to be better - in the "game" that really matters to you.
That's what I mean by cheating - not breaking the rules of the "game" you're playing, but taking advantage of those rules to gain an advantage.
If you want to be a good streetfighter but in the dojo you do kyokushin style full contact karate, then you have to avoid the temptation to "cheat" by leaving your groin and head exposed. Covering those areas will make you worse at kyokushin fighting - because your target areas will be more exposed - but leaving them open will give you bad habits that won't translate well to the street. If you want to be a cage fighter you CAN afford to leave your groin open, but you CAN'T afford a stance that leaves you vulnerable to takedowns, even if on that day you're training boxing. You have to box with a wider, more square stance, ready to sprawl at any time, even though that makes for bad boxing.
I'm not arguing that your goal should be to be a better streetfighter or cage fighter or point fighter - only that you should pick something as your target and train accordingly. Then, if you want to be a good cage fighter but you're in a school that does point fighting, resist the urge to "score" using little slappy hits, even if other people fight that way, and focus on only using strikes landed from a position and body alignment that would let you put real power into them.
In my style we exempt green belts from headstrike - we give them a sort of breaking in period where they have less to worry about while fighting. Some of them fight with their hands held at chest level - and when fighting them it's easy to let one's hands drop. I try to fight that urge - to keep my guard high, as if defending against a head strike, even when my opponent can't use one, so as to keep my habits sharp. My goal is to be good at fighting my peers, who are allowed to punch and kick me in the head!
In short: do your best while sparring, but don't fall prey to habits that translate poorly into the domain you wish to master. Even if you can "get away with" certain things while sparring doesn't mean you should - especially not if it's going to make you vulnerable in the type of fight you care about.
Osu.
There is a fundamental problem with fighting with rules - no matter what the rules are, they change the way the game is played. For example, in kyokushin, historically, punches to the face weren't allowed. That significantly alters the stances used when compared to, say, kickboxing. Kyokushin fighters held their hands lower, defended differently, etc. Or compare an MMA fighter to someone fighting in a real no rules streetfight. Look at their stance - often we'll see MMA fighters standing square to their opponent with legs spread slightly. They do that to help defend against the takedown. Do you think that stance would be as popular if groin kicks were allowed? Or think about a BJJ guard. I know that art was developed for streetfighting, but it really seems vulnerable to groin attacks. Perhaps groin strikes weren't used by people fighting for honor on the streets of Brazil.
Regardless of what "rules" are imposed, certain fighting styles will gain an advantage. If you don't allow strikes to the head, nobody's going to fight with their hands in a high guard, up by their cheeks. If everyone wears big gloves nobody's going to base their strategy on pressure point techniques.
You have to figure out what game you want to get good at playing - do you want to have the skill set of a streetfighter? A bar brawler who usually fights with a limited (but not empty) set of rules? A kickboxer? A point fighter? A cage fighter? I have nothing against any of those choices - I personally (for no rational reason) want the skill set of a K-1 f ighter, even though it's unlikely I'll ever step into a ring.
Depending on what you want to be good at you may or may not be able to spar with those same rules all the time. Even kickboxers don't really do ring-style kickboxing all that often - they usually wear headgear and extra protection for sparring purposes, at least a majority of the time. MMA fighters do most of their sparring with extra protection as well (you see funny results from that - watch how lots of MMA fighters guard - they'll hold their fists in place up in front of their face. Sadly, this works much better when you wear full boxing gloves, as they do in sparring, than with 4 oz. gloves, so they'll sometimes get hit, hard, and not know what happened. I've seen Tito Ortiz do that a bunch of times. The strategy that worked under the "rules" of big glove fighting didn't work under small glove, cage "rules.")
If you can't fight under the "real" rules (the rules of your chosen game) then you have to be careful. It's natural to want to "win" while sparring. You want to score points/ tap out/ beat up your opponent. The problem is that sometimes the strategies that can get you a "win" in a sparring session (whether or not you keep score) don't make you better where you wnat to be better - in the "game" that really matters to you.
That's what I mean by cheating - not breaking the rules of the "game" you're playing, but taking advantage of those rules to gain an advantage.
If you want to be a good streetfighter but in the dojo you do kyokushin style full contact karate, then you have to avoid the temptation to "cheat" by leaving your groin and head exposed. Covering those areas will make you worse at kyokushin fighting - because your target areas will be more exposed - but leaving them open will give you bad habits that won't translate well to the street. If you want to be a cage fighter you CAN afford to leave your groin open, but you CAN'T afford a stance that leaves you vulnerable to takedowns, even if on that day you're training boxing. You have to box with a wider, more square stance, ready to sprawl at any time, even though that makes for bad boxing.
