You are misunderstanding the rules, the first criterion is not "effective striking," it's "effective striking/effective grappling." There are only 3 levels, not 4.
In a hypothetical grappling-only match, if one guy is only defending takedowns and doing nothing else, he is not generating any offense of his own. Offense is what scores so how can he win the round? Best case scenario it's a drawn round.
Yes in a fight where one guy is repeatedly taking desperate shots and his opponent just stuffs them easily and circles back out to kicking range you could say the guy defending the takedowns is controlling the octagon because he is dictating where the fight takes place, however, octagon control is unlikely to decide a round.
In a hypothetical striking-only round where Fighter A throws 100 strikes and misses all of them because Fighter B has amazing striking defense, but Fighter B throws nothing back, how can Fighter B win the round? Defense is supposed to be its own reward.
That said the scoring criteria say judges are supposed to take into account changes to a fighter's fighting spirit, energy levels, etc., so if Fighter B causes Fighter A to get frustrated and gas out, just by dodging his strikes or defending his takedowns, I think Fighter B could *theoretically* win. It's just unlikely.
You're correct when you say effective striking/grappling, yet the priority is still given to striking, and grappling is secondary. Also note that my complaint is that stuffing takedowns is no longer seen as successful grappling, as it used to be:
PRIORITIZED CRITERIA:
Effective Striking/Grappling
“Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.
So, in this special hypothetical case, it would be 100% equal, and we move to the next criterion:
Effective Aggressiveness
“Aggressively making attempts to finish the fight.
The key term is ‘effective’. Chasing after an opponent with no effective result or impact should not render in the judges’ assessments.” Effective Aggressiveness is only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for both competitors.
Pay attention to the bold and underlined section. The guy unsuccessfully spamming takedowns does not even score points on aggression, I was incorrect before. Now, we move to the determining factor of the round:
Fighting Area Control
“Fighting area control is assessed by determining who is dictating the pace, place and position of the match.” Fighting Area Control” shall only to be assessed if Effective Striking/Grappling and Effective Aggressiveness is 100% equal for both competitors. This will be assessed very rarely.
This is where the guy defending the takedowns
should win the round
.
ROUND SCORING:
10–10 Round
“A 10 – 10 round in MMA is when both fighters have competed for whatever duration of time in the round and there is no difference or advantage between either fighter.” A 10 – 10 round in MMA should be extremely rare and is not a score to be used as an excuse by a judge that cannot assess the differences in the round. A 10 – 10 round in MMA is a necessity to have for the judge’s possible score, mainly due to scoring incomplete rounds. It is possible to have a round where both fighters engage for 5 minutes and at the end of the 5-minute time period the output, impact, effectiveness and overall competition between the two fighters is exactly the same. It is possible, but highly unlikely. If there is any discernable difference between the two fighters during the round the judge shall not give the score of 10 – 10. Again, this score will be extremely rare.
Worst case scenario, it's a 10-10, but in no way should the guy defending lose. If even one of his TDDs were considered aggressive, such as throwing or tripping the attacker to the ground, he should win the round.
I tried to tell him that he's basically saying that if MMA was basketball you should get points for getting steals and blocks.
The reward of defense is denying whatever your opponent tried to do. But it's your opponent making you do that.
Yet, you think the team who misses 10 out of 10 shots should score points based on effort? Your analogy doesn't work well here. This isn't basketball.
