Win only by Large margin or Finish. Close margin = Draw

[sdpdude9]

Well its mostly the same couple of guys. And that doesnt tell anything. For the sake of argument even if the majority was against it, so what? The majority are always on falsehood.



You yourself brought up your soccer analogy!!!! Now after your socceranalogy has been refuted you wanna go run away from soccer. You truly are insincere! Now respond to your corrected socceranalogy or just beat it.

"But your analogy is not accurate you see. Now Usman and Colby are not like Real Madrid in your example. They are like a team who posses the ball the whole time and do not do offense. Just passing the ball from back to side to center and back again on 60% of the field, wasting time. And if occasionally they do try to go to the front and attack they lose the ball and get a counterattack. These kind of soccerteams exist and its no wonder the crowd is booing exactly at this type of game! Yeah the opponent cant do much but wait, but they are also not being threatend at the same time. They can have 60% of the field and pass the ball all they want and do nothing with it, the opponent is just patiently waiting for the counterattack. Now Usman and Colby are exactly this soccerteam but it gets worse because they do it on purpose because some rulemaker was of the opinion to give points for this kind of behaviour. This is a more accurate analogy."

You’re an idiot. I’m done. You actually initially brought up the soccer analogy. Everybody else can see how bad your idea is except you. You’re yet to refute a litany of examples where your system falls apart. Yet to acknowledge that more draws will hold up divisions and that more talented fighters will be prevented from climbing the rankings. Yet to acknowledge that nobody will agree to the terms of not getting paid without a finish. Yet to acknowledge that some of the best fighters in the sport have worst records than middle of the road ones. Yet to acknowledge that controlling your opponent and shutting down their game should be rewarded and is in no way an even fight. Yet to acknowledge fighters can dominate a fight without 10-8 rounds. Yet to acknowledge the heavy bias your system has against control based grapplers. Yet to acknowledge that over half of all fights would be draws and yet to acknowledge that would kill interest. Yet to acknowledge that losing fighters would game the system to get draws in fights they are losing. Yet to acknowledge that nobody would want to fight a durable fighter. Yet to acknowledge this system would make ducking far more prevalent.

Your idea is full of holes. Put it to a poll if you think anybody agrees with your idea. I’m blocking your dumb ass, tired of your awful, rambling opinions. Your idea is shit, would never work, and would kill the sport.

 

[Booksmasher]

Wrong! If your opponent completely shut down your offence and did more damage than you, they defeated you.

Well that depends what you mean with damage. If you said "If your opponent completely shut down your offense and was smashing you, he is defeating you" I would agree 100%.

But this is not what Usman and Colby do, and the premise of you guys is even extremer if you are being honest. You guys are defending the following statement which is what Colby/Usman are doing:

"If your opponent completely shut down your offense and doesnt do ANY offense himself, they defeated you"

You agree with this statement right? Be honest now. So you would agree with following statement as well:

"If Masvidal keeps the fight standing and defends all of Askrens takedown attempts without doing ANY harm to Askren on the feet, Masvidal wins simply by just standing there"

Especially if they kept you in a position you didn't want to be and you were trying hard to escape it. He is getting rewared for imposing his will on his opponent whilst inflicting more damage than them.

And if there isnt ANY damage, harm, offense, danger, going on? He still wins right? Come on, say it.

 

[Booksmasher]

You’re an idiot. I’m done. You actually initially brought up the soccer analogy.

You ignored my first analogy, then you made your own new one, and i corrected it and now you are still ignoring it by running away from you own corrected socceranalogy! I am still waiting for your refutation or admission you were wrong.

Now you did something very smart, you came up with this big distraction which is full of lies and misrepresentains.

Yet to acknowledge that more draws will hold up divisions and that more talented fighters will be prevented from climbing the rankings.

Not true, already explained it. But just keep ignoring.

Yet to acknowledge that nobody will agree to the terms of not getting paid without a finish.

Again a lie. Are you not ashamed?

Yet to acknowledge that some of the best fighters in the sport have worst records than middle of the road ones.

Such as?

Yet to acknowledge that controlling your opponent and shutting down their game should be rewarded and is in no way an even fight.

I already explained why we shouldnt reward neutralizing.

Yet to acknowledge fighters can dominate a fight without 10-8 rounds.

Some 10-9 rounds ARE 10-8 rounds, already explained it, keep ignoring.

Yet to acknowledge the heavy bias your system has against control based grapplers.

