Issue 030

October 2007

By Rosi Sexton

When the UFC was first born, the idea was to get as close to a real fight as possible. It was supposed to be the ultimate test of fighting skill, without rules to favour one style of fighting over another. Since then mixed martial arts (MMA) has evolved from a spectacle to a legitimate sport. Standardised rules have been added, along with gloves, and rounds with time limits. How much impact have they had on the way fighters actually fight?

I believe the most significant change has been the use of judges to decide the outcome of a fight that goes the distance. This was necessary in order for MMA to succeed as a sport, but it came at a cost – it made it possible to win a fight without finishing it. A fighter could control his opponent without ever really threatening him, sometimes without doing any real damage, and emerge the winner.

To many fans, there is something deeply unsatisfying about a fighter who does just enough to win a decision. There is a sense that it is somehow not what MMA is supposed to be about. Some argue that MMA is just another sport, defined by its rules and that there is nothing wrong with using those rules to your advantage. However, most MMA fans don’t see it that way. They still think of as a fight – with concessions to safety and sportsmanship. After all, that’s part of the excitement and the appeal. How can we stay true to that original idea? Is there a way to prevent ‘boring’ fighters lay-and-praying their way to a decision victory?

Most rules allow the referees to stand the fighters up or separate them from clinch if there appears to be a stalemate and neither fighter is working to attack or improve their position. Perhaps this is the answer? Do more stand ups lead to more action?

Well... not always. There is a danger here. By telling fighters they will be stood back up if nothing is happening, it actively encourages those who don’t want to engage on the ground to tie up and stall and wait for a stand up, rather than to try to escape. This can make a fight less, rather than more, exciting.

Secondly, it is easy to stand fighters up if there is nothing happening on the ground, but what can you do with two fighters who won’t engage on their feet? Sometimes warnings are issued, but all too often these warnings don’t have enough bite. To make them work, you need to be prepared to deduct points or disqualify fighters who persistently refuse to engage. This too can be frustrating for the spectators. Nobody really wants to see their favourite fighter lose because of an impatient referee.

Judo provides a good example of what can happen by introducing too many rules. When it became an olympic sport, there was pressure to make judo more exciting for spectators, and also to avoid it becoming dominated by competitors from other disciplines such as wrestling. The length of time allowed for groundwork was shortened, certain grips were prohibited, and strict passivity rules were introduced.

Watching judo, I can’t help feel that these haven’t had the desired consequences. Competitors, being naturally competitive, will take advantage of any rules that exist. It is not uncommon for important international matches to be decided by disqualification of one competitor following repeated warnings for minor infractions of the gripping and passivity rules. Because of shorter groundwork times, you see competitors turning in for a throw, then falling on the floor and turtling up to avoid being countered, safe in the knowledge that their opponent won’t have time to sink a choke. This does little to make judo more entertaining – and in fact, it can make it look downright odd to the casual observer.

I would hate to see MMA to follow the same route. So what are the alternatives? Perhaps we should look at the motivations of the fighters themselves. Of course, every fighter would like to be known for being exciting. But to most, winning is at least as important. This is especially true when fighting for an organization which offers large win bonuses (as a proportion of the total purse) and is known to drop fighters after a few losses. Sometimes the fighter is understandably more interested in riding out a comfortable decision win than taking a risk and going for an exciting finish.

One possibility is to offer bonuses for finishing the fight instead of for winning the fight. And organizations that reward fighters for exciting fights, rather than just wins, are likely, in the long run, to put on better shows.

Perhaps, though, the real message to take away from this is that boring fights will happen. Adding more rules and referee interventions will never take us closer to that idea of what a fight ‘should be’. Maybe we are better off just learning to live with the fact that some fights will be dull, rather than trying to make the sport artificially entertaining.