Should takedowns and control be considered offensive or defensive maneuvers?

[sdpdude9]

If a wrestler takes down a fighter and controls them, do you consider that to be offensive or defensive tactics? Some may argue it is a defensive tactic because you defending by mitigating your opponent’s offense. Some could argue that it is offensive because the wrestler is imposing his will and shutting down his opponent.

Do you consider the fighter that initiated the takedown and keeping the other fighter down while not inflicting any major damaging to still be winning the fight? Or is that an even scenario? Should a fighter be rewarded for keeping his opponent on the ground or do you consider that to be neutral?

Personally, I’d say a fighter is imposing his will and gameplan if he’s able to keep the opponent on the mat, even if he’s not inflicting much damage and should be rewarded. While it may not be the most exciting thing to watch, I think it is legitimate tactics and a fighter that is able to do this is winning the fight.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

It's a fight

If you're gonna take a dude down you better hit him too

 

[fortheo]

It's almost like the grappling version of octagon control.

 

[TheJohnnyWalkerEra]

Takedowns should only count as something if you slam the guy good. The rest of the points you get on the ground should be for advancing into dominant positions, submission attempts that were dangerous, or damaging strikes

Lay and pray should count for nothing. Same with weak takedowns in the last few seconds of a round

 

[X Factor]

In sports things are always highly situational so the correct answer almost always starts with it depends
Edit: I also believe lay and pray more often then not is from the bottom fighter holding on waiting for a stand up

 

[TheJohnnyWalkerEra]

It's almost like the grappling version of octagon control.

It is quite similar. Octagon control shouldn't count for much unless one guy/girl is fighting like a coward like Carmouche against Valentina

 

[Threetrees]

If you mean for scoring it doesn't matter
Takedowns are their own reward,and so for scoring purposes they are meaningless (in theory, and this does not include slams or throws) because all that matters is what you do with it after

 

[sdpdude9]

Takedowns should only count as something if you slam the guy good. The rest of the points you get on the ground should be for advancing into dominant positions, submission attempts that were dangerous, or damaging strikes

Lay and pray should count for nothing. Same with weak takedowns in the last few seconds of a round

So if fighter A is able to take fighter b down and keep him there for the majority of the fight but he’s unable to inflict much damage, you would consider that to be a neutral exchange that should have little bearing on a scorecard?

 

[TheJohnnyWalkerEra]

So if fighter A is able to take fighter b down and keep him there for the majority of the fight but he’s unable to inflict much damage, you would consider that to be a neutral exchange that should have little bearing on a scorecard?

If it's completely even otherwise, I'd say give the lay and pray guy a 10-9, but if the guy from the bottom landed anything significant on the feet or keeps throwing up subs and elbows from his back, he should win the round for at least doing something

 

[bolly32]

We'd have an insane amount of lay and pray fights if control in itself was rewarded,so I'm thankful that isn't the case.
Takedowns and control is (rightfully imo) rewarded by judges if it precedes some form of progression towards the end of the fight,be it via punches,passes,or submission attempts.

 

[podsox]

I think guch vs Caldwell is how fights should be scored on the ground

 

[KarateStylist]

Personally, I’d say a fighter is imposing his will and gameplan if he’s able to keep the opponent on the mat, even if he’s not inflicting much damage and should be rewarded. While it may not be the most exciting thing to watch, I think it is legitimate tactics and a fighter that is able to do this is winning the fight.

This. Obviously. Also...

Ever heard of BJJ?

 

[Genisys]

If you wrestle someone to the ground you deserve points for that. They obviously didn't want to be taken down, but couldn't defend it. If you don't attempt to advance position or stay busy then the ref should stand you back up and if you keep repeating the same pattern the ref should give you a short leash when you're in top position. Offensive wrestling if offensive obviously. Defensive wrestling is when you defend against someone else's wrestling. I get what you're saying, but trying to take someone to the ground is an offensive move 100% of the time, unless you have no intention of taking them down and use wrestling just to tie up like they do in boxing.

