Strikeforce: Rockhold vs Jardine at the Joint at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino on Saturday, January 7, 2012 in Las Vegas, Nevada (Photos by Esther Lin/Forza LLC/Getty Images via Forza LLC)
I'm not sure where the term "lay and pray" began. But I do remember the experience of being a frustrated viewer while watching Royce Gracie vs. Ken Shamrock II at UFC 5. A few things amplified the experience. For one, the action preceding it was fantastic. Well, a Shakma level of 'fantastic' given the presence of Jon Hess and whatever S.A.F.T.A was supposed to actually be.
Then there was the hype of the two best fighters going at in the UFC at the time. What ensued between Shamrock and Gracie wasn't a fight: it was a nightmare. It was competition in limbo.
Watching and reading the reactions of fans and observers to Tyron Woodley's performance is what I would expect in response to a dud of a fight. Nothing happened. I'm not the type to judge a fighter's performance when he does what he needed to do to win. But that's not to say I enjoyed it.
However, what exactly do fans want? I found myself stuck in a debate with readers over "lay and pray", and what should be 'done' with it: as if a fighter's methods need to be discriminated against like an emerald-colored Bruce Banner in an arm wrestling contest. Aggressive stand ups, judges giving less weight to top control and takedowns, yellow cards, and making knees to downed opponents legal are the typical suggestions.
Knees to the head I can get behind. Although ironically I'd argue that wrestlers wise in the ways of Dave Schultz would benefit more. Less weight to top control? I can also get behind that assuming that the fighter on bottom is active, and showing effective aggression while the fighter on top simply takes damage.
On the point of aggressive stand-ups: no. The idea that a fight should be stood up simply because nothing is happening is ridiculous and as we've seen before, aggressive stand ups allow fighters on bottom to simply hold on for dear life in order to force a stand-up. It allows fighters to be lazy.
I understand the criticism. Even established sports like the National Hockey League, with former debates about the two-line pass and sudden death, have been forced to manage the relationship between sport and spectacle.
But for all the criticism thrown Woodley's way, it's the loser that deserves equal if not more condemnation. Jordan Mein knew exactly what Woodley was gonna do. Why not plan accordingly?
It's not as if the sport lacks precedent in this regard. Diego Sanchez won round 2 (not according to all judges, granted) off his back against Clay Guida by peppering him with elbows (Mein started to do this, and then simply stopped). Why not use butterfly guard to create space? Or attempt the many different sweeps to reverse position?
To me, an even better example exists in the Carlos Condit vs. Dong Hyun Kim scrap at UFC 132. On paper, Kim's key to victory was simple: lay on top of him, and ride out the clock. He did this previously against Nate Diaz at UFC 125. And I'm not sure there are many people that would argue Condit is a far better grappler than Nate. Nate has experience against serious competition in the grappling world, and for proof, look no further than his match with Ryan Hall at the US Open in 2007, which he won via kimura. So we're not talking about the difference between a better grappler and a lesser one: we're talking about the difference between tactics.
Condit used the kitchen sink. When they were on the feet he didn't restrict himself to simply punches. When they were on the ground, he didn't limit himself to simply throwing up submissions from his back (scoring a beautiful sweep that rattled Kim's confidence). It's not like fighters don't have options on the feet either. Against Kenny Florian at UFC 136, Jose Aldo got into the habit of moving laterally immediately following a combination so that he was never in the way of a direct route for a double leg.
Yes, I know. 'Easy for you to say Castillo, you silly armchair blogger". And that's a fair point. I'm not saying Woodley gave some kind of inspired performance. You won't ever find me watching that fight again. Even on first viewing, the fight was a test, and I found myself a stereotype of impatience as I returned to clips from Big Trouble in Little China in an open window while grabbing a coke and a handfull of Blue Diamond chocolate almonds.
But the importance of "lay and pray" (such as it is) is that it forces fighters to find solutions on their own. It forces opponents on the bottom to dare to be 'exciting' themselves. I want to see fighters learn through trial and through error. I want to see innovation; not accommodation. And that innovation should be organic. Criticize Tyron Woodley (still a bright prospect who has room to grow just as many wrestlers before him who were once one dimensional) all you want, but don't forget the guy on the bottom. It takes two to avoid the tango.
9 recs | 146 comments
Easy fix:
Unlimited rounds, keep going until the stoppage! Woo!
Lay n pray would still exist of course, but it would also have to lead to something eventually! Yeah!!
Pyrgz Krum - January 9, 2012
Sounds like Sakuraba vs Royce Gracie, over and over again.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
I’m sure Fox would love to air a 16 hour card.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
Gegard vs Mo = winning from the bottom
Woodley vs Mein = not winning from the bottom
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
And before anyone points out that Gegard lost against Mo
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
word… Gegard must have hit him a million times from the bottom to the point I think he was hitting mo on both sides of the head with each swing…
RECE ROCK - January 9, 2012
Yeah he was making great use of butterfly guard and smashing him up with elbows and effective!!!!!!!!!!) punches
Too bad MMA judging is still in the neolithic stages.
