Why can you win a fight by missing submissions but not win by missing strikes?

[revoltub]

In ufc you can win a decision by failing a sub attempt over and over. Yet if you missed strikes over and over...you would lose.

"Control" is overrated. In 25 minutes...if you cant lock in a suvmission and finish....there is no reason to think youd lock it in if there were no rounds.. ..

Grappling has an advantage in scoring when it comes to this. You can fail to finish the fight and still get the nod even if you were outstruck...just because you controlled the grappling (but did no damage).

In striking. ..if you got hit more but controlled the action while missing (using things like agression) youd lose.

I think it is strange. Yes controlling someone is important...but if there is no damage done. .and you failed your objective (submission), you dont deserve the win.

 

[Minowafanatic]

They aren't equivalents, but I get what you're saying. I don't think of "control" as much of a thing in striking, as the only thing that anyone really respects are the shots landed. I think RE: failed sub attempts, that it's just an arbitrary ruling. If you are defending a submission attempt, you're closer to losing the fight than the other guy is, at that moment, even if you aren't in all that much danger, so they figure, that means you're the one losing and it's scored against you, even if there's been no actual physical toll or damage done to you as an outcome.

 

[DaPunkMinowaMan]

In ufc you can win a decision by failing a sub attempt over and over. Yet if you missed strikes over and over...you would lose.

"Control" is overrated. In 25 minutes...if you cant lock in a suvmission and finish....there is no reason to think youd lock it in if there were no rounds.. ..

Grappling has an advantage in scoring when it comes to this. You can fail to finish the fight and still get the nod even if you were outstruck...just because you controlled the grappling (but did no damage).

In striking. ..if you got hit more but controlled the action while missing (using things like agression) youd lose.

I think it is strange. Yes controlling someone is important...but if there is no damage done. .and you failed your objective (submission), you dont deserve the win.

B4 the new recent rules, one fighter said:

" “If I’m at the bottom, it’s a waste of time to throw up submissions. It’s better to get back on my feet.""

 

[gb@Trumpski]

I don't like how yo uare using missing in two different way in your comparison.


Missing a punch is not the same as not completing a submission. Missign a punch is like rolling for a ankle lock but not being able to grab hold of the leg. I don't think there would be points for that.

 

[gb@Trumpski]

Being ion contl, doing a submission combo after combo is better compatred to striking someone but not KO'ing them.

Also, you can win a round with the most girly and rubbish strike if the other person did even less (e..g rampage's two weak knees to legs against cage in an entire round vs Machida)

 

[La Elefante]

Submission = Knockout

Punches landed that dont KO opponent = almost submission.

fuck outta here. If anything they overvalue strikes and under value ground control.

A fighter that almost submits his opponent is closer to finishing the fight than a fighter landing 10 mediocre punches that barely cause any damage.

 

[Oachkazl]

An attempted submission pressures your opponent and gives you, most of the time, sort of control over him.

Throwing strikes that miss completely just opens yourself up for counters.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Here is the most basic way I can think to answer this. Setting up a submission is a complicated process that requires more effort and technical ability. Locking up submissions is not easy in the slightest. You have to constantly fight your opponent's defense while trying to prevent their escapes.

Step by step it looks a bit like this

Takedown, control, shift position, create/exploit opening, go for sub, maintain control, maintain position, prevent escape, fight submission defense, change submission, ect.

You can punch and kick at a guys guard for 25 minutes and it will be nowhere near as thought out and technical as going for a submission.

 

[SMEGMA]

TS has never seen a Leonard Garcia fight.

 

[Minowafanatic]

You can punch and kick at a guys guard for 25 minutes and it will be nowhere near as thought out and technical as going for a submission.

Or, it could be 100x more technical than going for a submission. Depends on the strikes and the submission.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

Or, it could be 100x more technical than going for a submission. Depends on the strikes and the submission.

Well yes, there is variability to all of this but in general grappling exchanges 9/10 times will be more technical.

The big differences are the level of set up control/multitasking in grappling exchanges as well as the much more exhausting nature of grappling.

Typically, two strikers of the same level will have less technical exchanges than two grapplers of the same level. Not always but usually

 

[IamStryker]

Probably because submissions and strikes are two totally different things.

 

[mmacasualviewer]

Blocking Submissions can be less risky than blocking strikes.

 

[HIMBOB]

Much more common to win fights for not KOing your opponent, does that upset you too?

Really no difference between the two, both will bring you closer to finishing a fight.

 

[Askafan]

How about getting back up from a takedown being equal to the takedown itself?

In both cases you're probably doing something your opponent is trying to prevent?

 

[PapaBherd]

Submission attempts(the genuinely threatening ones, at least) are more comparable to blocked or partially-hitting shots.

 

[VVarhead]

Judges score this mostly by "control" and the perception of "danger".
You're in a non-dominant position whereas your enemy is in a dominant position, simple as that. If the fight stays there for all rounds you could threaten 0 submissions and still win the fight 30-25 or even 30-24, imo.
On the back, for example.

Judges also think of "what happens if the fight goes on forever?" and the simple fact is that after 50 minutes with a guy on your back you're gonna get choked the fuck out by a much fresher guy, expecially if he has a body triangle. They consider the fact that he couldn't do anything against it for 3 rounds so he wouldn't be able to defend it if the fight goes on, either. It's even less likely at that point. And by that we know the result.

 

[I.Broke.The.Bat!]

Your argument is invalid. You can win by missing the goal of your strikes, the KO. Win by point.

 

[MPD-Psycho]

Ha ha it's a wording trick, but some didn't fall for it.

 

[Minowafanatic]

Well yes, there is variability to all of this but in general grappling exchanges 9/10 times will be more technical.

The big differences are the level of set up control/multitasking in grappling exchanges as well as the much more exhausting nature of grappling.

Typically, two strikers of the same level will have less technical exchanges than two grapplers of the same level. Not always but usually

Fighters are always thinking in either striking or grappling arts. Saying one is more technical than the other is comparing apples to oranges. The high level body mechanics of both delivering and taking strikes, the constant gauging and control of distance, and the analysis that goes into figuring your opponent out and making adjustments requires huge amounts of technique. The way you hear Joe Rogan commentate though in MMA, you'd think the only technique required is knowing how to throw a combination well. Something being more exhausting doesn't relate to technique either, and I don't see the proof that grappling is necessarily more tiring considering it's not unusual to hear tell of hobbyists rolling for an hour straight, but you don't hear that about sparring striking for an hour straight. Someone can get more beaten up and physically exhausted more easily through getting hurt by strikes than they ever would in grappling. But anyway, that part is really irrelevant. Rolling a boulder up a hill would be exhausting, but it wouldn't require a great deal of technique.

Of course missing a punch requires 0 technique. In a submission attempt, some work has actually been done and that's what they've decided to reward in the ruleset, so the two aren't equivalents to compare.