I'm not arguing that your goal should be to be a better streetfighter or cage fighter or point fighter - only that you should pick something as your target and train accordingly. Then, if you want to be a good cage fighter but you're in a school that does point fighting, resist the urge to "score" using little slappy hits, even if other people fight that way, and focus on only using strikes landed from a position and body alignment that would let you put real power into them.
In my style we exempt green belts from headstrike - we give them a sort of breaking in period where they have less to worry about while fighting. Some of them fight with their hands held at chest level - and when fighting them it's easy to let one's hands drop. I try to fight that urge - to keep my guard high, as if defending against a head strike, even when my opponent can't use one, so as to keep my habits sharp. My goal is to be good at fighting my peers, who are allowed to punch and kick me in the head!
In short: do your best while sparring, but don't fall prey to habits that translate poorly into the domain you wish to master. Even if you can "get away with" certain things while sparring doesn't mean you should - especially not if it's going to make you vulnerable in the type of fight you care about.
Osu.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
You should be watching combat sports
If you're a martial artist and you aren't watching combat sports fairly regularly, you should be. There are two reasons:
First, you can learn from combat sports. Now I know that MMA isn't the same as an actual fight, but it's closer than most of what I have access to - I haven't seen a "real fight" (no rules) since the third grade, if you can count a couple of eight year olds fighting as a streetfight. Watching MMA has taught me a few things about combat, like the fact that head kicks can be effective (just don't lead with them or throw them alone) or that "knockout points" along the jaw that my teacher used to talk about are very, very real. Don't think that you're learning a lot, because MMA does have a bunch of rules and fighting with gloves is not the same as without, but you can get something out of it.
Second, watching good combat sports can be very motivational. If you can watch Giorgio Petrosyan fight or see Glaube Feitosa throw a Brazilian kick for a knockout and not be overwhelmed by the urge to go out and train then... I have nothing to say to you.
Obviously, many non-martial artists have no interest in combat sports, and I have no argument with them - it's a matter of taste. I don't watch golf. If I played golf I'd probably get more out of watching it. But if you are a martial artist and you enjoy the intricacies of combat, then I bet you don't watch MMA for one of two reasons: either you've never tried it, or you watched a match where the fighters spent interminable lengths of time hugging each other either pressed up against the cage or lying on the floor, doing nothing.
If you've never tried it, watch something on Spike or HDNet - there's a ton of free fight sports on tv. If you don't want to wait, you can always YouTube a bunch of fights, also for free.
A less widely available alternative to MMA is professional kickboxing. I can't recommend K-1 highly enough. It's available on HDNet for free, and it's tons of fun. They call it (correctly) the highest level striking on the planet. If you can catch a K-1 MAX show, that's even better. MAX is the middleweight division - 154 lbs. and under - and the energy level and technical ability of the lighter fighters is amazing to see. Best part? No hugging.
Osu.
A less widely available alternative to MMA is professional kickboxing. I can't recommend K-1 highly enough. It's available on HDNet for free, and it's tons of fun. They call it (correctly) the highest level striking on the planet. If you can catch a K-1 MAX show, that's even better. MAX is the middleweight division - 154 lbs. and under - and the energy level and technical ability of the lighter fighters is amazing to see. Best part? No hugging.
Osu.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Combat Sports: How to fix MMA
Check out Modern Paleo for this week's Paleo Rodeo. I remembered to submit a post this time! Now on to business...
Ever watch a UFC match that turns into two guys holding each other against the cage for long periods of time or holding each other on the floor, doing not much of anything? If not, then I bet you've never watched the UFC. I'm a fan of MMA, but the fact is that a good percentage of MMA fights are boring to watch. We can fix this.
There are two layers to the problem with MMA's ground game and clinch game. The first is that good ground fighting can be hard to understand. Someone without a background in ground sports might see good ground fighting but just not get what's going on. Imagine someone watching the NFL for the first time - all they see is a bunch of guys running around, they won't appreciate what went into a great play because they don't get what's going on. It's like when I watch soccer - instant tears of boredom. The cure for that is knowledge - learning about what goes on in a good ground match. It helps to watch great ground fighters with good commentary. You can't see a lot of Dustin Hazelett or Demian Maia without gaining love for what they do. See, I'm not against the ground game - I'm against bad ground game.