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
The only three opinions that matter (Plus me) disagree
MattParker117 - January 9, 2012
Mo’s face disagrees with the four of you.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
Literally the four of MattParker117, because that's how many he sees right there.
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
Superficial facial damage.
You’re fooling yourself if you think Mo lost that fight.
bigstupidsmile - January 9, 2012
How’d he win? By being on top, period? I think it was close, but I don’t think Mo won. Tomato tamoto.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
He won the wrestling match, sure I can agree with that. As for the MMA fight, that’s debatable?
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
FightScorer3002(tm) says shut up forever.
username appropriate.
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
something weird just happened with my post...
ANYWAY: Your username is appropriate.
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
All that damage on his face,
basically came from the first takedown in the opening minutes of the fight. Short little wraps on his face. I’m sure they didn’t feel great, but they weren’t punishing shots, take a knuckle to the eye ten times in quick succession, you will see some swelling and it won’t be unpleasant, but it’s not going to knock you unconscious or rattle your brain much. That explains ALL of the damage on his face. He controlled the pace and the setting of the entire fight. It wasn’t a beautiful display, but it won him the fight, which at this point is a historical fact. I wanted Mousasi to win as well, but he didn’t, goddamn what a bummer.
bigstupidsmile - January 9, 2012
That photo is after they treated his swelling
When he got his arm raised he looked like he was allergic to bee stings and just came from a hive headbutting contest. He got punched, elbowed and his top game was mostly stifled by Gegard using butterfly guard so he continued to eat stuff from the bottom.
Mo has some good GNP but he got banged up pretty damn badly for being on top the entire fight and Mousasi came away looking much better.
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
Since this is a lot of opinion, I will simply appeal to fight metric, which isn't perfect, but does a fine job that I tend to agree with.
http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/2760
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/08/lawal-vs-mousasi-fightmetric-report.html#more (is this displaying right? my computer seems to be having a seizure at the moment)
Close fight, but let’s not act like it was a robbery.
bigstupidsmile - January 9, 2012
If not there: http://www.mmaforreal.com/2010/4/19/1430609/fightmetric-releases-stats-for
bigstupidsmile - January 9, 2012
I've been had!!!
By… Myself.
TorQus - January 9, 2012 via mobile
At the timeI scored the fight 47-46 for further information
10-9 Mo
10-9 Mousasi
10-9 Mo
10-9 Mo
9-9
MattParker117 - January 9, 2012
*48-46
MattParker117 - January 9, 2012
*49 – 45?
TorQus - January 9, 2012 via mobile
10+9+10+10+9=48
9+10+9+9+9=46
MattParker117 - January 9, 2012
I was just re-reading that.
I LOSE.
TorQus - January 9, 2012 via mobile
I'll just go with what was going to be my original comment
You missed the “usasi” on three of your "Mo"’s.
And stuff.
TorQus - January 9, 2012 via mobile
No, fuck that
Cancer makes scientists think creatively too
Death to Lay and Pray!
But it is satisfying when a prolific lnp exponent gets blast
Cunny - January 9, 2012
Like Hendricks did to a certain LNP artist a couple of weeks ago, uh? I agree, it almost made up for all the boring fights that came before it!
Shnak - January 9, 2012
no it didn’t make up for it because it was one of the few Fitch fights I planned to take a nap around it.
the jewish conquistador - January 9, 2012
great analogy haha
Robert V-U - January 9, 2012
this
jim-ma - January 9, 2012
I agree with this. The reality, in that fight, is that Woodley has
reallygood top control, does not take a lot of chances in order to advance position and is active enough to prevent a stand-up. I also think he out-muscled Mein, and the latter just couldn’t do much because of the lack of openings and the lack of pure strength to shuck him off.blawa - January 9, 2012
What you describe isn't fighting. It'as stalling.
yonsson - January 9, 2012
Against Woodley, I think you need a combination of unorthodox judging and that ref from the Arlovski/Nelson fight to see T-wood’s wrestling base subdued
Robert V-U - January 9, 2012
The reality of that fight for me was my buddy sarcastically saying “what a great fight” over and over and over. sigh I need some more hardcore fans to watch MMA with.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
Granted I thought it was boring, but I just used that opportunity to discuss the upcoming fights on the broadcast instead of incessantly whining. I’m never on board with the idea that people who dislike fights like Woodley vs Mein just “can’t appreciate the full spectrum of MMA.” Boring fight is boring.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
This is the problem with the current interpretation of the rules. They encourage pinning your opponent while being active enough to prevent a standup.
Its warping the gameplans of a handful of wrestlers to do just that. Pinning your opponent without looking to do damage should not be a legitimate path to victory.
The Lethal Haze - January 9, 2012
The thing is...
