Media Aljo explains why fighters shouldn't get rewarded points for takedown defense

[lepsahekim]

This backwards logic would be an absolute sport killer ripe for abuse. You are giving the defender zero incentive to take any risks. Zero incentive to disengage and escape. This thought process highly encourages inactivity and would lead to the sport being far worse and far more boring.

What are you talking about, doesn’t even address what I posted.

 

[Ace70 V2]

Imagine if you got points for just blocking punches. You would just focus on blocking punches and be defensive and win. I feel like it's hard to say defending a takedown is a reward in itself when guys like Merab spam you and defending it doesn't really matter.

That sounds like me playing call of duty. I'm not gonna get a lot of kills, but I'll place high because you get points for completing objectives. Capture a flag. Block a punch. Stop a takedown. Only works in video games.

 

[lepsahekim]

This is the most ridiculous thing written on Sherdog in a long time.
I guess Kaleb Starnes got robbed for not being rewarded "Control Time" vs Nate Quarry.

Nate is the one earning the control time because he is trying to strike, eventually in a funny way, Starnes is baking up and not defending any take downs, which is the topic we are discussing, witch would not give any control time. I honestly don’t even understand your reply as it makes no sense and is off topic.

 

[sdpdude9]

What are you talking about, doesn’t even address what I posted.

I explained the flaw in your logic and all the issues that come along with it’s implementation into the scoring criteria. If we start counting takedown defense as control time as you suggested then the sport will suffer greatly.

 

[lepsahekim]

I explained the flaw in your logic and all the issues that come along with it’s implementation into the scoring criteria. If we start counting takedown defense as control time as you suggested then the sport will suffer greatly.

Why would it suffer greatly, less takedowns would be spammed, less lay and pray, fights would stay standing more, crowds and viewers would be more pleased, ticket and PPV sales would increase, UFC would be thriving. Where is the negative aspect besides you saying it would be bad for the sport?

 

[sdpdude9]

Why would it suffer greatly, less takedowns would be spammed, less lay and pray, fights would stay standing more, crowds and viewers would be more pleased, ticket and PPV sales would increase, UFC would be thriving. Where is the negative aspect besides you saying it would be bad for the sport?

Ah, so you didn’t even read where I explained the issues that would come from it. Your idea is short sighted and would lead to unintended consequences that would harm the sport and actually make it way more boring. I get it, you hate wrestling. Go watch kickboxing, this is mma.

 

[SideKickPro24]

No one has won a fight by spamming unsuccessful takedowns only.

It's usually mixed in with some dirty boxing, and pushing someone up to a cage to knee them in the legs.

not a direct example, but Kampan vs Sanchez comes to mind. Diego did get TDs and had constant pressure throughout the fight. But he was also the one getting beat up.

To me Diego’s getting points by clinching and td, but the ones he didn’t get should have counted for Kampan.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Nate is the one earning the control time because he is trying to strike, eventually in a funny way, Starnes is baking up and not defending any take downs, which is the topic we are discussing, witch would not give any control time. I honestly don’t even understand your reply as it makes no sense and is off topic.

Nate is trying to strike but Caleb is defending and Nate’s strikes aren’t landing. A fighter attempting a TD is forcing the opponent to defend. But you are claiming defending a TD successfully = control. Both are the same and you are being ignorant or intentionally trolling.

claiming defending a TD is control is moronic

 

[trenton123]

He outgrappled and out struck Yan.

I'd have to watch it again but I don't really think so. Grappling seemed pretty even. He just put it all together better.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

I'd have to watch it again but I don't really think so. Grappling seemed pretty even. He just put it all together better.

I don't know how it seemed even, he had more takedowns, more control time and more dominant positions.

 

[Area809]

No it doesn't. It's not damage or threatening a submission.

You defend takedowns, so that means that the fighter attempting to execute the takedown is being offensive. Fights can potentially last 15-25 minutes. If you’re only scoring strikes and submission attempts, then you’re ignoring more than half of the fight. Grappling is not just submissions. It’s also position and control. If I can put you in a position and you’re incapable of getting yourself out of it, then I should be rewarded. You shouldn’t be rewarded for not knowing how to grapple. If the fighter on top is not active enough, the ref can stand them up at his discretion.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

You defend takedowns, so that means that the fighter attempting to execute the takedown is being offensive. Fights can potentially last 15-25 minutes. If you’re only scoring strikes and submission attempts, then you’re ignoring more than half of the fight. Grappling is not just submissions. It’s also position and control. If I can put you in a position and you’re incapable of getting yourself out of it, then I should be rewarded. You shouldn’t be rewarded for not knowing how to grapple. If the fighter on top is not active enough, the ref can stand them up at his discretion.

