Condit And Bader Represent A New Generation Of Fighters...

[BILL ANVIL]

Condit and Bader are feared, nobody wants to fight them.

[Geo]

    The only way to fix MMA and make it more exciting is to penalize fighters for takedowns. If you go for the takedown, you immediately lose a point and thus will have to be sure that you can either TKO or submit your opponent on the ground,

and you wonder why everyone here thinks you're a total idiot

[GraniteCityDon]

and you wonder why everyone here thinks you're a total idiot

Is he genuinely serious about this?! Penalised for a takedown attempt?! Where to begin with this...............

[suckmymuscle]

and you wonder why everyone here thinks you're a total idiot

  You have no intelligence to debate me, so all you have are insults. My point is perfectly reasonable and rational. Read it and then re-read until  your deficient brain can understand it.

  Yes, penalize takedowns. That way, all you'll see in MMA are brutal stand-up wars or grappling matches where opponents try to finish(submit) each other, instead of wrestlers just holding their opponents and smothering them to a win. No one wants to see this. This is MMA and not greco-roman wrestling. I don't care about watching guys trying to get the top position and then that is the end of the fight. Boooooooooooooooooooorin g.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Geo]

ok...

penalize how ?

[suckmymuscle]

ok...

penalize how ?

  I already answered that: by removing a point.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Geo]

all you done is decribe what kickboxing is..

you basically want to change MMA into kickboxing ..


you're stupid !




ta ta !

[suckmymuscle]

all you done is decribe what kickboxing is..

you basically want to change MMA into kickboxing ..


you're stupid !




ta ta !

  Here is why you got it all wrong, moron.

  Kickboxing, you cannot take your opponents to the ground at all. This is not what I am suggesting.
  
  By penalizing takedowns, you are forcing wrestlers to finish their opponents, either on the ground or on the standup. Wrestlers will still be able to take their opponents down. If a wrestler takes his opponent down, it is as if he's saying:

  "By taking my opponent down, I am losing a point, but I am so confident I can submit or TKO my opponent and win the fight that I am doing it anyway."

  This forces wrestlers to use other MMA skills besides just putting their opponents on their back and humping them to a decision. It forces them to learn judo and jiu-jitsu to submit opponents and it forces them to try to KO their opponents on the ground.

  If the wrestler takes his opponent down but doesen't beat him, then he lost the round. So if the wrestler is not confident that he can submit or ground-and-pound his opponents to unconsciousness, then he will fight standing. My rules will force wrestlers:

  1. Learn boxing, kickboxing and other striking disciplines.

  2. Learn judo and jiu-jitsu, the great grappling arts.

  With my rules, MMA fights would be either stand-up wars or ground wars where opponents try to finish each other. This is key word "finish". No one wants to see a "fight" where one guy lays on top of another for several rounds and humps him to a decision. I want to see ground battles where fighters try to either get the top position and beat their opponents to unconsciousness of submit them.

  Mixed martial arts should be about finishing your opponent and not rigging the point system to win decisions. Penalize takedowns and on the stand-up make aggressiveness and not strike lending the criteria. That is, in a stand-up war, the guy who wins is not the one who lends more punches, but the one who shows more aggressiveness in trying to finish him. Under our current system, all a guy has to do to win a stand-up war is to lend more strikes on his opponent, even if his strikes do no damage, and even if he is running away from his opponent the whole fight. One guy lends more pillow-strikes and runs away from his opponent whilst the other moves forward and lends less but more damaging strikes and he loses. Is this fair? Nope.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[asbrus]

 Here is why you got it all wrong, moron.

  Kickboxing, you cannot take your opponents to the ground at all. This is not what I am suggesting.
  
  By penalizing takedowns, you are forcing wrestlers to finish their opponents, either on the ground or on the standup. Wrestlers will still be able to take their opponents down. If a wrestler takes his opponent down, it is as if he's saying:

  "By taking my opponent down, I am losing a point, but I am so confident I can submit or TKO my opponent and win the fight that I am doing it anyway."

  This forces wrestlers to use other MMA skills besides just putting their opponents on their back and humping them to a decision. It forces them to learn judo and jiu-jitsu to submit opponents and it forces them to try to KO their opponents on the ground.

  If the wrestler takes his opponent down but doesen't beat him, then he lost the round. So if the wrestler is not confident that he can submit or ground-and-pound his opponents to unconsciousness, then he will fight standing. My rules will force wrestlers:

  1. Learn boxing, kickboxing and other striking disciplines.

  2. Learn judo and jiu-jitsu, the great grappling arts.

  With my rules, MMA fights would be either stand-up wars or ground wars where opponents try to finish each other. This is key word "finish". No one wants to see a "fight" where one guy lays on top of another for several rounds and humps him to a decision. I want to see ground battles where fighters try to either get the top position and beat their opponents to unconsciousness of submit them.