How much do you have to lie? There is a difference between control based grapplers (khabib, askren) and limited control based grapplers (colby)

Yet to acknowledge that over half of all fights would be draws and yet to acknowledge that would kill interest.

Keep lying, not true at all. Already refuted that.

Yet to acknowledge that losing fighters would game the system to get draws in fights they are losing.

Already explained this. Keep ignoring.

Yet to acknowledge that nobody would want to fight a durable fighter.

You mean neutralizers. Well it doesnt matter, nobody is afraid of them. They cant harm you. The worst case scenario is they try to be a harmless blanket as much as they can. Or the other way around (being a harmless standing statue who cant be taken down)

 

[blaseblah]

TS made this retarded threat just because he doesn't like Colby and Usman

 

[sdpdude9]

You ignored my first analogy, then you made your own new one, and i corrected it and now you are still ignoring it by running away from you own corrected socceranalogy! I am still waiting for your refutation or admission you were wrong.

Now you did something very smart, you came up with this big distraction which is full of lies and misrepresentains.



Not true, already explained it. But just keep ignoring.



Again a lie. Are you not ashamed?



Such as?



I already explained why we shouldnt reward neutralizing.



Some 10-9 rounds ARE 10-8 rounds, already explained it, keep ignoring.



How much do you have to lie? There is a difference between control based grapplers (khabib, askren) and limited control based grapplers (colby)



Keep lying, not true at all. Already refuted that.



Already explained this. Keep ignoring.



You mean neutralizers. Well it doesnt matter, nobody is afraid of them. They cant harm you. The worst case scenario is they try to be a harmless blanket as much as they can. Or the other way around (being a harmless standing statue who cant be taken down)

You sound dumber and dumber each line you say. Hope your idea is implemented one day. Enjoy the huge influx of draws, stalled divisions, fighters avoiding the fight to get away with a draw, and best of all nobody worth a shit competing there because no fighter worth anything would ever agree to such a shitty deal. The fact that you are yet to see any issue with your idea amongst the pages and pages of criticism shows how dull you are. You are willing to argue it to the end because you don’t want to admit that maybe there might be some problems with your idea and you think if you just keep going to no end that you are right. You are mentally incapable of understanding anything beyond your own thought and incapable of approaching your idea with any neutrality or any kind of critical thinking

 

[Bobbybackpack]

Well that depends what you mean with damage. If you said "If your opponent completely shut down your offense and was smashing you, he is defeating you" I would agree 100%.

But this is not what Usman and Colby do, and the premise of you guys is even extremer if you are being honest. You guys are defending the following statement which is what Colby/Usman are doing:

"If your opponent completely shut down your offense and doesnt do ANY offense himself, they defeated you"

You agree with this statement right? Be honest now. So you would agree with following statement as well:

"If Masvidal keeps the fight standing and defends all of Askrens takedown attempts without doing ANY harm to Askren on the feet, Masvidal wins simply by just standing there"



And if there isnt ANY damage, harm, offense, danger, going on? He still wins right? Come on, say it.

Wrong yet again! If your opponent controlled you on the ground without doing any damage themselves, the ref would keep standing you up and giving you many opportunities to get something going on the feet. And if you keep getting taken down repeatedly, you can't be helped here. You are losing. It also shows that the person getting controlled isn't good enough to stop several takedown attempts and isn't good enough to implement their striking game against a wrestler. It also shows that they're not good enough to use submissions off their back either. Now if the person on the bottom was landing elbows and doing more damage than the guy on top, they are winning.


"If Masvidal keeps the fight standing and defends all of Askrens takedown attempts without doing ANY harm to Askren on the feet, Masvidal wins simply by just standing there"

That does not make sense and that's not the same thing as what I was saying. If 2 fighters are standing, no one is winning based on control. By merely keeping the fight standing Masvidal isn't controlling anyone. If anything Masvidal would be penalised for avoiding engaging if he was stopping takedowns and not throwing anything. Askren would be winning if anything but a draw here would still be justified. However, it's not the same as getting jabbed all round and earning a draw, like you would get in your system. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Rumen34]

