Dan Hardy Has Some Strong Words for UFC Stall Artists

It’s one of the biggest debates going in today’s decision-filled world of big fights not living up to their potential: why are wrestlers rewarded for taking their opponents to the ground and doing nothing? Depending on whom you, ask there’s a growing feeling of resentment (some have even entered the land of legitimate hatred) towards decision-heavy wrestlers like Jon Fitch, Gray Maynard, and to some extent, even Georges St. Pierre. In a recent column with This is Nottingham, former #1 Welterweight Contender Dan Hardy went on a lengthy tirade on the subject. Hardy was quick to vehemently criticize wrestlers going to the ground and stalling out the fight. Here’s what he had to say.

“There are a lot of people out there calling themselves ‘UFC fighters’ who are nothing of the kind. In the UFC, you should go for finishes. You should work for 15 minutes to knock your opponent out, submit him, or improve your position to give yourself the best chance of doing either. But there’s guys out there who just want to use wrestling to hold a stalemate for 15 minutes, without ever risking going for ground and pounds or attempting submissions. This isn’t ‘cheating within the rules’ – it is actually against the rules. ‘Timidity’ is outlawed in the Unified MMA rules and what better describes [that than] the act of holding on to an opponent and waiting for the clock to tick down with no attempt or inclination to do any damage? …The Athletic Commissions need to look at the scoring and refereeing to stop this from becoming a problem. If a guy is in a dominant position, but not actually doing anything offensive – stand ‘em back up. If he is consistently trying to tie the other guy up to avoid actual fighting – warn him and then start taking points. It is supposed to be a fight.”

Here’s what I think. Hardy earned my respect for the toughness he displayed while Georges St. Pierre was busy dominating him in every conceivable way possible, but let’s be honest here: is Dan Hardy saying anything we haven’t heard/read/seen/etc. hundreds of times before? It’s coming out of Dan Hardy’s mouth, but it’s the same old argument.

And if you’re wondering, it’s actually an argument I agree with. Fighters should be penalized for stalling. Fighters should be penalized for not engaging. There’s a difference between playing it safe and being a coward. Randy Couture played it safe when he immediately took down James Toney and submitted him. Georges St. Pierre played it safe when he took down Thiago Alves and Dan Hardy time and time again and proceeded to Ground and Pound them and try to submit them. But fighters who use “lay and pray” or “wall and stall” are simply detrimental to the sport as a whole.

However, I don’t see this issue going away anytime soon. Why? Simply put: one man’s inactivity is another man’s dominance. Where do we draw the line between tactics and stalling? Is there a mathematical formula, an X amount of punches/submission attempts you have to land/go for per Y minutes on the ground, in order to not be classified as a “lay and pray” fighter? Unless there are some drastic changes, I don’t see decision-heavy, wrestling-based UFC fighters changing their styles just because it draws the ire of some fans and even some fighters. How they win is a tactic like any other, and until the referees and judges put their foot down on the matter, look for the zombified corpse of this debate to continue to rear its ugly head time and time again.

And how do you feel on the matter, fans and friends? How harshly should wrestlers be penalized for their inactivity, and perhaps most importantly, where do you draw the line between an active and inactive ground game?