How Would You Fix MMA?

Discussion in 'MMA University' started by ILJO, Mar 19, 2015.


Does MMA need to change?

  1. Everything's fine, stop whining.

  2. This shit is broken, yo! (explain)

  1. SickNasty

    SickNasty Now that's a tasty burger.

    I'm all about the knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent as well as legalized elbows. Definitely have a commission devoted to MMA directly.
  2. ATJ-Lucko

    ATJ-Lucko Champ-Champ MMA Pick 'Ems World Champion

  3. 0mega1

    0mega1 Well-Known Member

    Same day weigh-ins, covered finger tips, point deductions for stalling, removal of the 12 - 6 elbow rule... I'll add more if I think of any.
  4. Pashak

    Pashak Well-Known Member

    - Get rid of DW

    - Bring back the ring

    - Elbows, soccer kicks, knees in the ground allowed (stomps not)

    - Bring knowledgeable unbiased commentators

    - Bring certified, knowledgeable judges.

    - Have a much smaller roster and get rid of the 125, 135 and women's division.

    - Make maybe 20 cards per year, but each one of great quality.

    - Low the prices for PPV

    - Make some small show before each event (like PRIDE did), introduce the fighters before the beginning of the event.

    - In title fights, sound the anthem of the fighter's country.

    - Encourage fighters to give beautiful fights, and not just steal decisions. Use the yellow card system.

    - Make a dress code for fighters. They should all be dressed properly during press conferences.

    - Bring really beautiful ring girls from Ukraine, Czech. Republic, Hungary.

    - Drug test every single fighter. First time positive: 2 year ban. Second time positive: Ban for life.

    - Fine fighters for antics and unsportmanship attitudes before, during or after fights.

    - Sign fighters from many different countries, not just USA, Canada and Brazil.

    - Make MMA look like a sport, not like an entertainment.
  5. Nebraska

    Nebraska Poindexter For President NFL S.P. Champion Site Donor

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    How does getting rid of Cruz, Barao, Mighty Mouse, Dillashaw, Faber, and Rousey serve to fix MMA?
    sourdough likes this.
  6. jesusatemyhotdog

    jesusatemyhotdog Welcome to the machine.


    I agree: So does Michael Bolton

    Afro and SupermanIsAMcGregorFan like this.
  7. Hassquatch

    Hassquatch Slayer

    Let Fallon Fox and trannies fight in the UFC.
  8. Bran

    Bran The wolf dead.

    1. Deactivate all fighters' twitter, facebook and other social media accounts

    2. That's it.
  9. Pashak

    Pashak Well-Known Member

    Very few people care about those divisions anyway.
    Maybe 5% of MMA fans actually enjoy watching those tiny guys fight. 135 has maybe 2 or 3 interesting names, and that's it. WMMA only has Rousey. You can not keep a whole division only because of very very few guys.

    When the 125 division was created almost no one liked that. The very few people that liked it said stuff like "at the beginning no one liked the LW division, and just look how awesome it is".
    Well 3 years later there is no difference at all. People do not give a shit about that division and they never will.
  10. Nebraska

    Nebraska Poindexter For President NFL S.P. Champion Site Donor

    Your "data" is made up.

    This, however, is not: three of the fighters you want to get rid of (Demetrious Johnson, TJ Dillashaw, Ronda Rousey) are currently in the top seven on the UFC Pound for Pound rankings, as voted on by 41 media members. Include Renan Barao and it becomes four of the top 12. You want the UFC to tell a third of their elite talent to take a hike and suggest that it will improve the sport?

    Have you been drug tested lately? Or ever?
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015
  11. sourdough

    sourdough Sourdough Site Donor

    You criticize Dana for not caring enough about the sport aspect of MMA and you come up with this? There is a lot of very talented an exciting fighters in those divisions.
    Nebraska likes this.
  12. ʞɔɐqbuıɯoɔsısoɐɥɔ

    ʞɔɐqbuıɯoɔsısoɐɥɔ Just the Messenger

    Scrap TUF.

    Do what ESPN / USA did with boxing in the 80's/90's and have weekely events use taped delayed undercard fights in shithole arenas to get exposure for the up-and-coming fighters.

    Go back to Pride-esque pageantry to allow fighters to show some of their personality and flare. As well as building the "event" feel of a PPV.

    Get Dana White away from the TV cameras for a while. Having him around is good, but other heads of organizations don't demand nearly the amount of facetime he does.

    Drug Testing.....actually I'm going the other way on this one. Rather than the BS Olympic and SAA standards, adopt your own that will actually catch abusers, not ever guy that might have trace amounts of tainted supliments. If a guy is juicing, we really don't care, as long as he's not taking waaaaaaay more than his opponent.

    Same-day weigh-ins would be nice, it would level out the playing fields in some of the weight classes.

    Scrap the 10-point must system

    Add "damage" to the scoring solution. The fact that a guy can land a headkick that nearly paralyzes his opponent and loses the round cause the other guy landed 5 leg kicks (effectiveness and aggression) is a little retarded.

    Have fun with the round formats: 15 / 5 / 3 or 60 min Iron Man or 5/3/5/3/5 or 10x 3min rounds (maybe set these up per country / region to add some flare to international events

    Make more of the different cage sizes, rather having only a handful of people actually knowing that there are different size cages.

