Originally Posted by nonamehero
Basically you have to be a better wrestler than your opponents to counter him.....
This is like saying in Shaq's prime, if he was allowed to camp in the key, you can still defend him
1. be stronger than him, move him out of the key
2. foul him, he cant shoot free throws
3. shoot 3 pointers, so that it is worth one more point than his dunk
4. triple team him
5. dont let him catch the ball
6. BLOCK HIS DUNKS
hell, even with 3 secs rule, Shaq still dominated.
... i'm glad you added that last line about shaq.. i'm confused why it is someone elses job to make the fight "fair" for someone with lesser physical attributes and/or abilities.
shaq was an absolute monster with or without the 3 second rule. the onus falls on the defending team to deal with his size/skill set just as it falls on the fighters to be able to handle their opponents strengths.
what if the situation was flipped and wrestlers could never get their opponent to the ground because their tdd was too strong? would that be any less "fair" because their opponent negated their strengths in the cage effectively? would we be having discussions about how "<insert name here> take down defense is unfairly strong and negating part of the MIXED in MMA.. so we need to only stand for 20 second intervals and then the refs will start them on the ground?"
its silly. sorry people who think wrestling is boring. i know its not thrilling to watch, but its effective and i think it's going to eventually teach the fighters to become more well rounded.
oh and in reference to the notion that there is nothing to do to stop wrestlers, please go watch the anthony pettis vs shane roller fight from wec 50. it was a clinic.