The bigger problem in MMA is boring groundfighting and boring clinchwork. Many UFC fights turn into bad wrestling matches. Basically, good wrestlers can win fights by grabbing their opponents and holding them - "controlling them" - for large portions of the match. Grab a guy, drag him to the ground, and lay on top for three rounds. This strategy is often called "lay and pray." See Jon Fitch, George St. Pierre (the current version, not the pre-Serra knockout version), Efraim Escudero, and a ton of other guys.
Why do fighters do this? Well, it's effective - it wins fights. It's hard to get out from under a good wrestler. If you have control and you really try to damage your opponent or go for a submission, you open yourself up to being swept or counterstruck or submitted (see Chael Sonnen v. Anderson Silva). If you just hold on and move just enough that the ref doesn't stand you up you can sweep the scorecards and notch a victory.
See, the scoring is the problem. It is popular to blame the judges for this. Sometimes that's justified - we've all seen some horrible decisions rendered, often because the judges are boxing people and not MMA people and don't understand what they're watching. But the judges give St. Pierre wins for lying on his opponents because that's what the rules say to do, not because they're bad judges.
The rules say that a fighter should win the round for landing strikes, attempting submissions, or controlling the opponent (I'm paraphrasing). In other words, if you can lie on top of someone for 15 minutes you're supposed to win - that's what the rules say. And it is easier to do than to stand and trade with someone or try to finish them, especially if you're an experienced wrestler and your opponent isn't.
How can we solve this problem? Defenders of wrestling in MMA say that guys should learn to get out from under a wrestler, not complain about it. I say that the rules should be changed in as organic a way as possible to prevent lay and pray.
This has been tried before - having the ref stand fighters after short periods of inactivity on the ground is a common approach. I don't like that. Any time the ref interferes in a fight it's artificial - it stops the flow of the fight, and therefore of the entertainment. Referee involvement needs to be minimized to protecting the safety of the fighters, not splitting the ref's attention between protecting safety and protecting entertainment value.
Instead, the scoring criteria should be changed. Follow my logic here: What's the most natural way to win a fight? To finish the opponent. Clearly, knockouts and submissions should win fights. What if the fight goes the distance? Then it should come down to who came closest to finishing the fight or had the best chance to finish. Only those two things. How do you finish? Strikes or submissions. So you should be rewarded for landing hard strikes or attempting submissions - ONLY. Which should count more? That's a harder question, and it really will come down to the judges'... judgment.
How would this work? Well, think about takedowns. A slam - where a guy is picked up and really driven into the mat - would score points because it damages the opponent - effectively it's a kind of strike. A soft takedown, though, where someone is tripped to the mat but isn't hurt in the process - wouldn't score any points. Laying on top of someone and controlling them wouldn't score. Putting some ground and pound on someone or going for submissions from the top would score. Improving position - getting into mount or side control from the guard - wouldn't score on its own at all. Fighters would only get points (in the judges' eyes) by doing damage or beginning submissions.
In this situation, laying on top of someone for a long time wouldn't get you the victory. If fighters couldn't lay and pray and expect to win, you can bet fighters would stop doing it. They'd start making riskier moves from the top, dishing out strikes and going for kimuras and armbars, giving the guy on bottom a chance to escape and providing entertainment for the fans. This will make for better fights.
Does this put wrestlers out of business? Absolutely not. Top position is an advantage - it's easier to finish someone from the top, but you have to try to do so. Good wrestlers who could take their opponents down could get on top and ground and pound or submit people - I'm okay with that, it would be fun to watch. This change would only end lay and pray, not the ground game in its entirety.
Summary: MMA would be better if decisions weren't based on control but only on damage done and submission attempts. Controlling your opponent and maintaining a position should not in themselves contribute to victory.
Postscript: If you don't like watching guys hug each other in the middle of a fight, you could always switch from the UFC to K-1. There's never, or at least very rarely, a dull moment in K-1. (By the way, I'm opposed to men hugging during a spectator fighting event, I'm not a homophobe - if two guys want to hug each other for romantic reasons I couldn't care less. I just don't want them to interrupt a slugfest to do it, and I'm not particularly interested in watching.)
Ever watch a UFC match that turns into two guys holding each other against the cage for long periods of time or holding each other on the floor, doing not much of anything? If not, then I bet you've never watched the UFC. I'm a fan of MMA, but the fact is that a good percentage of MMA fights are boring to watch. We can fix this.