-still using 3 and 5 round fights; ok
-still using the same time limits; ok
-introducing draws; not introducing, draws in MMA already exist
-win can only be achieved by a finish in unranked fights; Hello, future prospect, can you sub or KO? No? Hello, MMA fans are u excited for the debut of this 1-0-5 fighter?
-in ranked fights a win can also be achieved by scoring 10-8 rounds; You were flashy, champ, now you can just hit real hard so we can keep you around more!
-10-9 do not exist, they are 10-10; Huge if true. Also dumb.
-only in titlefights you can win by scoring 10-9 rounds; Making it easier on the belt holders again.
-all the money ideas; Having incentive is great, the approach you give tho will just give headaches to the accountants of the org and will most probably mess with their finances as well.
-by a draw the lower ranked fighter stagnates at his rank (#10 stays at #10); Pretty sure this holds true in the current situation when a draw happens, unless the fight was a slugfest.
-by a draw the higher ranked fighter drops 1 rank above the lower ranked opponent (#5 drops to #9); Given how your system works this is too much of a punishment. Fighters can present a WAR but just because one did not outperform the other greatly, they would drop several ranks.
-only the champion doesnt get any showmoney nor decisionmoney by 10-9 at all so he is not willing to fight for a boring 10-9 decision win.; So you can win by scoring 10-9 rounds, as you stated above, but you don't get money for it, if you are the champ. I'd rather not be a champ very often or for long period of times then!

Im seeing some benefits by doing this:

-more fair to finishing fighters who have developed more impressive skills; Finishing fighters usually get buzz around them and get better fights faster then others. Ask Leon...
-motivation to finish the opponent (or at least make it 10-8 in ranked fights); Some people are motivated, some people have great chins...
-motivation to develop finishing skills; Not much different from the impressive skills above.
-more exciting fights; That end in draw because of your system, stagnating careers for months/ages.
-more impressive fighters; With unimpressive records.
-the limited neutralizing fighter who is not willing to develop his finishing game will never be able to climb up the ranks; Feeling like this is your biggest issue with the current system. Just want to note that keeping someone from hurting you in a fight is great skill to have, especially when the other guy just wants to punch your face twice and then go home.

 

[sdpdude9]

You ignored my first analogy, then you made your own new one, and i corrected it and now you are still ignoring it by running away from you own corrected socceranalogy! I am still waiting for your refutation or admission you were wrong.

In order to tackle your soccer analogy, we first need to look at it in terms of MMA. In this scenario, there are hundreds of teams (fighters), all divided into separate divisions (weight classes). In this scenario, team only win a match by a wide margin (in line with your model) meaning they only win games by outscoring their opponent by 3 or more (10-8 rounds) or if they get 5 goals before their opponent gets any (finishing a fight). Teams only play 2 or 3 times a year. What happens is now you have over half of your matches going to draws. Despite one team outscoring the others, they didn’t win by a large enough margin.


Interest in the league will wane quickly as numerous draws will prevent teams from climbing the rankings and with them only playing a few times a year, people will get tired of watching because they only see their favorite teams a few times a year and most of the time it’s a draw. People also get frustrated that one team is clearly winning (2-0) but it’s called a draw. You also get teams that go into pure defensive mode when they’re down by two goals to prevent a third and a loss, gaming the system. Teams also don’t want to face teams that rarely give up goals. Your system has completely ruined the league.


This is where your example comes in. There would be certain teams that play control based game (wrestlers). They control the ball and shut down the opposing team from doing anything. They are able to “win” (draws in your system) games by shutting down their opponent and outscoring them by one. They’re not the most exciting games, but their game is effective and generally one sided. But they can’t move up the rankings because they’re not winning by a large enough margin (although still clearly winning) and you don’t like the manner in which they win.


So we run into the issue of where we know this type of team could likely do the exact same thing they do to everybody to the top goal scoring team. They are likely the best team in the league because they can outscore just about anybody by a point and complete ball control but they’ll never get there because a terrible system prevents them from doing so, because it only favors heavy goal scorers and not teams that can shut down and win by a narrow score consistently.


This is the problem with keeping wrestlers away, when people know one guy could easily take down the champion and shut down his game but due to an awful system can’t get a chance, people will see a terrible flaw where the best aren’t getting their chance.


Your system would completely ruin either soccer or MMA. It is a system designed to promote the flashy but punish those that can dominate but maybe not in the most exciting way. A win is a win and if the non-flashy party can continue to win in non-flashy ways, they should move up the ranking regardless, especially if they’re able to do it to the flashy guys.