  Mixed martial arts should be about finishing your opponent and not rigging the point system to win decisions. Penalize takedowns and on the stand-up make aggressiveness and not strike lending the criteria. That is, in a stand-up war, the guy who wins is not the one who lends more punches, but the one who shows more aggressiveness in trying to finish him. Under our current system, all a guy has to do to win a stand-up war is to lend more strikes on his opponent, even if his strikes do no damage, and even if he is running away from his opponent the whole fight. One guy lends more pillow-strikes and runs away from his opponent whilst the other moves forward and lends less but more damaging strikes and he loses. Is this fair? Nope.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

T0 MaKE IT NUETURaL WE CaN MaKE TaKEDOWNS ZER0 P0INTS IF N0 aCTI0N IS D0NE aFTER.

[Geo]

I think MMA is just fine the way it is, but I think you're stupid and have self esteem issue because deep down in the back of your mind you know you suck !

[suckmymuscle]

I think MMA is just fine the way it is, but I think you're stupid and have self esteem issue because deep down in the back of your mind you know you suck !

  Meltdown.  Translation:

  "I cannot refute anything he said or debate him because I lack the intelligence for it, so I will just call him stupid, which is exactly how he makes me feel, and leave the thread with my tail between my legs."

  "That would just turn MMA into a kickboxing bout." Bwa ha ha ha ha ha...I am still laughing at this stupid statement of yours. As if I ever said that takedowns should be prohibited. At least learn how to read properly what the people debating you are saying. What a fucking retard you are.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  

[Geo]

ya know ya got em rattled when they start puttin words in bold

[suckmymuscle]

ya know ya got em rattled when they start puttin words in bold

   Ha ha ha ha...ok "Geo"....yeah, you are right...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[GraniteCityDon]

Ultimately what you are proposing is nothing short of ridiculous. The referee has the discretion to stand the fighters up if he feels there is little to no action occurring, this in itself should result in another opportunity for striking combat to take place and if it goes to the ground again then so be it (a case could be made for referees to be quicker to force the stand up when no real damage is being done if it pleases you). But to penalise a fighter for simply obtaining an advantage? You say it forces wrestlers to learn striking and grappling, but what about the fighters that have no wrestling ability at all and therefore bring the problem on themselves?

It goes both ways, for 15 years wrestling has been THE key element to a successful MMA fighter and yet we still have people like Chieck Kongo competing with ZERO wrestling ability - he is as pure a striker as you will find. Next you will petition for strikers to be penalised for excessive jabbing because essentially they are not going for the KO, where does it end?

You just do not understand that without the current set up MMA would not be getting the exposure it does and the UFC wouldnt be a 10 figure company. The dark ages of bloody wars and rule less fights appealing to only the hardcore fans almost put the UFC out of business, the current format has allowed an unimaginable level of prosperity and is the sole reason modern MMA fighters are millionaires. And do you really, REALLY believe that what you - 1 insignificant "fan" with bare minimum MMA knowledge and even less common sense - suggest is going to be taken seriously by anyone within the sport?

Im sure this all makes sense to you somewhere in there when the meds are in full flow, but out here we have no idea why the hell you bother to post these idiotic ideas. Crack on with your usual barrage of fury and cries of "meltdown", im sure Fedor's name will also manage to work its way in there somehow...............

[A Professional]

I like the yellow card idea. Someone could use a wrestling takedown in order to apply a jiujitsu move, and then back to wrestling.
There's just so many variables. At least with the yellow card it's more versatile (standup as well as ground stalling), and allows the refs to do their job, taking in to account each situation.

[suckmymuscle]

Ultimately what you are proposing is nothing short of ridiculous. The referee has the discretion to stand the fighters up if he feels there is little to no action occurring, this in itself should result in another opportunity for striking combat to take place and if it goes to the ground again then so be it (a case could be made for referees to be quicker to force the stand up when no real damage is being done if it pleases you). But to penalise a fighter for simply obtaining an advantage? You say it forces wrestlers to learn striking and grappling, but what about the fighters that have no wrestling ability at all and therefore bring the problem on themselves?

It goes both ways, for 15 years wrestling has been THE key element to a successful MMA fighter and yet we still have people like Chieck Kongo competing with ZERO wrestling ability - he is as pure a striker as you will find. Next you will petition for strikers to be penalised for excessive jabbing because essentially they are not going for the KO, where does it end?

You just do not understand that without the current set up MMA would not be getting the exposure it does and the UFC wouldnt be a 10 figure company. The dark ages of bloody wars and rule less fights appealing to only the hardcore fans almost put the UFC out of business, the current format has allowed an unimaginable level of prosperity and is the sole reason modern MMA fighters are millionaires. And do you really, REALLY believe that what you - 1 insignificant "fan" with bare minimum MMA knowledge and even less common sense - suggest is going to be taken seriously by anyone within the sport?