He wasn’t active enough on top in the last two rounds to justify not being stood up. He legitimately stalled his way to a decision. The man never attempted to pass guard to side control or mount when it was advantageous to do so, and he wound up just staying in closed guard doing a whole lot of nothing for three rounds.
To be perfectly honest, watching this guy fight is more boring than watching Fitch, or Maynard’s worst bouts by virtue of the fact that he is the textbook definition of a lay and pray wrestler which the latter are not. I will tell you right now, if strike force gives him a title shot, which means he will begin headlining events, I will likely skip every event that he is featured on.
Ben Henderson is one type of wrestler I wish all wrestlers who prefer fighting on the ground would model themselves after. First, he has really taken the time to learn BJJ, unlike most wrestlers in MMA, and actually blend it into his overall grappling, making him a very complete grappler. Second, because of his advanced BJJ skills combined with his wrestling, he can confidently posture up and throw relentless ground and pound on his opponents and hurt them, without being fearful of losing position, or getting caught in a sub. Ben Henderson got his title shot in the UFC so quickly because his style is highly effective, and exciting to watch at the same time, regardless if he finishes or not.
amendamatrix - January 12, 2012
bingo!
it really looked their plan was if you get taken down, play for a stand up or throw elbows.
the level of the average MMA fighter’s game of his back is pretty limited it seems these days. They look use the guard to: A. create space and scramble away or B. lock down and try to get get a stand up.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
this
Is true and its because judging and reffing shit on guard players.
Look at lister vs marquart. Dean just needed a little bit of time to work his magic and big jon wouldn’t give it to him.
It is now a game,not a fight.
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
People get way too upset about lay and pray.
I have 2 problems with the discussion. First, it’s not a big a problem as people make it out to be. People always talk about the NHL’s new rules, basketball’s shot clock, etc, etc. Those were put in place when the problems became league wide epidemics. You don’t need to react to one boring fight every 2 months. Don’t expect a solution to a problem that doesn’t really exist.
The second issue I have is that none of the solutions are actually going to fix anything. More standups? Shot clocks? Would people have been happier if Woodley got 15 takedowns and threw 0 strikes instead of doing what he did? Because standing up a fighter that knows he can get the takedown is not really a punishment, they’ll just get up and go right back down to the ground.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
Well, there's some merit to addressing a problem before it becomes an epidemic
Just because it doesn’t happen every week isn’t a reason to acknowledge that it’s a flaw in the system.
Cory Braiterman - January 9, 2012
but there’s no point in reacting when it’s barely a problem. It happens every once in a while, and the fixes could just cause more problems.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
What kind of problems?
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
That it will just turn into a takedown or point fighting contest instead of the “real fight” people think they can somehow create to start.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
I don’t see that as a problem, it’s better than a non-point or non-fight system as it is. Rules change with the evolution of the sport, that’s how it goes.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
Yes, and that’s my point. This is not a big enough a problem to warrant these changes, one shitty fight every 2 months can happen under any rule set.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
So because it doesn’t happen enough, we should ignore it?
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
yes, because somethign that doesn’t happen a lot isn’t a problem. You change the rules to fix problems, this is not a real problem, so it doesn’t need to be fixed.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
Referees already have the option to stand a fight up if they feel the there is little to no action, but it is up to their discretion as to when to utilize it. It’s not like I’m bringing up a completely new rule, I’m just saying that Referees should come to a concensus on when they should intervene. Mazagatti pulled guys up way too early (when the top man was in half-guard and actively working towards a submission) and Tognoni let them stay down way too long, so it is a problem with consistency.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
Those of us that want to see some sort of change to the interpretation to the URs feel that this already happened. That’s why we need a rule/interpretation change.
The Lethal Haze - January 9, 2012
Part of it is the fact
that very few fighters are both good enough to pull it off and willing to be hated by fans just to rack up decision wins, no bonuses, and constantly passed up for title fights. It still doesn’t mean that it isn’t a flaw in the system, because it is.
Cory Braiterman - January 9, 2012
More often than not, that is the case
However the risk of being popped on the feet just increased 15 times.
1N87 - January 9, 2012 via mobile
Of course. That would be exactly 15 times more offense and 15 more times that Mein could have done something.
Dallas Winston - January 9, 2012
thank you
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
did he do something when they were stood up? last i check that knee hit nothing on tyron
Mac Marley - January 9, 2012
yeah totally missed
and throwing a flying anything against a guy looking to take you down is just a bad idea, another example of Mein not having game planned.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
You either missed or conveniently disregarded the other part of TP’s point. Woodley would be more exciting if there were more chances to showcase his take down skills. Also, he would evolve more as a fighter if he knew that sitting in closed guard with limited striking for more than a minute would result in a stand-up.
I’m not saying Mein was robbed, or that Woodley is boring, the fighters do what they do. I’m just saying the fight could have had more action if there was some intervention.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
The only good fix to lay & pray is this ...