There are two layers to the problem with MMA's ground game and clinch game. The first is that good ground fighting can be hard to understand. Someone without a background in ground sports might see good ground fighting but just not get what's going on. Imagine someone watching the NFL for the first time - all they see is a bunch of guys running around, they won't appreciate what went into a great play because they don't get what's going on. It's like when I watch soccer - instant tears of boredom. The cure for that is knowledge - learning about what goes on in a good ground match. It helps to watch great ground fighters with good commentary. You can't see a lot of Dustin Hazelett or Demian Maia without gaining love for what they do. See, I'm not against the ground game - I'm against bad ground game.
The bigger problem in MMA is boring groundfighting and boring clinchwork. Many UFC fights turn into bad wrestling matches. Basically, good wrestlers can win fights by grabbing their opponents and holding them - "controlling them" - for large portions of the match. Grab a guy, drag him to the ground, and lay on top for three rounds. This strategy is often called "lay and pray." See Jon Fitch, George St. Pierre (the current version, not the pre-Serra knockout version), Efraim Escudero, and a ton of other guys.
Why do fighters do this? Well, it's effective - it wins fights. It's hard to get out from under a good wrestler. If you have control and you really try to damage your opponent or go for a submission, you open yourself up to being swept or counterstruck or submitted (see Chael Sonnen v. Anderson Silva). If you just hold on and move just enough that the ref doesn't stand you up you can sweep the scorecards and notch a victory.
See, the scoring is the problem. It is popular to blame the judges for this. Sometimes that's justified - we've all seen some horrible decisions rendered, often because the judges are boxing people and not MMA people and don't understand what they're watching. But the judges give St. Pierre wins for lying on his opponents because that's what the rules say to do, not because they're bad judges.
The rules say that a fighter should win the round for landing strikes, attempting submissions, or controlling the opponent (I'm paraphrasing). In other words, if you can lie on top of someone for 15 minutes you're supposed to win - that's what the rules say. And it is easier to do than to stand and trade with someone or try to finish them, especially if you're an experienced wrestler and your opponent isn't.
How can we solve this problem? Defenders of wrestling in MMA say that guys should learn to get out from under a wrestler, not complain about it. I say that the rules should be changed in as organic a way as possible to prevent lay and pray.
This has been tried before - having the ref stand fighters after short periods of inactivity on the ground is a common approach. I don't like that. Any time the ref interferes in a fight it's artificial - it stops the flow of the fight, and therefore of the entertainment. Referee involvement needs to be minimized to protecting the safety of the fighters, not splitting the ref's attention between protecting safety and protecting entertainment value.
Instead, the scoring criteria should be changed. Follow my logic here: What's the most natural way to win a fight? To finish the opponent. Clearly, knockouts and submissions should win fights. What if the fight goes the distance? Then it should come down to who came closest to finishing the fight or had the best chance to finish. Only those two things. How do you finish? Strikes or submissions. So you should be rewarded for landing hard strikes or attempting submissions - ONLY. Which should count more? That's a harder question, and it really will come down to the judges'... judgment.
How would this work? Well, think about takedowns. A slam - where a guy is picked up and really driven into the mat - would score points because it damages the opponent - effectively it's a kind of strike. A soft takedown, though, where someone is tripped to the mat but isn't hurt in the process - wouldn't score any points. Laying on top of someone and controlling them wouldn't score. Putting some ground and pound on someone or going for submissions from the top would score. Improving position - getting into mount or side control from the guard - wouldn't score on its own at all. Fighters would only get points (in the judges' eyes) by doing damage or beginning submissions.
In this situation, laying on top of someone for a long time wouldn't get you the victory. If fighters couldn't lay and pray and expect to win, you can bet fighters would stop doing it. They'd start making riskier moves from the top, dishing out strikes and going for kimuras and armbars, giving the guy on bottom a chance to escape and providing entertainment for the fans. This will make for better fights.
Does this put wrestlers out of business? Absolutely not. Top position is an advantage - it's easier to finish someone from the top, but you have to try to do so. Good wrestlers who could take their opponents down could get on top and ground and pound or submit people - I'm okay with that, it would be fun to watch. This change would only end lay and pray, not the ground game in its entirety.
Summary: MMA would be better if decisions weren't based on control but only on damage done and submission attempts. Controlling your opponent and maintaining a position should not in themselves contribute to victory.
Postscript: If you don't like watching guys hug each other in the middle of a fight, you could always switch from the UFC to K-1. There's never, or at least very rarely, a dull moment in K-1. (By the way, I'm opposed to men hugging during a spectator fighting event, I'm not a homophobe - if two guys want to hug each other for romantic reasons I couldn't care less. I just don't want them to interrupt a slugfest to do it, and I'm not particularly interested in watching.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)