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

[storeybuckle]

Just score it like pride did. For the fighter who's actually trying to finish fight.

 

[dipstickjimmy]

We are talking about take downs and defending taking downs as controlling position. Thread is not about counting striking defense as controlling position and I never stated that so please find someone who is talking about that and post your outlier video and argument there. Please Stop replying to me using arguments that have nothing to do with the content of the thread and my post.

You are either a moron or a troll.
Comparing an attempted TD and defending against it vs an attempted strike and defending that is on point.

But limiting it to your exact scenario attempted offense > defending against that attempted offense its in the fucking rules. Putting you on ignore now to force myself to stop feeding the troll.

 

[sonhow]

Points shouldnt be rewarded purely on defence but on the other hand why should the guy who tries the takedowns be awarded then? And unsecsfull. If thats all he does.
In that case it becomes a matter of opinion I guess.

Thios point isnt relevant to Merab-Yan fight because Merab beat his ass standing as well.

 

[Mr Wings]

You shouldn’t be awarded for takedowns, takedown defense, or takedown attempts, as none of them are fighting, they are simply attempts to change where the fight takes place.

The exception is if you do damage when you take them down.

Never forget, Royce would take opponents down and submit them. All was going well until the wrestlers came in that knew just enough about submission defense to lay on top (doing little damage for fear of getting caught in a sub by a sub guy, or fear of letting up a striker.)

 

[lepsahekim]

You are either a moron or a troll.
Comparing an attempted TD and defending against it vs an attempted strike and defending that is on point.

But limiting it to your exact scenario attempted offense > defending against that attempted offense its in the fucking rules. Putting you on ignore now to force myself to stop feeding the troll.

Never said that one outweighs the other. Again it’s what you do with each that counts. And each (takedown or succesfully keeping it standing) should add to positional control time.

 

[lepsahekim]

You’re not answering the questions and pivoting away from them.

Let me lay it out for you as you seem to really be struggling with this. The defender now has no incentive to escape or reverse the position, no incentive to use their striking because it could open them up to successful takedowns. You have effectively made keeping distance and waiting to stuff takedowns the best path to victory. Your idea discourages grapplers from engaging while encouraging strikers to play it safe. Recipe for a sport ruining idea.

And for fuck’s sake, pretending takedowns are a defensive technique purely to avoid striking exposes how little you understand about the sport. I can tell by your responses you’ve never grappled before because if you had, you’d know you 100% don’t feel in control or offensive when defending a takedown.

I actually grappled (if high school wrestling counts) and never did any striking training, Just an occasional street fight growing up, and my technique was awful. Just swang’n and bang’n until arms tired out or someone went out. Even took a punch to the throat in one of my earliest standing fights and tried to call a time out since I thought I could not breathe and was chocking. The laughter of the neighborhood crowd diffused the whole thing luckily before I was curb stomped.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

I do feel like the current system needs a tweak here the question is scoring how.

Because if one fighter spams 10 takedown attempts in a round he has zero success everything else being equal he wins on control now. But his opponent was the successful fighter here he stopped that guy from doing what he wanted with great success. Alot of people here saying defense is it's own reward but WHAT did it reward him losing control time instead of takedown points the scoresheet will read 10-9 either way. In striking you don't get secondary scoring criteria like failed punches.
I think the real solution needs more rules to prevent stalling rather than scoring criteria, like a 60s clock starts when a fighter is in a stalling position, they still get ahead in points for the round with the successful back take or takedown but they don't get an entire round for holding.

Another idea alot of takedown defense scores but in a losing way, where you get back a .5 so if fighter spams takedowns unsuccessfully to control time they get a 10-9.5 instead of the full 10-9 a fighter who actually won a round gets.

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

Stopping a takedown should be the equivalent to stopping a score in a ball game
You don't automatically get their points because of that
Damage and offense determines the winner in any competition or fight.
If guy 1 punches guy 2 in the face once, and guy 2 punches him zero times, then guy 1 just proceeds to shoot takedowns and fail and fail but guy 2 does absolutely nothing with his denied takedown position, how the shit did guy 2 win? The one punch won it for guy 1.

That's a dumb example, if you flip it to guy 2 lands a punch while guy 1 attempts multiple takedowns unsuccessfully so that neither has time to punch again. Who are you saying wins? That's the issue.

In basketball the aggressive basketball team that dominated zone possession but got no baskets doesn't win over the 2 pointer the team on defense 99% got but that guy wins in MMA all the time.

 

[cburm]

It's easier to take somone down then to defend it ... period point blank..
It's more impressive when somone defends a take down period ...

 

[Jonesisnatural]

That's a dumb example, if you flip it to guy 2 lands a punch while guy 1 attempts multiple takedowns unsuccessfully so that neither has time to punch again. Who are you saying wins? That's the issue.

In basketball the aggressive basketball team that dominated zone possession but got no baskets doesn't win over the 2 pointer the team on defense 99% got but that guy wins in MMA all the time.