Allow a fighter to kick his opponent in the head only when both are considered grounded. That would allow guys like Mein and Mousassi to have more tools to defend himself from the bottom and get back to their feet. If up-kicks were legal, Anderson Silva would have two wins over Okami instead of being 1-1 with him.
That is one rule change that seems reasonable to me that I would approve. The other rule change that I would love is knees to the head of downed opponents to allow fighters more tools to punish wrestlers who shoot in on them the wrong way.
amendamatrix - January 12, 2012
Can't defend it at all sorry
There’s grinding and there’s complete lack of doing anything but holding someone down which is what Woodley was doing the majority of the time.
This is a TV/entertainment driven sport and allowing that sort of performance on a high profile card will surely only hurt the expansion / mythical ‘mainstream acceptance’ of MMA?
taptomyarmbar - January 9, 2012
He did what he did to get the W, and it was extremely uneventful and not entertaining.
There’s nothing to defend; he can keep fighting this way, he just needs to deal with criticism. In the UFC, are there any champions outside of GSP that can be accused of lay and pray? Seems like that style wins a lot of fights, but can only go so far.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
GSP doesn’t do lay and pray.
Damnit, does anyone even know what lay and pray means??
Shnak - January 9, 2012
yes
it is how their least favorite fighter happens to be a grappler and has any decisions on his record fights.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
You don't have to be a lay and pray fighter to be boring on the ground.
It’s just that lay and pray is as boring as you can possibly get outside of wall n stall.
amendamatrix - January 12, 2012
GSP is a guard passing machine
GSP doesn’t lay and pray. If he got knees to the head legalized, he would probably get more finishes.
discoandherpes - January 9, 2012
Absolutely, that was my point. He’s constantly working towards a finish, be it postering up to strike, passing guard, working submissions. GSP doesn’t often get a finish, sure that’s true, but he’s always trying. Nobody can fault him that.
Shnak - January 9, 2012
He wasn't trying in the Koscheck and Shields fights
Cunny - January 9, 2012
He also wasn't on the ground
Standing lay ‘n’ pray from GSP exposed
FightingFighting - January 9, 2012
What a horrific oversight
Excellent point
Someone give that man a striker, pronto
Cunny - January 9, 2012
You mean, a striker like Alves?
Shnak - January 10, 2012
I'm factoring the groin injury into his performance
He outstruck Alves quite nicely early on
Cunny - January 10, 2012
nah, GSP just fights down to the level of his opponents
and point fights.
The Lethal Haze - January 9, 2012
I was against lay n pray from top control for a long time, but my stance has changed. As of late, I have been frustrated with the fighter with the fighter on the bottom for not trying to get back to his feet. While Woodley did utilize lay n pray, Mein didn’t even fight for an underhook to try and scramble back up, push on his head and hip escape, attempt to get butterfly guard or do other tactics to try to get back to his feet. We are at a point in MMA where judges favor top control, yet there are still fighters who just don’t attempt to get back to their feet when they are on the bottom. They really should know better by now especially when facing a wrestler. I know that it’s easier said than done, but there are things that Mein could have done (like getting underhooks) even with Woodley going chest to chest and lying on him.
Don’t get me wrong here because Woodley was utilizing wrestling to lay n pray and do stalling tactics, but Mein could have done more on the bottom especially with him knowing that he was going up against a wrestler.
chrisbboy82 - January 9, 2012
To address issues like lay n pray/wall n stall
I think the athletic commissions need to clarify the scoring guidelines and possibly modify them to take damage inflicted/attempted aggression (strikes thrown submission attempts=guard pass attempts takedown attempts, etc ) more into account and make positional control something relatively minor.
But an important question this all begs is should fighters be able to win fights merely by holding top position for 3 rounds?
I think a round where a guy scores a takedown and nothing else happens (he doesn’t try to advance position or do much GNP) a 10-10 score should be considered
Robert V-U - January 9, 2012
That's how it is
Except for aggression is lesser than control and TDs also count as effective grappling, the latter being what really throws a wrench into things IMO.
I also agree with your 10-10 assessment. Since control is always secondary to effective offense (sub attempts, passing, landing significant strikes), I don’t think control with virtually zero offense should be enough to win a round.
Dallas Winston - January 9, 2012
I agree with this (and kicks), not necessarily because it would give wrestlers something to think about when shooting (though that’s a pleasant side effect), but because I can’t think of a good reason why they should be illegal. I simply can’t imagine that a knee or kick to a stationary, grounded opponent is more dangerous than a knee or kick to a standing opponent who is stepping into it. I’d love to see somebody rig up a test dummy with accelerometers and find out for sure.
I’d rather see more weight on escapes. I think if nothing else happened in a round except fighter A getting a takedown and fighter B escaping before taking any damage, that round should be a tie. Takedowns are a means, not an end. If you don’t do anything with it, it shouldn’t be worth any points.
Please, you need to get yourself some Wasabi & Soy Sauce Almonds. Those things are amazing.