You keep using Colby and Usman as examples of fighters that don’t do anything but hold their opponent down but did you know that you have outlanded every opponent they’ve beaten with the exception of one time (Colby/RDA by a narrow margin) but Colby landed 7 takedowns and had more passes than RDA. They’re still winning the fight in that regard. But you like Askren who is yet to even land a strike in the UFC.

You are very wrong if you think this system would make the sport better. It would frustrate fans and fighters alike. It would not lead to more finishes, it would only serve to slow down the process and clog up divisions. You are wholly and completely wrong.

 

[ferrisjso]

Very close fights which end up in decisions are becoming more and more the norm in MMA. I think this is a problem because there is a flaw in the current reward system. Alot of fighters have the goal to get a 10-9 round. 10-9 rounds are very close rounds where nothing decisive really happens actually in terms of ending a fight. This is also a big reason of the existance of boring fights without much action. Why? Because fighters are thinking in points, "I am ahead because I have Octagon Control" or "I am ahead with one takedown more". To make MMA come back to its roots more and make it more fun too, what do you guys think about this following system:

-still using 3 and 5 round fights
-still using the same time limits
-introducing draws
-win can only be achieved by a finish in unranked fights
-in ranked fights a win can also be achieved by scoring 10-8 rounds
-10-9 do not exist, they are 10-10
-only in titlefights you can win by scoring 10-9 rounds
-showmoney a bit lower
-by a draw or loss no extra money
-finishmoney is 2,5x fold of showmoney against unranked opponent
-decisionmoney is 2x fold of showmoney against #15-#10 ranked opponent
-finishmoney is 4x fold of showmoney against #15-#10 ranked opponent
-decisionmoney is 3x fold of showmoney against #9-#5 ranked opponent
-finishmoney is 6x fold of showmoney against #9-#5 ranked opponent
-decisionmoney is 4x fold of showmoney against #4-#1 ranked opponent
-finishmoney is 8x fold of showmoney against #4-#1 ranked opponent
-by a draw the lower ranked fighter stagnates at his rank (#10 stays at #10)
-by a draw the higher ranked fighter drops 1 rank above the lower ranked opponent (#5 drops to #9)
-only the champion doesnt get any showmoney nor decisionmoney by 10-9 at all so he is not willing to fight for a boring 10-9 decision win.

Im seeing some benefits by doing this:

-more fair to finishing fighters who have developed more impressive skills
-motivation to finish the opponent (or at least make it 10-8 in ranked fights)
-motivation to develop finishing skills
-more exciting fights
-more impressive fighters
-the limited neutralizing fighter who is not willing to develop his finishing game will never be able to climb up the ranks

The issue is judges have different standards for what a 10-8 is, typically pretty strict ones that go beyond a dominant round. Many judges have some sort of unspoken rule against giving out 2 10-8's under almost any circumstances. And even if we got everyone to agree changing the rules on this invalidates so much of the sports history.

 

[Bobbybackpack]

You sound dumber and dumber each line you say. Hope your idea is implemented one day. Enjoy the huge influx of draws, stalled divisions, fighters avoiding the fight to get away with a draw, and best of all nobody worth a shit competing there because no fighter worth anything would ever agree to such a shitty deal. The fact that you are yet to see any issue with your idea amongst the pages and pages of criticism shows how dull you are. You are willing to argue it to the end because you don’t want to admit that maybe there might be some problems with your idea and you think if you just keep going to no end that you are right. You are mentally incapable of understanding anything beyond your own thought and incapable of approaching your idea with any neutrality or any kind of critical thinking

Where's your comeback TS?

 

[Booksmasher]

If your opponent controlled you on the ground without doing any damage themselves, the ref would keep standing you up and giving you many opportunities to get something going on the feet. And if you keep getting taken down repeatedly, you can't be helped here. You are losing. It also shows that the person getting controlled isn't good enough to stop several takedown attempts and isn't good enough to implement their striking game against a wrestler.

It also shows this type of limited wrestler, who must stand again and again because of the ref or his opponent, isnt good enough to implement his GnP game, top control game and submission game.

"If Masvidal keeps the fight standing and defends all of Askrens takedown attempts without doing ANY harm to Askren on the feet, Masvidal wins simply by just standing there"

That does not make sense and that's not the same thing as what I was saying. If 2 fighters are standing, no one is winning based on control. By merely keeping the fight standing Masvidal isn't controlling anyone.

