The following article was written by James Rowe. It explores the issue of timidity in MMA and comes on the heels of Anderson Silva's victory over Thales Leites, a fight that some critics called boring because of the fighters' reluctance to engage. Why Timidity has to be Minimized in MMA By James Frederick William Rowe A long over due spotlight has been shined upon the issue of timidity in mixed martial arts following the recent snafu of the Anderson Silva v. Thales Leites middleweight title fight in the UFC, a fight which forced UFC president Dana White to admit, "I've never been embarrassed of a UFC fight like I was in the main event tonight" (Cofield). Long underappreciated as a serious impediment to the sport, the recent exposure of the issue given by such a marquee match up gone wrong provides the fans, fighters, and promoters a convenient opportunity to nip an exceedingly troublesome issue in the bud, but only if the opportunity is taken. In contrast, if the issue is ignored, this journalist is afraid timidity will always present a serious hindrance to the sport in perpetuity. In order to address the problem we have to first look at the factors which make it one to begin with. As such, we're lead to a bit of an investigation. Why there is Timidity - The origin of timidity is not that hard to understand on a shallow level. Some fighters find it desirable to under-perform and win rather than risk a loss which can often be very damaging to one's career, especially in the big leagues such as the UFC. A loss can lead towards such damaging outcomes as being relegated to the unaired preliminaries, the loss of a championship or a shot at the championship, suffering a pay loss, or even being cut from the organization. In contrast, a consistent string of timid victories, especially during a championship run, can extend one's career at a top level significantly, and thus it is not surprising that we find a trend amongst several champions to switch to a conservative style of this type when it comes time to defend the belt, as was found in the reigns of Tito Ortiz, Tim Sylvia, and now Anderson Silva in his last two fights. There is also the question of style, where some fighters, owing to their background (mainly wrestlers), can employ a specific skill to nullify the offense of their opponent, and further owing to a lack of offensive capacities or a desire to employ them on their own part, grind out a decision. We call the latter "lay and pray" and it ruins fights. But the real problem here is not the psychology of timid fighters and why they, out of their own presumptions of self-interest, try to accumulate wins instead of noble defeats, all of which is unlikely to ever be change, but rather the actual systemic problems that make this entire approach viable and which can be changed. Indeed, MMA as it stands now has aspects that encourage timidity. It may come as a surprise to many readers to learn that timidity is actually a foul in the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts. In the version proliferated by the New Jersey State Athletic Commission, the rule in question reads: 21. Timidity (avoiding contact, or consistent dropping of mouthpiece, or faking an injury) With the penalty being: (a) The referee shall issue a single warning for the following infractions. After the initial warning, if the prohibited conduct persists, a penalty will be issued. The penalty may result in a deduction of points or disqualification. The problem, of course, is this rule has never been enforced in any mainstream event this journalist can think of, save for one instance at the HD Net Fights: Reckless Abandon Event (Dallas, Texas 12-14-207) when Robert Villegeas was disqualified for repeatedly flopping on his back (similar to the tactic Leities used in his recent title shot) against opponent Krzysztof Soszynski. In fact, the only reason that this journalist remembers this fight is because of that odd situation of a disqualification, which is so rare as to be remarkable. The fact that we have a rule on record that is meant to stop timidity and yet is not enforced is extremely troubling, because not only does it mean that timidity is at least partially avoidable under a pre-established rule, but that we are more or less being subjected, as fans, to terrible contests without need, because somewhere the system itself is broken. But what could be the cause of the rule not being enforced? The first option is ignorance and/or incompetence on the parts of referees. Considering how rarely many rules in mixed-martial arts come into play, some referees may simply not be accustomed to enforcing a rule which they have had very little reason to ever employ. Of course, it is their job as referees to know even obscure rules and as such they are in no way exonerated. However, the blame might not rest solely, or even predominately, on bad refereeing. The wording of the rule as presented in the Unified Rules is clearly inadequate, for strictly speaking it does not consider the possibility of contact-based timidity, such as stalling through lay and pray. If the letter of the rule is to be adhered to (as opposed to its manifest spirit which a referee may be empowered to act upon) then there is no foul in simply holding a person down and grinding out a boring decision, even if loitering on the ground is grounds for being stood up and the action restarted. Moreover, the provision for punishment is inadequate. In the comparatively rarer case where both fighters are stalling, giving both fighters a point deduction cancels out the effect. A 10-10 round made into a 9-9 round scores the same at the end fight when the scores are tabulated. Likewise, due to the round structure of MMA and the scoring system, a point deduction can lead to draws, which are arguably just as bad as stalled fights, and which makes it somewhat regrettable to ever call a deduction for fear of this result, even when more commonly only one