whyidie Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I have a couple of fighters who are very successful but don't put on good performances. Or I just don't like them. Some of them resort to clinch and stall only as last resort, but a couple of them are consistently putting in poorly rated performances while winning. I want them on the roster for a number of reasons, but hate the idea of them holding the belt. I want them beat and I'm willing to change the rules to do it. I toyed around a little bit with 7 5 minute rounds in the hopes that fatigue will increase the chances of a finish. Results are mixed at this point. Changed from cage to ring, but this didn't seem to have an impact. My next step is to go to even longer rounds as I'm at the point where I don't care who wins, just as long as its decisive. Anyone else toyed with rule changes to combat different fight styles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheProdigy Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 That seems a little unfair unless you plan on keeping those same rules for everyone. If you are willing to go out of your way to ensure they don't win the belt why keep them on the roster? Just cut them and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigilistic Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Alternatively, prevent decision finishes from happening. Have matches where there's no finish end in a draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyidie Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 That seems a little unfair unless you plan on keeping those same rules for everyone. If you are willing to go out of your way to ensure they don't win the belt why keep them on the roster? Just cut them and move on. It is a little unfair, but only a little The way I'm rationalizing it to myself is a fighter holding on and winning via points is no better than a fighter running away the whole time. Both strategies are safe strategies which to me do not show that the fighter playing it safe is a superior fighter. The points systems happens to favor the fighter showing greater "control" in close range vs the fighter showing greater control by constantly running. By extending the fights, I'm essentially saying "the outcome is not clear, more fighting" . I wish this was an actual option vs extending the fights to 10x5 rounds. Just cut them and move on. They're providing a point of interest for me at the moment. Matching them up against each other is fun. That way I only have to deal with one dominant snoozer. Matching them up against fighters I whom I would prefer lost is another use for them. I can also try moving them up out of their natural weight classes. Who knows maybe if I subject them to unfair rule changes, pit them against larger opponents, make them fight on short notice, and generally put them through hell and they still win...I may even become their biggest advocate. Alternatively, prevent decision finishes from happening. Have matches where there's no finish end in a draw. That ballsy. I may not have the gumption for that. I'm going to increase lenght of fights first and see if that has any impact on rate of finishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsilv0 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I just try to find bad matchups for them to get on a losing streak so I can justify the cut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuchreJack Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 First, I suggest making everything legal. That will increase the damage being dealt out, as far as I can tell. Second, instead of making decisions counted by each round, make it based on the whole contest. That will make the contest go longer. Third, experiment with either lots of really short rounds, which generally favors standup fighters, or a few extremely long rounds, which favor ground/wrestling fighters. Make certain to pit the snoozers against those who benefit most from the rules change. It is hard to justify cutting these guys and gals because their win record makes them popular, generally. I generally want to milk their popularity before cutting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjizzle38 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Try shortening the rounds, this will prevent less stalls and less failed attempts which result in better fights. I usually go 3x5 standard and do 3x8 for main events/title fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedMachine Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 I'd just go for not hiring them in the first place it's not completly a rare thing to see a high level fighter passed over for being boring like the UFC with Ben Askren or in the case of this game me with Kafu Bunya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marciano Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 Mr Dana White, welcome to Greydog! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generic Heel 104 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 My tip for Tomohiro Takeuchi is to fire him out of a cannon into the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whyidie Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 First, I suggest making everything legal. That will increase the damage being dealt out, as far as I can tell. Second, instead of making decisions counted by each round, make it based on the whole contest. That will make the contest go longer. Third, experiment with either lots of really short rounds, which generally favors standup fighters, or a few extremely long rounds, which favor ground/wrestling fighters. Make certain to pit the snoozers against those who benefit most from the rules change. It is hard to justify cutting these guys and gals because their win record makes them popular, generally. I generally want to milk their popularity before cutting them. Went ahead and legalized everything. Haven't run enough shows under the new format yet but early returns so far show no increase in finishes due to kicks/elbows etc,. On the good side, injuries haven't increased either. Tried one 1x60 fight with two ground based fighters. Ended in decision but I didn't read the play by play. This may be the way to go as on occasion a fighter will get into mount without enough time to finish. Try shortening the rounds, this will prevent less stalls and less failed attempts which result in better fights. I usually go 3x5 standard and do 3x8 for main events/title fights. An entirely different approach. What do your results look like when you have two well rounded fighters facing each other ? Even if the fight goes to decision, as long as there is malice I'd be happy. I'd just go for not hiring them in the first place it's not completly a rare thing to see a high level fighter passed over for being boring like the UFC with Ben Askren or in the case of this game me with Kafu Bunya Some fighters are just to good to pass up. In the early stages I needed them to grow the org. In the later stages pulling in a Sean Morrision or Tomohiro Takeuechi is a sign that I have arrived. My tip for Tomohiro Takeuchi is to fire him out of a cannon into the sun. Two title fights, two very poor draws (I use even numbered rounds for championship fights, prefer the draw to a snooze win) against Hans Chrisitian Block, who has turned in some snoozers as well. My featherweight class went from one of the most exciting in the early years to an absolute snooze fest with grinders like Kenji Akita, Hans Christian Block, Tomohiro Takeuchi, Easton Frye, and the appropriately named Snorri Gunnarsson. At least most of them will finish most fighters outside of the top 5, but match them up against each other and it really turns into a grind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.