O yes he is! In the standup he is in control and the aggressor against Askren. Askren is afraid in the standup, he knows he will lose. Masvidal will be the boss in control standing because this is his expertise. Askren will be worried. Its exactly the same thing but just the other way around. And you still havent answered my question:

"If your opponent completely shut down your offense and doesnt do ANY offense himself, they defeated you"

You agree with this right?

If anything Masvidal would be penalised for avoiding engaging if he was stopping takedowns and not throwing anything. Askren would be winning if anything but a draw here would still be justified.

Aaah, well well well. Look at that! I think we got a breakthrough ladies and gentlemen!

 

[sdpdude9]

View attachment 633575

Where's your comeback TS?

His tactic when trying to argue his point is bull headed. What he will do is argue to no end and never concede on any point, no matter what evidence or examples point to the contrary. If the evidence is too much to refute, he simply says it would be different under his idea, which he has no proof or examples of. He will argue minor points of his idea to distract from the overarching issues with the idea as a whole. Notice how he has turned the conversation into being about wrestling and not about his system anymore. He will give long winded responses with endless bad points and if you don’t point out each one individually, he will claim victory. His goal is to keep going until the other person moves on and he gets to feel as though he won and was right.

When you ask why his idea seems wildly unpopular he will use the child point of “Well there’s other people not here, do you know everybody?” because you cannot refute that and he can downplay the fact that every response he’s getting is negative. This is not a guy that wants to improve his idea or hear any kind of criticism. He just wants to be right, he cannot accept that perhaps his ideas are flawed or that maybe there would be unintended consequences that he did not think of. He will never, ever, admit that his idea is flawed or there is any problem with it. He is a narcissist that thinks he’s smarter than everybody else and his thought process is not rooted in reality.

 

[Booksmasher]

In order to tackle your soccer analogy, we first need to look at it in terms of MMA. In this scenario, there are hundreds of teams (fighters), all divided into separate divisions (weight classes). In this scenario, team only win a match by a wide margin (in line with your model) meaning they only win games by outscoring their opponent by 3 or more (10-8 rounds) or if they get 5 goals before their opponent gets any (finishing a fight).

Nice try pall. Crossing the whole territory by complex teamwork of 11 guys, and trying to get the ball in the goal is a very very hard thing to do. That is not comparable to just some jabs or a takedown, or having "octagon control". 1-0 is already a wide margin and an accomplishment. If an amateur team scores just 1 goal (or even shoot the ball against the post) against Real Madrid, that itself would be an extraordinary accomplishment. That would mean theyve past 11 resisting high level guys as a team, which is very very hard.

And yiu STILL ignored my counterexample! Still waitinf your response to it

This is the problem with keeping wrestlers away,

Did I made the case to get rid of wrestlers? Are you really really sure?

Your system would completely ruin either soccer or MMA.

Soccer is already good, it doesnt need to be changed. But I already explained that above.

You keep using Colby and Usman as examples of fighters that don’t do anything but hold their opponent down but did you know that you have outlanded every opponent they’ve beaten with the exception of one time (Colby/RDA by a narrow margin) but Colby landed 7 takedowns and had more passes than RDA. They’re still winning the fight in that regard.

Why do you need much takedowns? Shouldnt be 1 enough if you are good? And just passing the guard shouldnt be rewarded either.

But you like Askren who is yet to even land a strike in the UFC.

Yes I like his style which he has used in others organizations. The bad part about him his entry into the clinch is horrible. But the point about Askren is if he grabs you the match should be almost all over (at least before the Masvidal fight). He either punishes you the whole time or submits you. Now he has proven it a little bit in the UFC. Against Lawler the second takedown was enough. Too bad he got caught against Masvidal, I really wanted to see the grappling exchange. But if Askren is going to turn out to be a lay and pray fighter in future fights then I know it proves his top control isnt UFC level. So far no proof he is lay and pray.

 

[Booksmasher]

not introducing, draws in MMA already exist

Its alsmost impossible to get a draw

Hello, future prospect, can you sub or KO? No? Hello, MMA fans are u excited for the debut of this 1-0-5 fighter?

Hello Rumen, this future propect will never make a debut.

Making it easier on belt holders again.

No, he doesnt get 1 dollar if he wins by just 10-9.

all the money ideas; Having incentive is great, the approach you give tho will just give headaches to the accountants of the org and will most probably mess with their finances as well.

Its their job.

