Nick Diaz (Photo/Zuffa LLC via Getty Images)Mixed martial arts have progressed significantly since UFC 1. That 1993 tournament displayed a hodgepodge of talent and outfits; there was a single-gloved boxer, a gi'ed grappler and a wrestler wearing shoes. The rules were few and the battle watched in only a few thousand households. Maybe it was the marketing, maybe it was the outfits, but it would take several years and tens of millions in investment before the UFC and MMA became a legitimate sport.
Primary to the growth of the sport was its legalization in many states, that came after hundreds of rules were added regarding everything from legal striking and no head-butting, to ring size and proper attire. The stewardship of UFC president Dana White and the Fertittas were instrumental in seeing positive changes made to the structure of the sport.
Eighteen years later, in wake of one of the most controversial decisions in UFC history, the multi-billion dollar MMA enterprise needs to once again visit the idea of tweaking the rules of the Octagon, particularly regarding aggression and stalling.
Wrestlers have always taken the brunt of criticism when it comes to unexciting fights. There have been talented wrestlers in their early fight careers who've hung out in half guard (Josh Koscheck, Chad Mendes) and who were lambasted by critics for that lay-and-pray style.
To fix that type of go-nowhere fight style, Strikeforce encouraged fighters to be stood up if they failed make gains on the ground. The UFC has recently seen this occurring in the Octagon as well with referees (especially Herb Dean) standing up fighters due to their perceived lack of their aggression on the ground. The opposite side of the argument is that wrestling control, the ability to stop the momentum and motion of an opponent should be allowed (it would win a street fight), the reason it's discouraged is for the sake of entertainment.
This past weekend there has been little focus placed on strikers who fail to engage their opponent's advances and choosing instead to backpedal and launch fleeting counter attacks.
Love 'em or hate 'em, defend his tactics or loathe them, there is no doubt that the judges scored Carlos Condit the unanimous winner (49-46, 49-46, 48-47) over Nick Diaz. As clear as that victory was on the score cards, it's equally undeniable that Condit was on skates for the totality of the five rounds, ever refusing to engage the forward plodding Diaz.
Condit gamed the rules by scoring points with leg kicks in the first few rounds and effective counter-striking as he was being pressured into the fence. While many fans thought Diaz had won the fight based on his Octagon control alone (Rounds 1, 2 and 5 seem to be where most fans think Diaz won) others saw enough in Condit to argued for a win (Rounds 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Most in the pro-Condit camp (no doubt those who won money on the underdog) claim that his style was perfect game planning. Team Jackson knew Diaz wanted to get into a head-punching contest with a better-conditioned fighter so they avoided it altogether. It's something Jackson himself was proud to share with the media after the fight.
"We need to slow him down, a guy like that … who is so tough, you need to bring him down to your rhythm."
Of course, "rhythm" meant "pace." Condit wasn't able to keep the pace so he avoided contact. Jackson, ever the spinster was even bold enough to compare Condit's cage tactics to that of Muhammad Ali, whose style was famous for retreating and counter attacking. The problem with the premise is that three-minute rounds in a single combat sport are much different than 5 five-minute rounds in a sport that is built on aggression and the cooperation of several forms of combat. In MMA you have options.
There was another solution to the Diaz plodding forward that Condit failed to utilize: wrestling. Don't like a guys waling into you, take him down. Running away isn't sporting in a game meant to avoid the tap dancing, and corruption, and bullshit of boxing. Nobody with a full cranium is advocating for a sport where wrists are laced together for a forced head-bludgeoning test, but if you choose to avoid contact, the points should reflect that lack of aggression.
Though the same could be said for Diaz. Once he finally scored a takedown he controlled Condit on the ground for almost two minutes. Had he done that earlier it also might have been a different fight.
Should there be new rules policing stalling?
There are examples of other sports (not to mention Pride's yellow cards) which penalize a fighter for displaying a lack of aggression.
Amateur wrestling is attempting to increase viewership by punishing stalling. The modern college rules have changed drastically in recent years to become more spectator-friendly, with at least five rules added to promote action, and decrease the lulls in the viewing experience. It's technically stalling to take two consecutive backward steps.
If rules like those that govern wrestling were in play Saturday Diaz would have won a 50-45 unanimous decision.
The UFC has been very actively promoting strikers, but with Jackson's recent assault on the premise that strikers need to stand-and-trade the sport needs to look at the resulting response. The public prefers striking to wrestling, but they'll certainly take a combination attack over the retreat of an eventually winner. That style isn't just bad for business, it's antithetical to the founding spirit of mixed martial arts, and as appropriate now as a one-gloved boxer.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now