 

[Booksmasher]

Hey TS, are you having doubts now by opening this topic after our debate in the "Win only by 10-8 or Finish, 10-9 = 10-10" topic? I hope so, hopefully you are being sincere enough to maybe admit I did make a point. Its always a good thing to discuss ideas and see who has the most reasonable arguments. The best of the people are the ones who submit and accept the truth.

If a wrestler takes down a fighter and controls them, do you consider that to be offensive or defensive tactics?

It depends on the fighter. Khabib and Askren use it offensively. Colby and Usman defensively as a neutralizing mechanism.

Some may argue it is a defensive tactic because you defending by mitigating your opponent’s offense.

I know you are talking about me. As I said before, it depends. It COULD be a defensive tactic. It COULD be the beginning of the offense.

Some could argue that it is offensive because the wrestler is imposing his will and shutting down his opponent.

Now this is your argument for Colby and Usman. I would say Colby and Usman are mostly in the threatzone if they are standing. The dangerous aggressor with the deadly weapons mostly is the standing opponent. Their safezone is being this harmless blanket. So that way they use takedowns as a defense.

Do you consider the fighter that initiated the takedown and keeping the other fighter down while not inflicting any major damaging to still be winning the fight? Or is that an even scenario?

In the case of Colby, the opponent as well as Colby are in the safezone if Colby is doing the harmless blanket thing on top. And the opponent alot of the times keeps popping back up, so this wrestling match keeps going back and forth. So to me thats insignificant stuff and unbefitting to award someone with a win.

Should a fighter be rewarded for keeping his opponent on the ground or do you consider that to be neutral? Personally, I’d say a fighter is imposing his will and gameplan if he’s able to keep the opponent on the mat, even if he’s not inflicting much damage and should be rewarded.

If he doesnt have any offense he should be penalized for stalling. Yes, staying safe by being a harmless blanket = stalling.

While it may not be the most exciting thing to watch, I think it is legitimate tactics and a fighter that is able to do this is winning the fight.

It is a legitimate self defense tactic to stay safe.

 

[Lint]

If is just control, then it's neither, the correct name is "not fighting".

Control is an euphemism, how would UFC conquer US audience with just MT/BJJ?

 

[Alpha_T83]

It's a fight

If you're gonna take a dude down you better hit him too

Exactly.

If Fighter A lands 3 solid punches on Fighter B, but then Fighter A gets taken down and controlled for 4:30 -- with ZERO damage or submission attempts from Figher B -- that round should be awarded to Fighter B.

I'm tired of watching wrestlers literally hold someone down and get awarded the round.

 

[Kowboy Karl]

Reactive takedowns should be considered a bitch move and an auto 10-8 round for the sprawl and brawler

If you don’t advance on the ground after 10 seconds it should be an auto stand up an a 10-7

 

[Blayt7hh]

Takedowns should only count as something if you slam the guy good. The rest of the points you get on the ground should be for advancing into dominant positions, submission attempts that were dangerous, or damaging strikes

Lay and pray should count for nothing. Same with weak takedowns in the last few seconds of a round

Well that used to be a huge problem that isn’t so much anymore. Used to be a guy could get his ass whooped for 4 minutes then steal the round with a takedown. Anymore though, the judges seem to be putting a lot less emphasis on it. I actually have a hard time guessing how much weight they give it anymore.

Still, if you take a guy down and stay on top of him for the round, you are winning the fight. Their are some exceptions like Guida/Sanchez, but if the story of the round is a guy getting a takedown and passing guard than he should get the points

 

[fortheo]

So if fighter A is able to take fighter b down and keep him there for the majority of the fight but he’s unable to inflict much damage, you would consider that to be a neutral exchange that should have little bearing on a scorecard?

It depends. Is Fighter A keeping fighter B down, but simply just sitting in his guard? or is he constantly advancing position and looking for subs? Advancing position and passing deserves points and looking for subs deserves more points on top of that, but in my opinion just sitting in someones guard and not even throwing baby gnp should be a neutral postion.