Pretty sure this holds true in the current situation

Draws are almost non existent

-by a draw the higher ranked fighter drops 1 rank above the lower ranked opponent (#5 drops to #9); Given how your system works this is too much of a punishment. Fighters can present a WAR but just because one did not outperform the other greatly, they would drop several ranks.

Well not really. He would fighters who are just at max 5 places away from them in the first place in the ranked phase. So he can only drop 4 places at most. So the ranks automatically by passing time will sort the just level of a fighter in the correct place.

So you can win by scoring 10-9 rounds, as you stated above, but you don't get money for it, if you are the champ. I'd rather not be a champ very often or for long period of times then!

These prizefighters fight to win. The money is in the win, not in the showmoney. If youve made it that far you are already rich and already proved you are a real fighter who is after the finishmoney which is several times larger than the showmoney.

Finishing fighters usually get buzz around them and get better fights faster then others. Ask Leon...

Thats what they deserve. But its not true in the UFC. Usman and Luque have both around 10 fights after TUF are freaking top of the rankings. But somehow Usman is top of the rankings by decisioning all fights.

Feeling like this is your biggest issue with the current system. Just want to note that keeping someone from hurting you in a fight is great skill to have, especially when the other guy just wants to punch your face twice and then go home.

I agree, being a harmless blanket is good self defense.

 

[sdpdude9]

I really want to ignore you but this post made it wayyyyy too easy to decimate your point. Some truly sensationally bad arguments here.

Nice try pall. Crossing the whole territory by complex teamwork of 11 guys, and trying to get the ball in the goal is a very very hard thing to do. That is not comparable to just some jabs or a takedown, or having "octagon control". 1-0 is already a wide margin and an accomplishment. If an amateur team scores just 1 goal (or even shoot the ball against the post) against Real Madrid, that itself would be an extraordinary accomplishment. That would mean theyve past 11 resisting high level guys as a team, which is very very hard.

Nice try, pal. Scoring a 10-8 or a finish against a complex and well rounded fighter is a very very hard thing to do. It is not comparable to scoring a goal in soccer. In fact, getting a goal in soccer is a far more common occurrence, it’s comparable to a 10-9. So I’m not too impressed with one goal, not much happened and teams should only be rewarded for being dominant. If an amateur were able to take one round or even land one good strike on a professional UFC level fighter, that would be an extraordinary accomplishment! That would mean they’ve passed a high level, resisting fighter, which is very very hard.

Apply your own logic to MMA and your whole point is moot. You seem to think soccer players are much better at what they do than an MMA fighter is at what they do. And you apparently think soccer is way harder than fighting. You should probably just stick to soccer because you clearly don’t know shit about MMA and have clearly never participated in a martial art in your life.

And yiu STILL ignored my counterexample! Still waitinf your response to it

I responded to it within my counter example which much more realistically depicted your system. Still waiting on your response about how no fighter would ever agree to fight where they don’t get paid without a finish. Still waiting on your response about how no fighter would agree to fight in a system where they lose money and can’t advance their career just because their opponent was a skilled, durable fighter and they couldn’t finish them despite clearly winning. Still waiting on your response as to how majority of fights going to draws would drive up interest and wouldn’t kill the sport. Still waiting on your response to Derrick Lewis having a more accomplished record than Cruz, Aldo, and Whittaker combined. Still waiting on your response to what could ever convince you your idea is bad or if you’ll just defend it no matter what. Still waiting on your response to why you think so many people seem to think your idea is bad.

Did I made the case to get rid of wrestlers? Are you really really sure?

Your system is designed to hold them back and eliminate them from the UFC, which was my point. Are you really sure it wouldn’t do that?

Soccer is already good, it doesnt need to be changed. But I already explained that above.

Disagree, soccer sucks. It needs to be changed. I’m tired of teams barely “winning” by only one goal. They need to win more dominantly or it should be a draw.

Why do you need much takedowns? Shouldnt be 1 enough if you are good? And just passing the guard shouldnt be rewarded either.

Why do you need so many strikes? Shouldn’t 1 be enough if you are good? Landing a hard power punch shouldn’t rewarded either. Opponents have this thing called defense an ability to get back up. MMA is hard.

How do you watch either Usman or Colby’s last few fights and think there was anything even about them. Just admit you just don’t like them. That’s what the whole thread is about, right? I don’t like them either and I’m not a fan of the style but they are putting on one sided performances. Anybody with a brain can see that.

