Trading Shots: So what is 'intelligent defense,' anyway?

In this week’s Trading Shots, MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and former UFC/WEC fighter Danny Downes look back at UFC 169 and wonder, so what does “intelligent defense” mean, anyway?

* * * *

Fowlkes: Danny, the way I see it we have two options today. We can discuss the how and why and wherefore of the most underwhelming UFC event in a good long while, which I don’t think would be much fun because I suspect we’d just end up agreeing that, except for Abel Trujillo and Jamie Varner, this one kind of sucked.

Or, door No. 2, we can get straight to the meat and potatoes and debate the stoppage in Saturday’s UFC 169 pay-per-view headliner between bantamweight champion Renan Barao and Urijah Faber (watch the Barao vs. Faber video highlights).

I vote for door No. 2, mainly because I’m trying not to nod off at my desk here, but also because I’m curious about the fighter’s perspective. I think we probably agree that that was a bad stoppage, but why was it bad? Was it because Faber’s decision to crouch motionless and cover up should count as “intelligent defense?” Was it because Barao’s punches weren’t hitting anything but glove? Was it because Faber’s a vet and this was a title fight, obligating referee Herb Dean to wait until someone’s heart stops? Why, Danny? You tell me. What, exactly, was wrong with that stoppage, if anything?

Downes: The reasons you mention are valid, but my biggest problem with the stoppage is that it showed an extremely elementary knowledge of MMA. Just because something looks bad, it doesn’t mean it is bad. It’s like when a guy throws a head kick and misses by a mile. The average person lets out an “Oooooh,” but an experienced observer knows that the kick was worthless. It may have appeared that Faber was in a bad position last night, but an experienced person could tell that he was fine.

A few people have been saying, “Well it’s Faber’s fault because he wasn’t moving.” Movement alone does not equal intelligent defense. Once you’re in a shell/turtle position, there are fewer openings for your opponent to exploit. Moving would cause you to create more defensive gaps. Can you hold onto that position for an extended period? No, but Faber wasn’t given the chance to show his next move. The situation reminded me of the first time Frank Mir and Brock Lesnar fought. If Steve Mazzagatti did the same thing Dean did, he would have called the fight as soon as Lesnar started throwing those hammerfists.

I’m not trying to throw Dean under the bus here. He’s a great referee, and he made a mistake in the heat of the moment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that Dean erred on the side of caution. He chose to stop the fight early with the fighter’s safety in mind. Isn’t that a good thing? Or are you going to tell me this is the continued pussification of America and that pretty soon we’re going to be watching a two-hand touch Super Bowl?

Fowlkes: I’m glad you mentioned Mazzagatti. Imagine how enraged the MMA community would be right now if he’d done this. The Jersey crowd would have pelted him with pizza crusts and old iPhones as he left the arena. UFC President Dana White would have screamed himself hoarse before evaporating into a cloud of rage and expensive cologne. Even Faber might have been forced to crack that classy post-fight veneer and express a little righteous anger. It would have been a sign of all that is wrong with MMA, indicting the sport and everyone in it. It definitely would not have been brushed off as an honest mistake.

Not that I don’t understand why Dean gets more slack than Mazzagatti; Herb has earned it while The Mazz has earned… something else. I just think it highlights what a difficult distinction we’re asking these refs to make in situations like that one.

For instance, as you alluded to, we know that you can’t just turtle up indefinitely and shield the more delicate areas of your person while you wait for the round to end. We seem to have agreed that that does not constitute an intelligent defense, but we’ve also agreed that you can do that for a little while and you’ll probably be fine. The question is, how long can before we give up on you? If Dean had waited another 15 seconds – even if Barao’s strikes weren’t any more effective during that time – would we have been OK with the stoppage? How about 30 seconds? How about a minute? How about 90 seconds, but only if Faber switched from the thumbs up to the hang loose sign midway through? You see what a ridiculous calculus we’re asking part-time refs to perform under penalty of public excoriation?

Downes: Not all of us can make a living in our ivory tower high above Montana, Fowlkes. It’s a tough job where you’re either berated for being an idiot or yelled at for being an idiot. MMA is like any other sport. Referees are forced to make judgement calls in the heat of the moment at a very fast pace. That’s why they make that thousand of dollars.

When something like this happens, the first question we should ask is, how do we make sure this doesn’t happen again? OK, fine, the first question we normally ask is, what the [expletive] was he thinking? But after that we should try to focus on improving the problem. Other sports have introduced rule changes and instant replay to try to lessen the chances for a “screw job” (I believe that’s the technical term). If you ask me, what happened last night will continue to happen as long as MMA exists. There’s no way to change things without drastically altering the way the sport is conducted. What type of adjustments can we make to prevent early stoppages? Should we have a council of nine judges appointed by an executive who serve life terms and rule on a majority basis? No way that type of thing ever works.

Fowlkes: One thing we definitely shouldn’t do is what the Texas commission reportedly did recently, changing Jessica Eye’s split decision win over Sarah Kaufman to a no-contest months after the fact, and for no good (or even clearly stated) reason. I agree that referee (and judge) mistakes will always be a part of the sport, but I don’t think that prevents us from having these discussions from time to time and clarifying the rules when necessary.

Should a fighter in Faber’s situation get to cover up and collect his thoughts for a moment, provided he is not absorbing a ton of damage as he does it? Yeah, I think so. At least for a little while. I think it’s weird how a ref can request that the wounded fighter show us he’s still in it, and somehow we assume that means he needs to flail around and put himself in a worse position. I think that’s an antiquated notion from a bygone era of MMA, and we should update our understanding accordingly. Mostly though, I’m worried that we’re getting to a point where we no longer do that with MMA rules. We think we know the rules – even the rules that aren’t really rules so much as common understandings – and we risk leaving ourselves open to the same mistakes over and over again.

Yes, refs have it rough. So let’s make sure we all agree on what the criteria are and what they should be, rather than piling on them after the fact. If it was you down there flashing the thumbs up and protecting your corn rows from further damage, Mr. Downes, wouldn’t you want at least that much consideration?

Downes: Each and every MMA fight has much more at stake than just one win or loss. Especially in the UFC, where each roster spot can be taken away in a short amount of time. Obviously Faber doesn’t have to worry about job security, but most other fighters don’t have that luxury. When referee/judges’ decisions can cost a fighter half a paycheck and maybe even his or her job entirely, extra care and education should go into that process.

When it comes to things like 12-6 elbows, or clarifying what constitutes a 10-8 round, there’s a lot of room for improvement. With regards to what happened last night, I don’t think there is a lot that can be changed. We laugh when we hear fighters say, “You’re going to have to kill me to get me to quit!” (and rightly so), but that’s how they feel. Even if they’ve been getting beat up for 95 percent of the fight, they still have that hope that they can pull something off in the last 30 seconds. They want to be afforded that opportunity. Is it reckless, foolhardy and lacking in logic and reason? You bet it is. Should we deny them the opportunity? After last night, I think we all know the answer to that.

For complete coverage of UFC 169, stay tuned to the UFC Events section of the site.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who also writes for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.