Fight to the finish:

You know this could be just a late night drunken rant, or a reality of the best possible solution to MMA judging and deciding who truly is the better fighter. I already know all the possible negatives about it, what if a fight goes on forever? couldn't it possibly create even more boring fights as one guy trys to out wait the other? and any others you may have. But as I watch more and more MMA fights over the years, my frustration builds as the predictabilty of fights continues. You all know I'm pretty solid when it comes to MMA pick'ems, and one of my top rules is to pick the wrestler. Cause whether or not the guy is the better fighter, the wrestler comes through time and time again, and when I don't pick the wrestler, I usually get burned. And this isn't to say I don't respect the wrestler and the takedown, but at times, it doesn't really doesn't prove anything other then who can hold down the other... Now I'm only going to revisit recent fights in my memory, like MM vs Torres or Guida vs Pettis. With MM vs Torres, it seemed all to predictable (even as a MM fan) to choose him on the basis of getting the takedown and gaining top control. Whether Torres threatened with a plethora of sub attempts means nothing to the untrained judge, they see what they see...(BTW I scored it a draw). Moving to Guida vs Pettis, what did Guida do aside from shoot, get the takedown (Pettis should have known better) and hold position? Rarely any GnP, a lot of LnP, barely any sub attempts or advancing position. Meanwhile Pettis threaten constantly off his back, won the striking battle, and only looked frustrated but not worn out, what if that fight goes on....? I'm running out of steam in my post, but I don't care if you fully agree or disagree, but at least acknowledge the potential merit in this idea deciding who the better fighter is....

LOL no love, all good.

I definitely think that there is way to much value put on a takedown especially when u never advance your position.

It's a tricky situation. Pettis being so active also made Clay unable to mount much offense. The same is true with Miguel. I think Torres should have earned the decision but Pettis didn't threaten a whole lot either. Wrestling is fighting, and Pettis didn't want to be on his back.

I agree that toothless top games aren't fun to watch and loathe Jon Fitch's soul and the souls of his family, but Guida did what he had to do. Getting taken down and doing nothing should still score more than getting taken down and doing nothing. Clay's takedowns were very high level counters anyway. I disagree with the idea that a takedown brilliantly executed on the counter to a strike should score no points if no damage is then done by a subsequent technique. That idea is ridiculous. What would the metric be? "significant" takedowns vs. "soft" takedowns. Should a Judo hip toss or an across the cage slam not score?

I complained to no end last night and lost a BE sig bet on that fight, but I know deep in my soul Clay won that fight. Don't want to be controlled by a wrestler, don't get taken down.

I lost some money on Pettis(who I bet against My better judgment due to over analyzing his fights with Henderson and Roller) but at no point did I even think it was close. Pettis got neutralized in every aspect of the fight. He got outstruck both on the ground and standing(though it was by a slim margin) and taken down repeatedly, passed, and had all but one of his submission attempts broken before they were anywhere close to being sinched in. Guida did what nobody before has been able to do to Pettis so far, minus that minute or so that Pettis had Guida in mount/back mount.

Guida did not out strike him standing.

Yeah I admittedly watched this fight on DVR after coming home drunk as fuck but I recall Guida landing like one punch the entire fight, a big overhand right. He did have a few leg kicks and honestly Pettis didn't really do much of anything on the feet, but outstruck is a generous term there

Neither 1 had a great night of striking and really neither mounted much offense at all. That fight was a defensive struggle.

I wonder how beat up they look today.

bobbitt15 wrote:

Yeah I admittedly watched this fight on DVR after coming home drunk as fuck but I recall Guida landing like one punch the entire fight, a big overhand right. He did have a few leg kicks and honestly Pettis didn't really do much of anything on the feet, but outstruck is a generous term there

http://blog.fightmetric.com/2011/06/guida-vs-pettis-official-ufc-statistics.html

Again I said it was a small margin and it was. Not much of this fight took place standing but Guida got the better of it there overall and he definitely did on the ground.

Hard to argue with the Guida vs. Pettis decision. Most of you know that I tend to favor wrestlers, but that doesn't mean I always pick the wrestler in the GOR. For this fight, I was considering picking Pettis, but then thought about his fights against Roller and Henderson. The popular take was that Pettis' wrestling defense is top notch and that he could avoid takedowns from high level wrestlers, as evidenced by his fights with Roller and Henderson. However, if you analyze the types of wrestlers they are, it was not the same matchup as with Guida. Roller, as a collegiate wrestler, was a slow, plodding type wrestler. He often countered his opponents and worked from close range in tie ups. These types of wrestlers are easier to stop for the most part in mma, especially when going against someone who is quicker and more athletic, as was the case with Pettis. With regard to the fight against Henderson, it seemed to me that Henderson was thinking strike first, takedown second. This was definitely not going to be Guida's strategy. Often is the case with wrestlers who gameplan to strike first and wrestle second, they end up forcing their wrestling attacks, which makes it easier to defend.

Comparing the wrestler that Guida is with the wrestler that Roller is, was the reason I did not think Pettis would stop Guida's takedowns. Now, overall, Guida is not an elite wrestler. He is a good wrestler, but not elite. However, his wrestling looked superb in this fight because his timing was right on point and he did not look to strike first wrestle second. Instead, he looked to use his striking as simply a set up for his takedown, timing Pettis' strikes. Great fight for Guida.

No doubt Guida won the fight, he won all 3 rds, but he got the takedowns and mostly held position, he's good at appealing to judging, might have got a yellow card in Japan... The complaint lies in how certain fighters go about winning. Not really a big deal though.