This, if you are just defending then you are losing.

 

[HHJ]

You defend takedowns, so that means that the fighter attempting to execute the takedown is being offensive. Fights can potentially last 15-25 minutes. If you’re only scoring strikes and submission attempts, then you’re ignoring more than half of the fight. Grappling is not just submissions. It’s also position and control. If I can put you in a position and you’re incapable of getting yourself out of it, then I should be rewarded. You shouldn’t be rewarded for not knowing how to grapple. If the fighter on top is not active enough, the ref can stand them up at his discretion.

lol its like trying to explain 2 + 2 = 4

"NO OMG ITS NOT!"

 

[mmainvestigations]

You defend takedowns, so that means that the fighter attempting to execute the takedown is being offensive. Fights can potentially last 15-25 minutes. If you’re only scoring strikes and submission attempts, then you’re ignoring more than half of the fight. Grappling is not just submissions. It’s also position and control. If I can put you in a position and you’re incapable of getting yourself out of it, then I should be rewarded. You shouldn’t be rewarded for not knowing how to grapple. If the fighter on top is not active enough, the ref can stand them up at his discretion.

Just because something is "offense" doesn't mean it has to be scored necessarily. It's a choice at the end of the day.

You mentioned that keeping someone in a disadvantageous position is some sort of feat in itself. If this were a wrestling match, id agree. But given that merely keeping someone on their back gets you no closer to ending the fight, I would disagree that it should count for points. The fact that jostling for position is 'half the fight' is irrelevant. Wrestling is merely a style choice to get the same end result everyone else wants: a KO or submission. Rewarding them purely on the basis of this style choice and not for moving the fight closer to a conclusion doesn't make sense to me.

 

[lepsahekim]

Ah, so you didn’t even read where I explained the issues that would come from it. Your idea is short sighted and would lead to unintended consequences that would harm the sport and actually make it way more boring. I get it, you hate wrestling. Go watch kickboxing, this is mma.

Still waiting for your actual arguments. Ah, I get it, you hate striking. Go watch wrestling, this is mma. Am I doing it right? You know, making senseless arguments. You seem to be the master, please let me know if it got it right.

 

[NoBiasJustMMA]

Still waiting for your actual arguments. Ah, I get it, you hate striking. Go watch wrestling, this is mma. Am I doing it right? You know, making senseless arguments. You seem to be the master, please let me know if it got it right.

He already explained it as have many others, maybe read the posts you reply to.

 

[lepsahekim]

Nate is trying to strike but Caleb is defending and Nate’s strikes aren’t landing. A fighter attempting a TD is forcing the opponent to defend. But you are claiming defending a TD successfully = control. Both are the same and you are being ignorant or intentionally trolling.

claiming defending a TD is control is moronic

Buddy. They only troll here is you and even worse it just appears to be ignorance on your part. You don’t even understand the video you posted. It doesn’t support your argument at all and makes it weaker.

 

[sdpdude9]

Still waiting for your actual arguments. Ah, I get it, you hate striking. Go watch wrestling, this is mma. Am I doing it right? You know, making senseless arguments. You seem to be the master, please let me know if it got it right.

I guess they’re senseless arguments if you’re too thick to read and understand them. Already explained it in my original reply, maybe give it another go? If you need help understanding some of the words I’d be happy to help.

Here’s a couple easy questions for you and your sound logic. Explain how rewarding defense will make offense go up? If I’m rewarded for playing it safe and not taking risks, what incentive do I have to take risks and be offensive?

 

[dipstickjimmy]

Buddy. They only troll here is you and even worse it just appears to be ignorance on your part. You don’t even understand the video you posted. It doesn’t support your argument at all and makes it weaker.

Explain how? You claimed a fighter defending a TD is controlling the action. That is a moronic point.
In the gif I posted if we use your idea then Nate is trying to strike and Caleb gets points for controlling because he is defending himself from getting hit. If you think that sounds stupid that is because it is. Just like claiming defending TDs is control.

 

[NameForRent]

Using Aljo's thinking, spamming takedown attempts and not getting them would be like shooting a ton of jumpers in an NBA game, missing them, but still winning the game.

Can't have it both ways on this.