Damnatio Memoriae - January 9, 2012
Image-wise, I don’t like kicks/stomps to the heads of downed opponents because it comes off as barbaric, sloppy, and cheap. I think the guys who banned it saw it the same way. Personally, I just want the up-kicks and knees back.
amendamatrix - January 12, 2012
correct me if I'm wrong
but isn’t the guard considered an neutral position? If that is the case, then enforcement of this rule and then the guard is a position where the advantage goes to the fighter who is more active, aggressive or doing more damage.
To me implementing this view of things changes the guard as a position in MMA. Fighters on top either need pass or be aggressive inside the guard to win, while bottom fighters have a path to victory.
Get rid of stand ups all together to encourage bottom fighter activity and legalize knees on the ground and up kicks and the ground game in MMA looks totally different.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
It’s not a neutral position in mma.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
I mean literally in the Unified Rules
I believe it is described as a neutral position.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
Nope. The rules do, however, state that “evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear” and then list “effective striking” before “effective grappling”. It could be argued that striking from the bottom should be worth more than maintaining top control (if not also threatening with submissions or landing strikes).
Simen - January 9, 2012
Full guard or closed guard should be a neutral position. Yes the take down scored, but if the fighter on bottom neutralized any advancement of position and limited the effectiveness of strikes then the solution is to stand it up. I don’t see why instigating more action is a bad idea.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
King Mo showed why guard isn’t considered neutral in MMA… he blasted what’s his name from guard and earned a TKO.
Shnak - January 9, 2012
because he used his top position as it should be used. Just like Diego Brandao used his bottom position as it should have been used. Being on either top or bottom isn’t the end of the contest, it’s what you do with that position that shows the effectiveness.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
Terrible example
I could just cite every submission from guard to prove that the guard is superior then.
I’m totally baffled by this POV. Why not just score whatever happens with no pre-manufactured bias? Isn’t that what judging is all about? Besides, the guy who hits the TD is already given credit for grappling, control and aggression. If he also gets credit on top of that for just “being the top guy” then it will actually propagate more LnP.
Dallas Winston - January 9, 2012
Ah ok, I get your point. The guard position itself is a neutral position, ie. no points, and it’s the actions themselves that earn points, be it strikes, guard passes, sub attempts, etc. That makes perfect sense. I agree.
Shnak - January 9, 2012
and the guard would win. The last time we saw a real able guard player get finished with the other fighter in his full guard I believe is Brandon Vera getting his face broken by Jon Jones.
King Mo dropping hurt on Larkin from the half guard isn’t really anything. #1 because Larkin is a kungfu/kickboxer who has next to no game off his back and #2 the half guard is almost a dominate position in MMA. Yes there are sweeps, but so many them expose a fighter to strikes that the top man has a clear advantage.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
Agree, but on the flip-side
The number of examples of a fighter winning a round with his guard are almost extinct.
Can you or anyone else list a half-dozen examples of a fighter winning a round from his back?
I used to cite the first round of Javi Vazquez vs. Chad Mendes as an example. Actually, the latest example that really stands out is Jeff Curran x Scott Jorgenson. Curran completely shut him down with his guard and made him freeze in place, defend from the top and barely throw any strikes.
Torres x Mighty Mouse is another example, but not a good one because both fighters were really active in either position and there were a lot of scrambles.
Dallas Winston - January 9, 2012
there is half guard and half passed.
Most people hold on to half passed far too long.
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
oh I like that
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
if your shoulders are on the mat you are probably half passed.
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
Vera is a greco wrestler not a guard player and he was not controlling Jon’s hips.
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
he is a brown belt
I’m not saying he is world champ but he isn’t like Rampage on his back
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
absolutely but imho
Brown belt overall ….. blue belt off his back.
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
black belt on the feet
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
wouldn't disagree there
but that is how I’d describe a lot of MMA fighters now. I guess my point is, we don’t see many guys being finished while playing full guard.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
Vera is a greco wrestler not a guard player and he was not controlling Jon’s hips. H
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
Ridiculous statement of the year: "Jordan Mein knew exactly what Woodley was gonna do. Why not plan accordingly? "
Yes, because it’s so simple to say “Yep, not gonna let that amazing wrestler take me down” or “Yep, easy enough not to let that strong guy who has been grappling all of his life control me on the bottom”. This statement is every bit as stupid as Dana saying “Well if you don’t like getting screwed then don’t let it go to the judges”. Because it’s so damn easy to just do what you want irregardless of what another highly trained and skilled fighter wants!!!
I’m sorry but I fully believe in standups when it’s ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the guy on top is showing 0 aggression and has 0 desire to make any advancements or show any desire to end the fight. You say it’s easy for the fighter on the bottom to be lazy and clinch his way to a standup, but what about a fighter on top? He can’t be equally lazy by simply laying on a guy? It’s supposed to be a fight and the purpose of a fight is to attempt to win and to finish your opponent. The purpose of a scoring system is to have a way to decipher who did more in an attempt to win the battle, it’s not supposed to be a means to an end that rewards cowardice and laziness.