Im sure this all makes sense to you somewhere in there when the meds are in full flow, but out here we have no idea why the hell you bother to post these idiotic ideas. Crack on with your usual barrage of fury and cries of "meltdown", im sure Fedor's name will also manage to work its way in there somehow...............

  You are so fucking dumb. 4 paragraphs to pretty much agree with everything I said. Yes, wrestling has been the thing in MMA for the past several years. Duh! This is exactly what I said, fa.ggot. STFU.

  Penalizing takedowns forces wrestlers to be confident that they can finish their opponents on the ground. It forces them to become good at BJJ, judo and ground-and-pound and not only wrestling. Read that again, f.aggot, and understand. Such a simple concept and your dumbass cannot understand because you are one stupid motherfuker.

  The audacity of stupid people like you thinking they can debate anything with me. In fact, the only reason why you f.aggots debate with me is not because you actually have a point to make, but because you want to prove that you are just as intelligent as me. Well, it isn't working. You guys should just accept that you are dumb and not as smart as me and STFU...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Geo]

 
  The audacity of stupid people like you thinking they can debate anything with me. In fact, the only reason why you f.aggots debate with me is not because you actually have a point to make, but because you want to prove that you are just as intelligent as me.

whoever you are you've got a funny little schtick going,and I'll give ya credit, I do get amused by some of your posts but the f*ggot thing kind of puts it all over the edge....


relax dude

[GraniteCityDon]

You are certainly of the GH15 mold ill give you that. However to state that everything i said basically backs up your statements is ridiculous, i have countered your points and still you believe you come off the better man?! You genuinely believe you are that much better than everyone, your constant lies, God complex and ludicrous posts have left you nothing but a joke to all who post here - a shattered gimmick who has no respect on this board.

You made the statement about the wrestlers being forced to learn BJJ etc, and i yet countered it with forcing strikers to learn wrestling to avoid these circumstances. I provided a rational explanation, using Kongo as an example, as to why this is an issue and you think i am simply agreeing with you? The very reason we have wrestlers controlling the ground game and seeing fights through is because strikers like Daley, Hardy & Kongo have absolutely no way to combat their takedown attempts and once they are down they can do nothing but hope its relatively painless for them. By forcing them to learn that aspect of the game it allows them to keep the fight standing or manoeuvre themselves into a position whereby the referee has no option but to force the restart.

You also demand to see a return to the days of old whereby everyone smashed each other to a bloody pulp as you believe by alienating the sport from the majority of its fan base and focussing on the small group of hardcores it will prosper like never before. I countered that with another rational explanation as to why that is not a possibility. It can not be any simpler, and yet YOU are the one that doesnt seem to comprehend my statements.

Debating with you is easy because you tie yourself in knots through sheer ignorance to everyone else's knowledge base and abilities. The people you label as idiots and morons contribute more to this board than you ever could because most of what they say is positive whereas you leave a foul stench everywhere you go. Continue on with your clams of genius if it brightens up a moment of your day, im sure the rest of us can happily look in the mirror and smile whereas you see yourself for who you really are and smash it in shame.

[King Shizzo]

I like the yellow card idea. Someone could use a wrestling takedown in order to apply a jiujitsu move, and then back to wrestling.
There's just so many variables. At least with the yellow card it's more versatile (standup as well as ground stalling), and allows the refs to do their job, taking in to account each situation.

Yes.  Pride had it right already.  Penalize fighters for a boring, stalling fight.

[Geo]

there's no such thing anymore as "hardcore" fans...

MMA's too far removed from the days when it was a borderline underground sport ..

theres  fans...and there's people who bitch about the sport because everything they thought that they knew is becoming more and more common knowledge..

12 year old kids now know as much about MMA as the select few that were into Pride 12 years ago..

suckmymuscle is a casualty of ignorance and denial

[Muscleboy]

you are such an idiot Suckmymuscle.  Carlos Condit''s record is 28 wins 5 losses with 13 wins by knockout, 13 by submission, and 2 by decision. The one decision was to Diaz.  You are such a fool who doesnt even get his facts right before he posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Condit

[King Shizzo]

you are such an idiot Suckmymuscle.  Carlos Condit''s record is 28 wins 5 losses with 13 wins by knockout, 13 by submission, and 2 by decision. The one decision was to Diaz.  You are such a fool who doesnt even get his facts right before he posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Condit

Hi Carlos.

[20inch calves]

you are such an idiot Suckmymuscle.  Carlos Condit''s record is 28 wins 5 losses with 13 wins by knockout, 13 by submission, and 2 by decision. The one decision was to Diaz.  You are such a fool who doesnt even get his facts right before he posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Condit

you are right. condit does finish fights. not sure why all the hate for him. so what he fought a safe fight against diaz. guess what it worked and he won