YOU'RE DUMB

 

[Mmmmmmma1234]

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?

You keep making this fantasy in your head a FIGHTER will be more excited to score points for TDD than actually land punches or kicks. No one is saying stuffing a few take downs guarantees a 10-8 round on points SO it won't be the huge ace in the hole that end all offensive in MMA. It be an extremely low scoring criteria like aggression or control.

 

[sdpdude9]

You keep making this fantasy in your head a FIGHTER will be more excited to score points for TDD than actually land punches or kicks. No one is saying stuffing a few take downs guarantees a 10-8 round on points SO it won't be the huge ace in the hole that end all offensive in MMA. It be an extremely low scoring criteria like aggression or control.

Boy, am I tired of explaining this. Basic logic dictates rewarding defense will lead to an increase in defensive tactics thus a decrease in offensive tactics. Believing otherwise is plainly wrong. Fights will get more boring, it will not work out how people think. It’s increases reward while reducing risk, not something anybody should want.

 

[mmainvestigations]

You shouldn’t be awarded for takedowns, takedown defense, or takedown attempts, as none of them are fighting, they are simply attempts to change where the fight takes place.

The exception is if you do damage when you take them down.

Never forget, Royce would take opponents down and submit them. All was going well until the wrestlers came in that knew just enough about submission defense to lay on top (doing little damage for fear of getting caught in a sub by a sub guy, or fear of letting up a striker.)

Very astute analysis.

 

[BowserJr]

Yes, it makes no sense that simply not getting taken down = winning.

That’s like someone running away saying they won because they weren’t actively getting their ass beat. You gotta actually do stuff.

No that's not a good comparison.

Octagon control or dictating where the fight takes place is a differentiator when it comes to scoring when all else is equal

If one guy keeps failing at takedowns and then the other guy is controlling where the fight is.

Counting unsuccessful takedowns as offense is like counting punches that clearly miss or punch air as offense.

As far as what Aljo said based on his logic points should not be counted for successful takedowns either. He says "the reward is not being taken down". Based on that, the only reward for a takedown with no followup offense should be the fact that you're on top. No points should be given to the guy who got the takedown. Only point if he's landing some GnP

 

[mmainvestigations]

No that's not a good comparison.

Octagon control or dictating where the fight takes place is a differentiator when it comes to scoring when all else is equal

If one guy keeps failing at takedowns and then the other guy is controlling where the fight is.

Counting unsuccessful takedowns as offense is like counting punches that clearly miss or punch air as offense.

As far as what Aljo said based on his logic points should not be counted for successful takedowns either. He says "the reward is not being taken down". Based on that, the only reward for a takedown with no followup offense should be the fact that you're on top. No points should be given to the guy who got the takedown. Only point if he's landing some GnP

I think that logic is correct.

 

[BowserJr]

No, forcing the opponent to defend would be the ring control

if I push you against the fence with a double leg and you don’t get taken down but also can’t move, I’m still controlling the fight, being offensive and winning

Would You count punching air as successful offense?

 

[Hollywood Jack]

They give grapplers “Octagon control” points for wall and stall or at least they used to (i.e. the controversial Randy over Vera decision). It’s subjective and there’s a lot of moving parts. If not a lot is going on in a fight then little things like Octagon control become a bigger factor in the judging. And that works both ways because the guy defending might be getting the better of the guy who keeps trying and failing to assert dominance.

 

[Final Say]

Would You count punching air as successful offense?

Punching the air isn’t the same as pushing your opponent against the fence and forcing them to physically stop you from grabbing them and trying to get them to the mat though

And I can’t stress enough, this type of minute detail would only matter in the most boring fights with the least amount of things happening. A few punches that bloody a nose is still worth more than ten failed TD attempts.

 

[BowserJr]

Punching the air isn’t the same as pushing your opponent against the fence and forcing them to physically stop you from grabbing them and trying to get them to the mat though

And I can’t stress enough, this type of minute detail would only matter in the most boring fights with the least amount of things happening. A few punches that bloody a nose is still worth more than ten failed TD attempts.

I agree with the last point

On the former, throwing tons of punches that the opponent has to avoid or forces the opponent to stay out of striking distance is forcing them to be defensive.

IMO forcing someone to be defensive but ultimately not doing anything with it should not count

Failed TD attempts shouldn't count and takedowns with no follow up offense is no different than clinching

If 1 guy is so afraid of striking that all he does is clinch or LnP then that is a defensive tactic.

Counting those things as octagon control would mean that staying out of those positions is also octagon control

 

[SideKickPro24]

If you start scoring tdd, you'd have to start scoring things like blocked kicks, etc. In a fight, you can't really score defensive tactics, you have to score things in the context of offense or else it would get too complicated and confusing. I would say blocking a head kick is way more important than defending a takedown, because that kick it almost certainly end the fight. But fighting doesn't get scored based defense; the judges already have a tough enough time getting right as is.

but is defending wrestling not effective grappling. If we tangle up and your goal is to take me down but you can’t do it. Am I not the more effective grappler.