fighter is committing a foul. On a whole: You're damned if you do, damned if you don't, and this inadequacy is crippling. Possible Solutions - If the problem can at least in part be traced back to issues within the unified rules, then the solution has to be to change them. Specifically, there are three things that can and should be changed to the unified rules: First: Clearly, the rule itself against timidity must be rewritten to include explicit references to every aspect of timidity - including lay and pray. This will make it clear that timidity is not acceptable and referees will be able to effectively regulate the contests in line with the principle that timidity is detrimental to the fight. Second: Because of the aforementioned problems with point deductions in the ten-point must system, we are left with either one of two options and both have the fortune of being used in Japan before. The first option is to simply not work within the ten-point must system. It's long been held that the ten-point must system, which was originally meant for boxing, is not adequate to address the complexity of a MMA bout. Though the problem with the scoring extends far beyond timidity alone, changing the system to favour the entire fight and to favour fighters who are actively trying to end the fight would lead towards a dramatic decrease in timidity, as winning a decision would not be as guaranteed to the staler. Secondly, we can replace point-deductions in cases of timidity with yellow cards with purse deductions. In Japan, the issuing of a yellow card is a serious psychological blow to a fighter, who now recognizes that if he doesn't pick up the pace, he is going to be docked even more money and maybe disqualified. A mixture of both options could prove most effectual. However, it is fairly clear that deducting points is far better than letting fighters get away with being timid with no penalty. Accordingly, if we can't pass this reform than it would be far better for us to see point deductions handed out than not, regardless of the negative consequences of point deductions. Third: The criteria for scoring have to be re-evaluated. Some stalling tactics right now count for too much and this lends itself towards timid tactics being effective. Take downs, for instance, are the main way that lay and prayers get the nod from the judges. But why should a take down count if you do nothing with it? A great way would be to count a take down on the score only if that take down leads towards a serious attempt to finish the fight by (t)ko or submission. When Randy Couture gets into half guard, postures up, and starts raining down the blows, we know he is trying to end the fight. Likewise, when Fedor Emelianenko blasts you from inside your guard, we know he is going for the (t)ko. But when a fighter is just holding a fighter down, even if he is transitioning to more dominant positions, and isn't trying to finish the fight his efforts shouldn't count as much on the score card as they do now if we are to take away the incentive for this kind of behaviour. Moreover, this includes all other forms of timidity. Whether this means you're pushing a guy against the fence or ropes, refusing to strike or otherwise initiate contact, or flopping down to the ground without any attempt at a take down or pulling guard, you shouldn't be able to have these counted positively for you on the score card. There are also things which do not include changes to the unified rules that can and should be altered, the biggest of which is related to how promotions can change the way fighters view their in-ring options. A promotion that makes it clear and follows through with the principle that timid fighters will not progress up the ranks, get calls back, or be given favourable contracts can and will eliminate part of the reason for stalling by means of making timidity no longer pay. The problem, of course, is that a lot of promotions pay mere lip service to this principle while consistently letting timid fighters get into the big shows, get title shots, get pay raises, and other such things. If promotions aren't serious about making sure timid fighters don't prosper, there is nothing that can be done from this angle. Moreover, if they really are serious, then an option that specifically addresses champions can come to the table, namely, the comparatively extreme tactic of stripping them of the belt. In the case of Anderson Silva, we know from experience that his last two performances have more or less represented an anomaly in a career which is largely filled with exciting fights, but should we see a permanent shift in his fighting style towards stalling, should the UFC content itself to its MW champion ruining entire cards? Why not make it clear, instead, that such timid tactics will see the belt taken away from you? Following this line of action would prevent champions, be it Anderson Silva (who again has usually been a rather exciting fighter) or anyone else, from fighting with an eye towards timidity in hopes of extending their title reign. Questioning the Possibility of Change with the New Jersey State Athletic Commission - To gauge the feasibility of the these reforms and to answer such questions as the procedure for rule-changing and the legal options a promotion has to regulate the behaviour of its champions, this journalist contacted the New Jersey State Athletic Commission. On Tuesday and Wednesday April the 28th and 29th, Aaron Davis, the newly minted boxing commissioner whose responsibilities include regulation of mixed martial arts bouts in that state, was queried on these matters by telephone: James Rowe: Mr. Davis, how are changes enacted in the Unified Rules? Aaron Davis: Changes will be made by vote of the majority in during the ABC [Association of Boxing Commissions] convention which is annually held. This year it'll be in Louisiana. James Rowe: Is petitioning rule changes only open to those in the business? Aaron