As a longtime commentator and passionate advocate for the sport, Joe Rogan continues to push for improvements that would make fights more competitive and fair. Whether it’s better gloves to prevent eye pokes or allowing knees to downed opponents, Rogan’s opinions have been widely shared and debated.
Now, after re-watching the fight between Charles Oliveira and Arman Tsarukyan at UFC 3oo last year, Rogan has found another rule that he believes needs to be changed. This change could have directly impacted the outcome of their fight and, in the process, set up a different title fight at UFC 311.
Some may see his take as controversial, but Rogan assures that this adjustment would make the sport better.
In an episode of his podcast, he argued the points system, claiming fighters securing near-submissions should have more impact on the overall scoring.
“Well look at like the Arman Tsarukyan fight, if you think about that fight with Charles Oliveira, he caught him multiple times in deep submissions which I think should count for a lot.”, Rogan said.
Although he didn’t dive into the details of how such a subjective system of scoring would work, the UFC commentator claimed that Oliveira should have won the fight courtesy of his submission attempts.
“It was kind of a controversial opinion. But I think a tightly locked triangle or d’arce choke or anything along those lines should be considered winning”, he asserted.
On more than one occasion during the fight, Oliveira had Arman in deep chokes just inches away from getting a submission win. However, Tsarukyan was able to weather the storm, survive the bell, and eventually get a win, thanks to a split decision.
With credits to the Armenian fighter for his resilience, Oliveira simply looked the better fighter despite losing what would later be considered a #1 contender match for the lightweight title.
When a fighter secures a knockdown, it counts as a big moment on the scorecard. However, with submissions, it’s either a tap or a bust. There’s no reward for a well-executed maneuver.
To Rogan, that just seems deeply unfair. And it’s only one of the many rules Rogan feels the athletic commissions need to revisit.
Rogan wants an overhaul of boxing rules in MMA
Beyond weight cutting, Rogan has scrutinized the existing MMA scoring system, which utilizes the 10-point must system adapted from boxing. He contends that this framework is ill-suited for the multifaceted nature of MMA, where a narrow 10-9 round can reflect either a closely contested round or a dominant performance, leading to inconsistent outcomes.
He argues for a more comprehensive scoring approach that accurately reflects the wide playing field of MMA, including striking, grappling, and control.
Furthermore, he has championed adjustments to the rules that would benefit BJJ practitioners. He argues that current regulations disproportionately favor strikers and wrestlers, often to the detriment of BJJ specialists.
For instance, the practice of stand-ups during ground fights can disrupt a grappler’s strategy and negate their positional advantages. Rogan suggests eliminating these stand-ups to allow grapplers more time to work without interruption, thereby promoting a more equitable environment that acknowledges the intricacies of ground fighting.
Additionally, advocating for fighter safety, the UFC commentator also comes down hard on the practice of weight cutting. He has emphatically criticized this method, stating, “No one should be cutting weight… It should be looked at the same way steroids are looked at. It’s sanctioned cheating.”
He highlights the severe health risks associated with extreme weight loss, including dehydration and potential fatality, and proposes that fighters compete at their natural weights to mitigate these dangers.
What do you think about Rogan’s arguments? Should weight-cutting still be a thing, especially considering how ceremonial they have become? What about the changes to scoring? Do let us know.
