The Bottom Line: Stop Rewarding Fighters for Instigating Clinches

Editor's note: The views and opinions expressed below are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sherdog.com, its affiliates and sponsors or its parent company, Evolve Media.

Many expected the most exciting bout at UFC Fight Night “Dillashaw vs. Cruz” to take place between striking dynamo Anthony Pettis and all-action slugger Eddie Alvarez on Sunday at the TD Garden in Boston. Alvarez’s wars with Tatsuya Kawajiri, Joachim Hansen and Michael Chandler are as exciting as MMA gets, and Pettis’ highlight reel of knockouts and submissions is second to none. Unfortunately, it wasn’t meant to be, as Alvarez had a different sort of fight in mind.

Following Rafael dos Anjos’s shocking destruction of Pettis in March, Alvarez sought to take advantage of a similar game plan. He would prevent Pettis from striking at range, exploit his wrestling vulnerability and punish him on the ground. Only that didn’t happen. While dos Anjos was able to do what he wanted with Pettis and deal out tremendous punishment in the clinch and on the ground, Alvarez struggled to do the same. Pettis was able to block many of his takedowns and, more importantly, would pop back up in quick order upon hitting the ground most of the time. Alvarez was never able to get comfortable enough to land solid shots or to threaten with submissions. Pettis outlanded him in total strikes in every round, according to FightMetric. Yet in the end, it was Alvarez who got his hand raised via split decision, and he would even complain about the fact that the verdict was split.

This isn’t meant as an indictment of the judges, who scored the fight the way most fights like this one are scored. Nor is it intended to besmirch Alvarez, a gritty fighter who has put it all on the line so many times over the years and had good reason to be cautious with a man as dangerous in the standup as Pettis. It’s not even about Alvarez-Pettis specifically, as Alvarez did more than often occurs in this sort of fight. However, it is long overdue that we reconsider the way we score fights that principally consist of one fighter instigating clinch stalemates. Fighters shouldn’t be rewarded for intentionally grinding a fight to a halt.

The scoring criteria for the universal rules of MMA put the highest emphasis on effective striking and effective grappling. Those criteria work perfectly fine the vast majority of the time. Criticism of MMA judging usually focuses on either implementation of the criteria (judges’ subjective evaluation of who is doing better) or the point system used for the criteria (10 point must, with little deviation from 10-9). The idea of effective striking and effective grappling isn’t challenged often.

The problem with clinch stalemates is that they rarely feature one fighter getting a notable advantage in striking or grappling. Thus, scoring under the universal rules shifts to cage control and effective aggressiveness. That’s likely where the clinch instigator gets the nod. Nobody may be outstriking, outwrestling or threatening with submissions, but the fighter instigating the clinch is controlling where the fight takes place. At least that’s the argument. Backing up an opponent consistently or depositing him on the ground are much more impressive methods of exercising cage control than deciding what spot to stand in a neutral position where nothing is happening.

Perhaps this is a flaw in the criteria. Pride Fighting Championships famously made its first scoring criterion effort to finish the fight, something that rewarded fighters looking to score a knockout or pull off a submission. In fights that are mostly just extended clinches, the strongest effort to finish the fight is usually made by the fighter looking to land a big shot as his opponent moves in for a clinch that will make a finish less likely for either fighter.

It’s still not clear that switching around criteria would do the trick. The solution instead may lie in an open discussion about what we should make of extended clinches. Opinions about what is important in MMA change over time. It was once almost impossible for a fighter to win a round working off his back, but gradually, judges have become more accepting of the value of a dangerous guard. The question then becomes why a fighter should or should not win a round where he or she continually clinches to little effect.

A common line of argument in defense of the status quo is that the fighter instigating clinches is the one succeeding. After all, he or she is turning the fight into a clinch stalemate. It’s an understandable sentiment, but not one that ought to win the day. In boxing, a boxer who constantly clinches is turning the fight into what he wants, but he is not rewarded for it, nor should he be. In MMA, clinching is different because it can be utilized to score violent offense -- ask Rich Franklin about Anderson Silva or Quinton Jackson about Wanderlei Silva -- or to set up takedowns. However, that’s different from the particular brand of clinch fighting we know when we see it, devoted to buying time and avoiding the standup long after it’s clear it won’t lead to meaningful offense.

Besides that, who’s to say the fighter instigating neutral clinches is the one succeeding? The clinch is almost always initiated to accomplish some other goal -- either to set up clinch attacks or to set up a takedown. If the clinch ends up in an effective stalemate, it’s because the opponent is successfully preventing effective clinch attacks and is successfully blocking takedown attempts. The clinchers are forced to hang on because they are being prevented from doing anything more.

Putting aside all other arguments about who is doing better in an extended clinchfest, there is the pivotal issue of the perverse incentive system that is set up when we reward fighters for neutralizing rather than attacking. Fans will complain about dull clinch fights where little happens but then conclude that the fighter creating the awful fight where nothing much happens deserves to be labeled the victor. Fighters see this; and when they aren’t able to score in the clinch or get a takedown, they are incentivized to simply hang on rather than switching up their strategy and making the fight more exciting.

If we want to see fewer fights that are extended stalemates with little effective striking or groundwork and we aren’t firmly convinced that one fighter or the other is doing better, it makes sense to not reward the fighter who is causing the stalemate. When a fight with as much promise as Pettis-Alvarez turns out the way it did, there’s every reason to hope for more next time out. Scoring criteria should make fighters less likely to want to engage in that sort of fight, not more.