Davis: Anyone can petition their state and the state will heed to it and it could even go to the ABC. You send it to us in writing and we can send it forward. James Rowe: Do you think there is a place in MMA for rules against timidity being enforced? Aaron Davis: There is an issue of difference in strategy and it becomes a grey area when you talk about that, as one person can see it as a person being timid, and that person can just be a counter puncher, or just has a ground game trying to get to the ground. And you have to be very careful being overly - and this is coming for me being a regulator - of over regulating parts of fights. I understand what you're trying to do, but when you're trying to regulate with so many athletes, it's a slippery slope. But sometimes when you get lulls in fights, and you're not respecting lulls in fight due to timidity, it actually could be a strategy and not timidity. James Rowe: Would you be comfortable with referees who choose to penalize timidity? What would you do? Aaron Davis: Me looking at it without any research and just talking freely with you? Is that I would employ the best referees who could detect those types of things and if there is no action they can make the action happen. There are certain referees here in New Jersey if something like that would happen people would be warned once and then infractions would probably be taken. When a referee won't allow that [timidity] to happen and make sure the rules are followed, I don't think there will be an issue. Of course, the fighter's safety is paramount. But within the ring or cage the referee needs to take charge and not let that [timidity] happen." James Rowe: But would you be okay with even taking points away? Aaron Davis: I'm not going to say that. But I would look into it. I am not going to say on record that I would support a referee taking points away, but I will look into it." James Rowe: What about an alternative system of yellow cards following the Japanese MMA model? Where instead of point deductions, fighters are given a cash deduction from their purse for not maintaining activity? Would you be favourable towards implementing that? Aaron Davis: Again I would have to look into. I wouldn't be totally against it but I am not going to say that I am going to do it. James Rowe: On a related topic, do championship belts have any status with the commission? Aaron Davis: A champion is only a champion in a promotion. It is not part of the regulatory body. James Rowe: So according to the commission, the only real difference is the fight is five rounds? Aaron Davis: Yes. James Rowe: Given that the recognition of champions is more or less under complete control of the promotion, is there any legal impediment to stripping the belt from a fighter? Aaron Davis: That would be a question to address to the legal counsel. It is at this point that the commissioner kindly transferred me over to the legal counsel, Nick Lembo. James Rowe: What is the legal status of promotional belts? Is true that you really have no legal standing with the commission itself? Nick Lembo: It doesn't give you legal standing to have a promotional belt. No commission provides that. We do not have a methodology for "this is a title bout, this isn't a title bout" so titles are for the promotion for a promotional purpose. People like to see people fight for belts. They can pretty much do what they see fit. James Rowe: Recently, Anderson Silva fought Thales Leites for the UFC MW championship. This fight was widely criticized for timidity on both fighters. Would there be any legal problems for a promotion to decide to strip a champion of a belt for a bad performance? Nick Lembo: A promotional belt for MMA is simply that: A promotional belt. Going into your specific example with Anderson Silva if the UFC wanted to strip him of his belt due to his performance, the fight result would not change, but they could do what they want. The Athletic Commission is really only interested in licensing and suspensions and we have nothing to do with a promotional belt. In the same realm, more established in boxing, let's say, when Floyd Mayweather was a WBC champ and he fought in NJ and they for some reason wanted to strip him of the WBC belt that would be an issue between him and the promotion. James Rowe: So it would be a private legal matter, in other words? Nick Lembo: Yes. James Rowe: Is there any legal ground in a private case for a fighter to sue the promotion if they strip him of the belt? Nick Lembo: As far as legal standing, the only case I can think of where someone tried to take a legal action was BJ Penn when he went to try to fight for the belt in his brother's promotion. James Rowe: What might a legal defense look like from both the fighter and the promotion in a situation where a case is taken to court over this? Nick Lembo: The fighter might say: By stripping me of the title, you're costing me money and you're costing me opportunities to gain more money, fame and recognition, and also more money in terms of non-fighting things in terms of appearances and merchandise and other stuff. And the promotion on the other side would probably argue based on whether they had some standards for whether their belts are won, lost, or relinquished, outside the usual course. James Rowe: But of course, any action towards stripping a fighter would be a rather rare case, yes? Nick Lembo: Yes. James Rowe: Thank you very much. The good news from this interview is that the athletic commission seems to believe that there is both room for rule changes and legal standing to take more extreme steps towards punishing timidity on the promotional side of things. Of course, the process towards rule changes would be more than simply petitioning the athletic commission, as there is also the ABC to consider. Owing to last year's debacle with the attempt to regulate a slew of new weight classes in MMA at the convention, as well as the lack of many significant