 

[Booksmasher]

Nice try, pal. Scoring a 10-8 or a finish against a complex and well rounded fighter is a very very hard thing to do. It is not comparable to scoring a goal in soccer. In fact, getting a goal in soccer is a far more common occurrence, so it seems it’s easier.

Finishes + 10-8s + the 10-9s which should be 10-8s = is a common occurence. And that is in the current situation, let alone in my system in which this will only increase much more.

So I’m not too impressed with one goal, they happen all the time and I’m not convinced the better team is winning.

In the long term there is no such thing as luck. In the end the better team will always come up on top. Alot of teams made it an art to win by 1 goal difference. Alot of champions of the season made it an art to win by 1 goal difference, especially somewhere in the second half. A 2 goal difference is considered like an even bigger gap which hard to turn and needs time. Why do you think people go crazy at scoring one goal in soccer? Because its a huge accomplishment ofcourse against same level competitors. Its like a moment the opponent gets a beating, a clear moment of someone getting a larger margin. You see the crowd is reacting in a huge way where something significant happened where someone took a significant gap of difference.

You like to have a winner no matter what. Even if the margin of difference is minute minute close. It shows me how ridiculous your ideas are.

Still waiting on your response about how no fighter would ever agree to fight where they don’t get paid without a finish. Still waiting on your response about how no fighter would agree to fight in a system where they lose money and can’t advance their career just because their opponent was a skilled, durable fighter and they couldn’t finish them despite clearly winning. Still waiting on your response as to how majority of fights going to draws would drive up interest and wouldn’t kill the sport. Still waiting on your response to Derrick Lewis having a more accomplished record than Cruz, Aldo, and Whittaker combined. Still waiting on your response to what could ever convince you your idea is bad or if you’ll just defend it no matter what. Still waiting on your response to why you think so many people seem to think your idea is bad.

Again, you are misrepresenting me and ignoring my responses. You are not sincere, so its best you just leave.

Your system is designed to hold them (wrestlers) back and eliminate them from the UFC, which was my point. Are you really sure it wouldn’t do that?

Again you are lying. Arent Askren and Khabib wrestlers too?

Disagree, soccer sucks. It needs to be changed. I’m tired of teams barely “winning” by only one goal. They need to win more dominantly or it should be a draw.

You want 1 team to win by having merely 51% balpossesion opposed to 49% balposession in a 0-0 match with 0 shots on goal! How ridiculous is that!!!!

Why do you need so many strikes? Shouldn’t 1 be enough if you are good?

I agree, quality beats quantity. 1 knockdown is better than 10 pillowstrikes. 1 knee to the face could be enough. The more takedowns there are = less quality top control. Someone needs much quantity to compensate the lack in quality generally.

How do you watch either Usman or Colby’s last few fights and think there was anything even about them. Just admit you just don’t like them. That’s what the whole thread is about, right? I don’t like them either and I’m not a fan of the style but they are putting on one sided performances. Anybody with a brain can see that.

Ive already explained that a couple of times. Dont waste my time.

 

[Booksmasher]

Good analyses at 2:42

 

[sdpdude9]

Finishes + 10-8s + the 10-9s which should be 10-8s = is a common occurence. And that is in the current situation, let alone in my system in which this will only increase much more.

Where did you ever make a proposal to change what constitutes a 10-8? You’re making stuff up as you go because it’s looking bad.

In the long term there is no such thing as luck. In the end the better team will always come up on top. Alot of teams made it an art to win by 1 goal difference. Alot of champions of the season made it an art to win by 1 goal difference, especially somewhere in the second half. A 2 goal difference is considered like an even bigger gap which hard to turn and needs time. Why do you think people go crazy at scoring one goal in soccer? Because its a huge accomplishment ofcourse against same level competitors. Its like a moment the opponent gets a beating, a clear moment of someone getting a larger margin. You see the crowd is reacting in a huge way where something significant happened where someone took a significant gap of difference.

So you are agreeing that fighters winning a clear cut (but not dominant) fights should be rewarded? Fighters that took definitely took a 30-27 or 29-28 in a competitive fight should be given a win? You’re flip flopping depending on the sport. Direct contradiction from your idea.

You like to have a winner no matter what. Even if the margin of difference is minute minute close. It shows me how ridiculous your ideas are.

Not true, where have I said that? A minute difference is still a minute difference. But I actually believe there does need to be more of an implementation of 10-10 rounds when it’s necessary, however your shit system of turning any fight which isn’t a blow out into a draw is flat out stupid. Fighters can win clearly win competitive matches. Who’s the liar here?

