Stuffed takedown should give you points on the scorecard imo.

[Alanf7]

Defending a takedown is a hard skill, why shouldn't you get points for defending numerous takedowns?

Thoughts?

 

[FastTracker]

one td no, but lets say you stuff like 6 or 7 in 1 rd and yes.

 

[TheLastEmperorReurns]

Judges effectively do.

When two fighters are equal on the feet but one of them is frequently trying to change levels and gets stuffed every time the fighter who keeps it standing wins even if he or she isn't winning the exchanges.

Examples:
-Machida/Shogun I
-Overeem/Werdum II & III

 

[Head Movement]

You should get points for offences, not defence, not getting taken down is a way to minimalise your oppenents offence, so it's kind off a reward in of itself.

 

[countswagula]

The reward for defending a takedown is not getting taken down

Should blocking a strike give you points on the scorecard too?

 

[Alanf7]

The reward for defending a takedown is not getting taken down

Should blocking a strike give you points on the scorecard too?

Blocking strikes isn't as hard as defending a takedown.

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

You out grappled you opponent.

It should score as much as a takedown would have.

 

[countswagula]

Blocking strikes isn't as hard as defending a takedown.

What about slipping punches then? That's arguably a lot harder and certainly riskier.

 

[spooNN]

You don't get rewarded for defending. Imagine getting points for defending in other sports?

 

[dildos]

I agree, if takedowns offensively score points for the fighter, defending takedowns surely should weigh in on the scoring factor for that fighter.

 

[Magooglie]

No points. If you punch the guy in the face afterwards you get points.

 

[cshireman4]

Blocking strikes isn't as hard as defending a takedown.

Wrong. Let Aldo string a combo together and compare that to a gassed out fighter shooting from too far outside. A good shot that is set up correctly is harder to stop than one single strike, but do you really think the current level of judging could differentiate between the two in a live fight? I certainly don't.

 

[MDoza]

Context needs to be considered when scoring takedowns, and in general.

- When the takedown/defense occurs in the round. Late takedowns leave no time for damage/sub attempts.

- Fighter styles - A takedown landed against Demian Maia should not be scored as heavily as one against Conor McGregor. Conversely, defending a Maia takedown is more valuable than defending a McGregor takedown.

The judging/scoring system in general needs an overhaul. The few small changes that have been made are nice, but there's a lot of work to be done.

 

[The Witcher]

I agree completely. Takedowns are for pussies anyway

 

[thechoice2]

I think it's hilarious how people say you "get points" for something. Explain to me what you get points for in fighting, I mean actual offensive skills that translate into action. For example, how many points do you get for a knockdown? How about a takedown? Near submission? Rocking your opponent standing?

The answer to all of the above is none, you don't get points for anything, you can only lose a point or more for performing poorly or for committing fouls.

 

[AimedWithV]

I agree completely. Takedowns are for pussies anyway

Please stop watching MMA.
You embarass its fanbase.

 

[Mangar]

Nah

 

[Frank23]

That is a terrible idea.

 

[Askafan]

I wouldn't say scoring stuffed takedowns but getting back up from a takedown certainly. In both cases you are achieving something your opponent is trying to prevent.

 

[bufetadanacara]

To hell with points. Points are great in figure skating and gymnastics.

This is supposed to be a fight. I'd rather one judge just choose a winner.