It’s past damn time that the Unified Rules were amended to include penalties for fighters who show no desire to actually fight. If the rules continue to allow guys like Tyron Woodley to “win” fights then, guess what, the sport will die a very painful death because nobody will care to watch it. Ever seen the abysmal ratings that college wrestling gets? That’s not to insult wrestlers, but it’s called MIXED martial arts for a reason. Fantastic, you can put a guy on his back, now attempt to pass, throw some GnP, learn a submission or two. Just make an attempt to show that you are actually a fighter rather than a glorified dry-humper!
Randomguy81 - January 9, 2012
You just used "irregardless", which nearly invalidated your entire argument.
SSreporters - January 9, 2012
this.
Rob Young - January 9, 2012
Name starts with SS and you're a grammar Nazi...
Coincidence?
Randomguy81 - January 9, 2012
Ahhh so you understand my Fuhrer....er...fury.
SSreporters - January 9, 2012
I agree one hundred percent. The author of the article acts like the guy on the bottom is the one who is responsible for a boring lay and pray fight, when its clearly the guy who put them there and is essentially just sitting on top to ride out the round who is responsible for what is happening. I think the ref should have stood them up several times in the second and third round of the Woodley fight, especially when it was clear that Woodley had no intention of even trying to pass Mein’s guard. That to me suggests an unwillingness to actually fight, which is against the rules and refs should do what they can to ensure both fighters are there to engage.
nomomrnicekyle - January 9, 2012
This
What Castillo and his side of the argument conveniently forgets to mention is that it’s WAY harder to get up from bottom, than for a powerful and skilled wrestler to hold you down. In a perfect world, yes, of course we would have liked Mein to be able to do something. But the reality is that it’s much harder to break someone from stalling you by hugging you for dear life, especially if they are a strong and powerful wrestler on top. Yes it takes two to tango, but it’s a bit hard to dance when someone is using all their might to stop you from moving.
Horselover Fat - January 9, 2012
your right, that is why people look to take people down because it affords them an advantage. But it isn’t like it is impossible to get off your back, it just takes more energy and effort. Mein had to know he was losing that fight and needed to expend some energy and use some technique to try to create a scramble rather than throwing elbows from guard.
T.P. Grant - January 9, 2012
Agree fully with this article.
I’ve always said lay-and-pray is on the guy on the bottom. Well, and the judges to a certain extent when they do get fights wrong where a guy is winning from the bottom (Torres/Johnson for instance…) but mainly on the guy on the bottom. Can’t stop a wrestler from taking you down? Too fucking bad, either work on your guard game or takedown defense.
Wall-and-stall to me is a much worse issue because with that (see Simpson vs. Tavares or Lentz vs. Winner) it’s a totally neutral position with the guy defending the takedown, and yet the staller wins due to supposed “aggression”.
Newman24 - January 9, 2012
So why is having more action a bad idea exactly? If a top fighter is neutralized in advancement and striking, the guard fighter has done his job. Would a ref allow 2 1/2 minutes of clinch in a boxing match? Hell no.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
Also how does “holding on for dear life” = lazy? “Holding on for dear life” applies to the top fighter just as much as the bottom fighter in this case. If both are being ‘lazy’ then the ref has to intervene.
tigerlee - January 9, 2012
Oh how I love the meteoric rise of Johny Hendricks. Here is a wrestler who could lay and pray with the best of them but instead he comes out and deposits their head on the roof of the building. It seems that he is the antidote to go lay and pray wrestler. Unfortunately not every fighter is like him, possessing a combination of knock out power and superior wrestling skills. Someone like Tyrone Woodley is a very one dimensional type of fighter and it painfully shows. Yes, he can beat a lot of fighters with his style but does that mean you should get the opportunity to? And that is where I have issues. I do not think Woodley should fight for a belt until he shows that he can win fights in a variety of ways, simply for the sake of the sport. if you want to see someone become motivated to advance their ground skills let them know that they cannot just lay and pray their way to victory and expect to get a title shot, that should fix things right quick.
memitim - January 9, 2012 via mobile
If Hendricks loses a couple of fights
he will fall back on what works, it’s only a matter of time.
UncleMax - January 9, 2012
But no matter what he has that knock out power. Modern-day wrestlers like Jones, King Mo, Dan Henderson all have the ability to finish their opponents with strikes. I don’t see Woodley as that kind of fighter and I really hope we don’t see him in a title match anytime soon, at least until he develops a more diverse set of skills..
memitim - January 9, 2012 via mobile
There are better, more aggressive, and more dangerous wrestlers in MMA than Woodley
This “problem” will work itself out. He’ll hit a wall at some point, and THEN he’ll be forced to change. Woodley really seems like a “if it ain’t broke, don’t try and fix it” kind of athlete. Fighters with that attitude always meet their match eventually. What happens when he fights a better striker he can’t take down?
