MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - Significant Changes In The Unified Rules Of MMA

View Single Post

Old 07-17-2012, 07:17 PM   #15 (permalink)
BOMDC
Flyweight
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pnw.
Posts: 247
BOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to allBOMDC is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sports_Nerd View Post
Well, that's an interesting question, exactly half a round lopsided in favor of the striker (Fighter A) and half in favor of the grappler (Fighter B.) I think the answer depends on a couple of things:

1. Did fighter A hurt the other with any of his strikes? Were there any moments of wobbliness, did fighter B have to clinch for dear life at any point, that sort of thing.

2. What kind of offense did fighter B generate in the stand up? Even if he only landed a few mildly effective strikes it suddenly isn't so lopsided.

As it is, your scenario sounds like a 10-10 round, but if I had to pick a winner assuming no truly significant strikes landed I'd have to go with fighter B. Because if nothing else, fighter B gained a tactical advantage going forward by forcing his opponent to expend more energy.


The way I posed to the scenario was for A to pretty much outstrike B thoroughly but not dropping him. A couple power shots and nice combos to fighter B's 2ish jabs and totally missed lead hooks. Then for B to Fitch A for the remaining 2:30 with only arm punches with no posture from guard while A interrupts with couple guard raises and sweep attempts, though none are close to successful.

I just wanted to bring to light my perception that if the round is split between two fighters (timewise) with one having some standup success, and the other having grappling success, the nod usually goes to the grappler. Main point I'm trying to get at is, if there is pretty dominant striking period, is that negated by the same amount of time controlling the action/grappling and landing less/less damaging strikes? In most cases in seem judges opt for the latter (especially if the round ends with fighter B doing their GNP work) while it seems slightly counter intuitive to me. There is the weight of octagon control added into the grappling/gnp just wondering if there were varying opinions on this.


Would you rather take 2 combos from say Paul Daley on the feet of 20 punches from fitch in your guard. Seems like the former has much more risk for damage/changing the fight, just wondering what people's opinions are.

Last edited by BOMDC : 07-17-2012 at 07:20 PM.
BOMDC is offline   Reply With Quote