    Grand Prix - who doesn't love an f'n Grand Prix
    ILJO likes this.
  13. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    Scrap the 10 point must system for what? I don't disagree that it's a flawed system for MMA, or that it should be replaced, but what system did you have in mind? What exactly are you "adding damage to?"

    I know I asked how you would fix it, but do you think it's likely that the 10 point must system is going anywhere any time soon? I think it's probably here to stay (for the foreseeable future), which is why I was pretty proud of what I proposed in the original post. Because it's a practical solution that could reasonably be implemented today.

    Judging is subjective; They use their own judgment of what is "effective" (and the wording of the current criteria has "effective" in front of pretty much everything). My explanation/justification for what I considered "effective" was pretty reasonable/rational, was it not? Did you see any flaws in it? I see no reason why a judge couldn't use that same justifications for his scores right now. It wouldn't take any rule changes or rewriting of regulations, and there would be no ramifications.

    The only real controversy I could see would be that any change will result in scores initially being inconsistent with what we've seen historically, but again, that would generally be true of any change. It's a "growing pain" that might be a bit inconvenient to some fighters at first, but it's important to look at the big picture and understand that the cons are minimal (and inherent to change), especially when considering the potential benefit, the ease of implementation, and the current outlook the entire MMA community has on the current shittiness and inadequacies of judges/judging.

    All it would take is some new judges or some reeducation of old judges. It's really just a minor change in perspective, in the grand scheme of things. It wouldn't fix all the scoring/judging problems, but I think it would be a serious and noticeable step in the right direction, and I don't see any reason it shouldn't happen. I really do think I'm onto something with this.
    --- Post Added -- Apr 18, 2015, ---
    And yeah, a grand prix would be awesome. Can't see any commission allowing it unless maybe it's kickboxing style with really short rounds/fights.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2015
  14. Trodden

    Trodden Aggretsuko is my power animal

    I would ban every woman in the audience who screams when everyone else is watching
  15. sourdough

    sourdough Sourdough Site Donor

    The grand prix doesn't have to have fighters fighting multiple times in one night.
  16. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    Well then it's not much of a grand prix.
  17. ʞɔɐqbuıɯoɔsısoɐɥɔ

    ʞɔɐqbuıɯoɔsısoɐɥɔ Just the Messenger

    scrapping the 10-point must would open the judges up to score more liberally and not declare a winner to a round that wasn't clearly won. A 9-9 round is fine. So is a 9-8 round. But to have the system implies that there has to be a winner of each round unless there is a point deduction, which is grossly misguided. Laying in an opponent's guard and getting tied is not winning a round. In fact it could be said that the guy on bottom won the round by simply effectively nullifying any offense with their defense. That's an extreme, I know. But think back to all the razor thin rounds that you've seen, would a 10-10 or a 9-9 score be more apt. Or what about a first round of a championship fight where both guys just circled for 5 five minutes not really attempting to connect with any offense. Wouldn't 9-8 by a better score and more punitive for the inactivity?
    --- Post Added -- Apr 20, 2015, ---
    Grand Prixs don't always have to happen under a Commission's control (i.e. Indian Reservatio, other countries, etc)
  18. ILJO

    ILJO Member Site Donor

    So 10 point without the must? I like it in theory, but I think it would be an absolute clusterfuck in reality. It implies 1 of 2 things:

    1) Judges will have more subjective freedom than 10 point must


    2) More complex/complicated scoring criteria

    Either way, this requires an increase in the quality of judges to not have decreased consistency in scoring. So that means it's either going to be worse, or maybe it's going to be better IF we have better judges. But 10 point must would benefit from better judges too, so...

    I think I just described a scenario in which it will always be better to wait on switching from 10-point-must to your system (until we're satisfied with the quality of judges, which will probably be never).


    Damn I'm good. I don't think you could even refute that. When's the last time you had someone change your mind, homie?
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2015
  19. Kevo

    Kevo SMOKE BOMB!

    sourdough likes this.
  20. ʞɔɐqbuıɯoɔsısoɐɥɔ

    ʞɔɐqbuıɯoɔsısoɐɥɔ Just the Messenger

    this whole exercise is a rooted in hypotheticals, except when you want to poo-poo someone else's thoughts. Then you use a theoretical outcome as a reality to say its a bad idea.

    Your "get better judges" argument is valid, but bullshit too. As long as the criteria stays the same and the "there must a winner of each round" idea in place, there will always be subjective and idiot judges no matter how much MMA they know. The scoring criteria lends itself to justifying a particular call. But giving a judge, idiot or not, the opportunity to say "neither guy looked impressive and did enough to win the round" opens the door for potentially better outcomes in these fights rather than declaring a wet blanket a winner based on the fact that he was on top most of the round.

    So in a reality, changing/expanding the scoring criteria is really the best way to fix the overall scoring problem in MMA. I think a lot of people would agree that if "effective grappling", "damage", "effective defense" were added to the current criteria there would be a lot of fights with different scoring outcomes.

    I personally prefer the 10-point must system because there would be a lot less draws, but with a lack of quality judges and the scoring criteria being what it is, putting the option to have a draw of a punitive score (i.e. 9-9 for inactivity) based on what happened in a round would be better than having a horrible outcome.

Share This Page