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
I agree he will eventually hit a wall. However, he is not in the UFC, he is in Strikeforce and the talent pool is not nearly as deep. He can hold onto the belt for very long time and I don’t think that would be good for the promotion at all. That’s my concern.
memitim - January 9, 2012 via mobile
That’s a valid concern.
Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
If Hendricks loses
a couple of fightsthe stand-up portion of a fight, he will fall back on what works, it’s only a matter of time.Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
Hendricks, Pierce, Story, and Ellenberger are the future of 170
All wrestlers who can LnP you but instead choose to maul you standing and do whatever they want with your head.
SSreporters - January 9, 2012
Nice perspective Dave
I know grounded knees will never happen. The commissions immediately veto the idea as soon as the topic comes up without any discussion. They did a big survey a few years ago of a bunch of fighters, trainers and managers about adding “Pride rules” and the vast majority were against it, mostly because it would require an entirely different philosophy and dramatic change in training.
On the “less weight to top control” aspect, really, there’s no “weight” to it in the rules. People just assume the guy on top is winning and score it that way. Plus, broken record alert, I feel the TD has way too much power in the rules for a simple forced change of position.
Dallas Winston - January 9, 2012
Bouts are scored as such:
Effective striking,
grapplingtakedowns, andcagetop position control.Machiel Van - January 9, 2012
The problem is that the"fighter" who is doing the lay-n-pray IS being lazy, and he’s NOT FIGHTING, hence the “pray” part. I believe when the Unified Rules went into effect the people writing them assumed that they were trying to stop these crazed lunatics from killing each other like BARBARIANS, they probably never dreamed that one day one of these uncivilized cage fighters who just came from the bar would be content to score takedowns and lay on top of the other guy and call that “fighting”.
Rob Young - January 9, 2012
also, when one guy handily outstrikes the other guy for an entire round and then the other guy lands one takedown that he does nothing with, the one who got the lone takedown shouldn’t win the round.
Rob Young - January 9, 2012
this happens a lot less often than people think it does.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
no, it happens more often than you think it does actually.
Rob Young - January 9, 2012
when was the last one?
Phildo - January 9, 2012
Cruz vs Faber II. I firmly believe Faber deserved to win that fight. All Cruz did was take him down without being able to do anything once on the floor only to have Faber scramble up to his feet every single time. And while on the feet, it was Faber that was landing heavy shots that affected Cruz.
Shnak - January 9, 2012
so the last example of this epidemic is 6 months ago in a fight where the guy who you claim won was outstruck in every round.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
Not sure if it was the last one, but it’s the one example that came to mind. And I don’t care what the stats say, you can make the stats say whatever you want. But I do remember Faber landed far more damaging shots than Cruz did in that fight.
Shnak - January 9, 2012
ok, the stats, the 3 judges, the 3 guys at sherdog, and the people doing pbp here, and at 3 other sites i looked at were all wrong, let’s fundamentally change the sport.
Phildo - January 9, 2012
dropped Cruz in almost every round.
the-gentle-way - January 9, 2012 via mobile
Yep. I wish this sport would be judged based on effective damage and clear attempts at finishing fights… pitty patting and split-second takedowns with no follow up like Cruz always does shouldn’t win anyone fights.
Shnak - January 10, 2012
I don't think you can put equal blame Mein
Tyron is really good at one thing: taking you down and holding you there. It’s a little ridiculous to expect Mein to suddenly get as good at defending take downs as Tyron is at getting you down. It’s even more ridiculous when the rules favor the wrestler and limit his opponents methods of defending the take down.
Warbreezy - January 9, 2012
I agree with Castillo on just about all points. My memories of the fight are that both men were about equally responsible for the inactivity on the ground. Mein was just playing for a stand up the majority time he was on his back which means all of his efforts were focused on tying up Woodly and limiting his ability to strike from guard. Once you get the stand up because you were able to stall your opponent in your guard you better be able to make something happen on the feet because you are acknowledging your unwillingness to generate offense on the ground. Both men know that this type of performance wont get them anywhwere with the fans or Zuffa so I think the marketplace will sort this out on it’s own. Guys know they wont stay on a broadcast if this type of inactivity happens again so they will either change or make room for fighters who are willing to be busy everywhere the fight goes.
Hardy's in your face - January 9, 2012
Part of the problem though is that the more Mein does off his back, no matter how ineffective it is, makes it less likely that the ref will stand it up. If he’s going for a submission attempt that will more likely than not fail, not only has he used energy that might be better utilized elsewhere but he also gives the ref a reason to stay on the ground. If he can’t realistically win the fight off his back, why should he waste whatever gas he has in the tank trying? He’s better off tying up Woodley and waiting for the ref to stand them up, where he at least has a better chance of winning.
nomomrnicekyle - January 9, 2012
Great point
discoandherpes - January 9, 2012
I agree that it’s a calculated decision and the decision to go for the stall stand up is perfectly reasonable. The only concern with that route is that you have to deliver the goods on the feet or else you are looking at a fight were you have very little in the way of offensive production or even offensive effort.