Again, you are misrepresenting me and ignoring my responses. You are not sincere, so its best you just leave.

So still no responses to all those issues? You want me to leave because your ideas are getting exposed and you’re getting increasingly cagey and volatile.

Again you are lying. Arent Askren and Khabib wrestlers too?

Is it not your goal to get rid of fighters that are control based wrestlers?

You want 1 team to win by having merely 51% balpossesion opposed to 49% balposession in a 0-0 match with 0 shots on goal! How ridiculous is that!!!!

Where did I say that? That’s a clear lie.

I agree, quality beats quantity. 1 knockdown is better than 10 pillowstrikes. 1 knee to the face could be enough. The more takedowns there are = less quality top control. Someone needs much quantity to compensate the lack in quality generally.

While we can agree that one big strike is better than 10 pillowstrikes but 10 pillowstrikes is better than none. You’re not equating that the same in a grappling sense. If one fighter can land 7 takedowns and their opponent lands none, they are winning the grappling.

Ive already explained that a couple of times. Dont waste my time.

You sound like you’re starting to get a bit upset and shook. You ok, buddy? Your idea not as good as you thought?

 

[Booksmasher]

Where did you ever make a proposal to change what constitutes a 10-8? You’re making stuff up as you go because it’s looking bad.

Read back.

So you are agreeing that fighters winning a clear cut (but not dominant) fights should be rewarded? Fighters that took definitely took a 30-27 or 29-28 in a competitive fight should be given a win? You’re flip flopping depending on the sport. Direct contradiction from your idea.

Clearcut but not dominant???

Not true, where have I said that? A minute difference is still a minute difference. But I actually believe there does need to be more of an implementation of 10-10 rounds when it’s necessary,

Ok explain to me in detail when the 10-10 is exactly turning into a 10-9 according to your standards. What is the bare minimum?

Is it not your goal to get rid of fighters that are control based wrestlers?

You see, still no answer. You said I want to get rid of wrestlers. Arent Khabib and Askren wrestlers? Hellooohoo

And I already said Khabib and Askren are control based wrestlers and Colby Usman are limited control based wrestlers.

While we can agree that one big strike is better than 10 pillowstrikes, you’re not equating that the same in a grappling sense. If one fighter can land 7 takedowns and their opponent lands none, they are winning the grappling.

Well the grappling doesnt mean anything to me if his opponent is grappling his way back up 7 times. So it shows me he hasnt good enough grappling to achieve anything significant.

 

[sdpdude9]

Read back.

No, I’m not going to comb through this thread to find one sentence. I’ve read through enough of your dim witted posts at this point. You haven’t said anything about a change to 10-8 rounds nor what would constitute one to me in our conversation nor your op.

Clearcut but not dominant???

Aldo vs Edgar, both fights. Aldo definitely won but it was competitive. There’s lots of examples. Competitive fights with a clear cut winner happen!

Ok explain to me in detail when the 10-10 is exactly turning into a 10-9 according to your standards. What is the bare minimum?

A round in which neither fighter had an obvious advantage. This is not the case in a vast portion of 10-9 rounds where one fighter is being more effective however not so much so as to say they were being dominant.

You see, still no answer. You said I want to get rid of wrestlers. Arent Khabib and Askren wrestlers? Hellooohoo

And I already said Khabib and Askren are control based wrestlers and Colby Usman are limited control based wrestlers.

Is your system or is it not designed to get rid of wrestlers that use their ability to shut down opponents? You haven’t answered that. You said Usman probably wouldn’t even be in the UFC, but he’s the champion! There’s a huge discrepancy there!

Well the grappling doesnt mean anything to me if his opponent is grappling his way back up 7 times. So it shows me he hasnt good enough grappling to achieve anything significant

So landing 7 strikes to an opponent’s zero would also mean nothing to you because he didn’t knock the guy out? Not to mention the guy on top would get stood up if he wasn’t doing anything at all the mat, so clearly he’s achieving something whether it be passing or landing some strikes. The takedowns in and of themselves are achieving a goal in dictating where the fight takes place. Now I agree if a fighter takes somebody down and just holds them while doing literally nothing it holds little merit unless the other guy does even less. But if a guy can continually take somebody down, make passes, land punches (which Usman and Colby do) then it merits reward. Doing something whether it be landing a takedown or landing a jab is always better than your opponent not doing so.