changes to the rules so far despite calls for such from various respected personages in the business, the prospects for reform are slightly diminished. Although the fact that at least the New Jersey Athletic Commission is willing to consider the issue is a plus. Likewise, the fact that it seems that barring the possibility of a lawsuit, a promotion is neither hampered by a sanctioned rule against stripping titles as an extreme move nor prohibited from employing the many less extensive ways of handling the issue of timidity on a promotional point, gives hope that timidity can be tackled from that level. Mr. Lembo also communicated that points have in fact been taken away for timidity in New Jersey and that fights even have been stopped because of such. The Consequences of Inaction - Lastly, we must address what could happen if the issue of timidity is ignored. To sum it up simply: Timidity is bad for the sport. No, more gravely: It is absolutely terrible for the sport. Economically, this is manifest. In a sport which depends on exciting match ups in order to maintain a fan base, everything must be done within reason (and considering issues of fighter safety) to assure that the public is not given bad fights when that is possible. This is especially true because MMA is predominately a sport organized around pay per view in the US. When you put on boring fights, especially when it comes to championship main events, you will lose viewership fast - especially when you're charging fifty bucks a pop. Yet even with recent trends towards network and cable deals, the nature of the sport being both less established than the major sports and that it necessarily depends on infrequent events spread across the year, makes boring fights damaging in these free markets as well. Putting on a bad card which could be better if anti-timidity rules were enforced is no way to win fans nor to keep the interest of the public between events that may be two or there months apart from one another. A bored audience will not tune in, regardless of whether or not is free, and that generally means that network and cable deals will not be renewed. As such, we should expect that both predominately PPV and Network/Cable based promotions would want to see everything done to minimize the risk of losing their fan base off boring fights that can be prevented from being so. But it is not simply a matter of economics. MMA is a gentleman's combat sport that is meant to replicate, as much as possible, what actually works in a fight. Timid tactics abuse the round structure that was imposed largely to avoid the problems with stalling caused by unrestrained rounds. The problem with the level of violence in the No Holds Barred era was the chief matter of public relations, but the real issue was the fact that a lot of those classic-era bouts were boring as hell. Accordingly, the rule changes which took away some of the unrestrained nature of the system lead to more excitement and more dynamism than previously found. The round structure and time limits, however, never were meant to change the focus of the ultimate goal of the contest being to defeat one’s opponent, but only permitted the contest a set time limit that prevented fights from dragging on indefinitely. But what does timidity do? It takes advantage of the round structure and scoring system in order to bring back these days of boring fights. One is simply not fighting when one is trying to grind out the clock as a primary form of victory and the fans came for a fight. Dana White admits that those sort of timid fights (as exemplified in the Silva v. Leites confrontation) are "not what the UFC was built on" and this journalist would extend that quote to encompass all of MMA (Morgan). Of course, we must also recognize that problem of timidity can only be minimized, never extinguished. Even if all the reforms were put into place, occasionally one is going to see a bout where timidity ruined its full expression. But victory here, as in most places, is measured by degrees. If certain behaviour that is completely antithetical to both the purpose of the sport and its entertainment value can be minimized, it is better to do so even if you know you cannot eradicate it than to let it stay as is. Moreover, it is important to act now in the sport’s infancy, because as sports age the plasticity of the rules declines sharply. We have to seize the initiative to change the rules to eliminate unnecessary evils like timidity before they calcify into a structure that more or less will stay with us for the next hundred years (if MMA is fortunate enough to last that long). Because what is ultimately is at stake is the very spirit of MMA. To wax poetic, when viewing a MMA bout we are supposed to see a clash of heroic champions of the same lineage as the pankrationists of the Greek Olympics, the international grapplers of the 19th century, and the bare-knuckle Vale Tudo fighters of the 20th, not fighters who think it appropriate to rely on a broken system to dance around their opponents, hold them down, and otherwise prohibit the full expression of pure combat sport that MMA is meant to be. Special thanks: The author would like to personally thank Commissioner Aaron Davis, legal counsel Nick Lembo, and the New Jersey State Athletic Commission for their help and willingness to voice their professional opinions on the subject. Also, the author would like to thank his friend Charles Cameron, who provided much in the way of advice, including the suggestion to contact the Athletic Commission. Dana White quotes taken from Jeff Morgan (http://mmajunkie.com/news/14630/white-apologizes-for-silva-still-believes-the-spider-is-worlds-best.mma) and Steven Cofield (http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/cagewriter/post/Dana-White-Silva-embarrassed-me-I-wanted-to-le?urn=mma,157429). Note: The views of the author do not necessarily reflect the views of thegarv.com.

< Prev		Next >