Hardy's in your face - January 9, 2012
Woodley was stalling
He should have been warned, and if he continued to stall and not engage in the fight he should have had a point taken away. Same thing goes for pulling a Ben Saunders on the bottom, same thing goes with pulling a Kalib Starnes on the feet.
Knees to the head are an awesome idea. They reward wrestlers who pass guard, but punish wrestlers who go for sloppy take downs. It will force wrestlers to become better stand up fighters to better set up their shots, and help a guy like GSP who passes guard but has trouble finishing inflict some violence. Paul Daley would have probably knocked out T-Wood in his last fight if he could have hit him with a knee, because Woodley was so tired he was in very vulnerable positions but was technically safe because he was a in three point stance.
That said Mein should have had better tdd. Let’s not act like he was Miguel Torres or Nate Diaz off his back or anything.
discoandherpes - January 9, 2012
Did anyone notice in the post fight
When she said “come over here Mo” to raise his hand, Mo looked at her and said “Honestly bitch you took too much time to stop that.” She put on kind of an awkward smile and I was wondering if they are friends or if it was because she didn’t know how to react Either way it was fuking hysterical!
MMAruinedME - January 9, 2012
he said
“honestly miss, you let him take too many punches.”
he didn’t say “bitch”.
Rob Young - January 9, 2012
This
Mo really impressed me when he said that, I don’t think I’ve seen another fighter do that before. At least not televised.
menckenstein - January 9, 2012
Who got the W added to their record and who got the L?
Would you rather be 15-15 and known as crazily exciting or go 30-0 and be in the record books for one of the longest undefeated streaks in MMA history?
Who got paid? The guys who bet on Woodley, or the guys who bet on Mein?
Who got their win bonus?
I mean, I am not saying the fight was good…I’m not saying I enjoyed watching it. But not every fight is going to be great or even good.
Woodley is a wrestler who is taking the path of least resistance to win…there are PLENTY of great wrestlers in his division, he’ll fight one eventually, and either lose, or have to fight differently to win….
Chris Groves - January 9, 2012
Those are two very extreme examples, but in a Zuffa owned promotion losing spectalarly CAN actually be more beneficial than winning in a boring manner routinely. Woodley might have got his win bonus, but how many bonuses didn’t he get that we dont know about? The fight of the night bonus in the UFC is worth almost double what Woodleys win bonus was, and since no one is clamoring to see him fight he is missing out on future paychecks as well. Plus, once he loses he pretty much has a zero chance of getting back up to the top because no one wants him there. See Jon Fitch.
nomomrnicekyle - January 9, 2012
Spectacularly*
nomomrnicekyle - January 9, 2012
Would you rather be Jon Fitch or Chris Lytle?
Who had the better career? Who had the better salary? Fighting safe is clearly less lucrative for the fighter, not more.
FightingFighting - January 9, 2012
Excellent point
I’m absolutely a bigger fan of Chris Lytle than Jon Fitch…so that plays a big part in ‘who would you rather be?’
I mean, I’m not sitting here saying the boring win is best, that I like it, or that I necessarily would go for it…I’m just saying I can’t blame a guy for putting winning above everything else.
Chris Groves - January 10, 2012
Guys like T-Wood should learn from history
Guys who put on terrible performances in their wins more often than not piss off potential fans. Those pissed off fans then remember them and actively avoid the fights their featured in, which leads to the promotion making them jump through a million hoops before they ever get a title shot. If they lose any fights, they face a way bigger set back in their title run compared to fighters with more fan friendly styles.
amendamatrix - January 12, 2012
Quadros
Didn’t Stephen Quadros coin the phrase “lay and pray”?
And for those people that think some kind of new epidemic is coming on . . . oh, by the gods, there was a lot of lay and pray back in the late 90’s and early 00’s.
Philosophy Pro - January 9, 2012
MMA is a fight sport. Laying on top of someone for 15 minutes is not fighting. Timidity is against the Unified Rules of MMA and needs to be enforced by the referrees. If a fighter is just laying on their opponent a point should be deducted for timidity (refusal to engage in the fight). If the fighter continues to lay on the opponent a second point should be deducted. If the fighter continues to lay on the opponent the fighter should be disqualified.
Also, the promoters should provide additional pay to fighters that finish their fights in addition to their win bonus or in order to receive their full win bonus. This will provide extra incentive to the fighters to fight aggressively.
Lay-and-pray or wall-and-stall or standing without fighting is against the timidity rule and needs to be enforced, in addition to finish bonuses. This will definitely help this problem.
The one judge that gave this fight to Mein was awesome because Woodley did not “WIN” this “FIGHT” because he refused to fight.
CDF47 - January 12, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.