Wrestling Dominance: In the Cage, In the Rules

UFC 118 triggered another wave of fan outcry about the dominance of wrestling.  Even the most elite of MMA purists would probably admit that watching Joe Lauzon devour Gabe Reudiger was more entertaining to behold than Gray Maynard muffling Kenny Florian.  The sporting aspect of MMA rarely coalesces with business and entertainment, yet the triumvirate shares a symbiotic relationship and blossoms a variety of flavors for the consumer.  Customers love options.

Pride FC was both adored and pilloried for “freakshow fights”; a hook the UFC has twice cast this year with Kimbo Slice and James Toney.  Genki Sudo was celebrated for his creative individuality outside of the ring just as much as within it.  Commanding 24-3 lightweight Antonio McKee, flawless since 2003 despite a soporific 25% finishing percentage, has prophesied retirement if he's unable to finish upcoming foe Luciano Azevedo.

Fiery aggressors who take risks and let the guns blaze enchant onlookers in almost any competition, while conservative strategists who instead opt to nullify their enemy’s weapons do not.  However, both approaches can lead to victory—the paramount avidity of athletics.

In MMA, some things will never change.  The fossilized term "hybrid fighting" is the timeless backbone of mixed martial arts philosophy, and was based on proficiency in all areas to induce advantages and exploit weaknesses.  Anytime a fighter can impose superior control and vitiate the potency of their opponent, that fighter deserves to win.  The same stifling properties of guarded engagement can take place standing as well:  Anderson Silva forced Thales Leites and Demian Maia to fight standing by dictating the pace and location of combat with calculated footwork and a hesitant trigger-finger, while Brandon Vera fell prey to a double-dose of clinch control against Randy Couture and Tim Sylvia.

The potential for this drab and unstimulating but fully optimal approach exists in every facet of MMA, and the thought of instituting restrictions or penalties for purposes of entertainment is appalling; and the result would not reflect the true nature of hand-to-hand combat and represent taking one step closer to kickboxing or pro-wrestling. Therefore, from a pure sporting perspective, overcoming the enveloping grasp of dominant wrestling is all on the competitors; and the choices of avoiding the takedown, using Jiu Jitsu to enforce more threatening offense, sweep, or submit, or simply being the better wrestler stand unwavering as the best counter-attacks.

Here’s what can change:  the value we associate with a takedown in the unified scoring criteria.

It is widely accepted that one takedown can drastically tip the scales in one’s favor or even “steal the round”, or that a double-leg followed by holding top-position will generally be scored more favorably than flailing unsuccessfully underneath it.  Can all of this be written off as substandard training that spawns uneducated or inexperienced officials from a boxing background, who don’t understand the technicality of grappling, like many die-hards contend?

The answer is a simple “no”.  Judges who employ the aforementioned outlook are just doing their job by following the rules.

Effective striking and effective grappling trump all other measurements.  Striking and grappling directly translate to offense, and the key word “effective” designates both the success and amount of damage associated with said offense.  There is no better method to determine who wins than to award the fighter demonstrating superior offense and inflicting more damage.  When effective offense is close or debatable, the supporting criteria is then referenced (control, defense, and aggression, in that order) to sway the vote.

A common question permeating discussion forums is, “How are takedowns scored?”  Let’s reference the unified criteria for the answer.  The text is highlighted anywhere a takedown is mentioned.

Effective striking is judged by determining the number of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the significance of such legal strikes.

Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.

Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.

Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.

It should come as no surprise that takedowns and wrestling also dominate the scoring criteria.  The unified rules were inaugurated during the sport’s infancy and, not coincidentally, heavily influenced by Olympic gold medalist wrestler Jeff Blatnick.  Blatnick was instrumental in legitimizing MMA, and remains a revered icon—as he should—but it’s not blasphemous to consider that his proclivity to wrestling may explain its prevalence in the rules, nor that the state of MMA in 2000 doesn’t accurately accommodate for the rapid evolutions and changes we’ve seen in the last decade.

I agree in full that a takedown demonstrates control and aggression, just as stuffing a shot should count for control and defense.  What I take serious issue with is a takedown—which is nothing more than a forced change of position—counts for “offense” under effective grappling.  The only way to justify a takedown counting for anything more than control is when the takedown does damage, such as the Shamrock vs. Zinoviev classic or the more contemporary Harris vs. Branch example.

Under the existing criteria, which upholds offensive success as the primal directives, a single takedown will earn that fighter credit for effective offense (one-half of the most important measures) and also notches points for control and aggression (two-thirds of the supporting measures).

That is our answer as to why a takedown is given so much weight on the score cards.

I believe takedowns should be completely erased from the effective grappling category.  This would mean a fighter can exhibit control with all the takedowns in the world, but that action will always be inferior to whoever demonstrates the more effective grappling of an offensive nature.  It would also reinforce and more clearly define:  that a takedown is not offensive unless it does damage, that the guard is truly a neutral position and “it’s what you do with the takedown that counts”, and that ultimately whoever implements the more effective offense or in any phase of combat belongs in the driver’s seat.

Stuffing a takedown should get comparable credit to landing one, just as a takedown that accumulates no offense should be weighed analogous to a bottom-fighter escaping back to his feet.  It should be noted that a very slight advantage is lent to a successful takedown (no matter what the end result is) under aggression, where avoiding a takedown gets a slightly smaller value under defense; the two lowest priorities on the scale that rarely have a major effect on the outcome.

I stand convinced that the 10 Point Must is both adequate and workable, with the quickest “bang for the buck” solution lying with simply using the entire breadth of the system as it’s intended instead of only certain parts.  This would avoid the idle sputtering associated with making a change in official government policy, especially one pertaining to human safety; as the only real change would lie in the mentality to follow the rules as they’re already written.

Secondary to that, should the compelling opportunity arise to fine-tune the verbiage in MMA’s unified rules, the control heading would be my main target for a massage:  add more tangible and definable measurements for striking (the main source of all controversial decisions), and constrain takedowns to control by eliminating them from effective grappling to better portray the element of control (not offense) they represent.

Alternatively, if we continue to suffuse the criteria with takedowns and incorrectly equate “forcing a change of position” with “scoring effective offense”, then the mere act of a single takedown will continue to have a drastically significant impact on the decision of the judges and the fate of the fighters.