did siver take connor down?

[AresDesideratus]

(keep in mind we're on a board discussing UFC rules and not obscure backwater wrestling rules)

This forum is for discussing UFC events, it has nothing to do with pertaining to a particular set of rules, other than the rules of the forum.

If the UFC rules were to jump off a bridge would you do it? Haha.

 

[Vae Victus]

This forum is for discussing UFC events, it has nothing to do with pertaining to a particular set of rules, other than the rules of the forum.

If the UFC rules were to jump off a bridge would you do it? Haha.

At least you have learned something in this thread.

 

[HIMBOB]

I thought he did (just) but when i checked my balance on my betting side apparently he didnt.

Betting on drawn number of TDs is a big earner for me (avg like $3.50 and i win like 90%) just sucks they dont offer it on more fights.

 

[hot carl]

No, a takedown requires control for it to be scored. Just because someone goes down does not mean a takedown was successful. The commentators are very misleading because anytime someone goes down they will call it a takedown, even when it's not.

I ask because in sherdog's "by the numbers", they had zero takedowns.

that being said, i think siver took him down, twice. I dont recall ever seeing a "on his back" rule.

lets say i ragdoll a fighter and suplex/toss him over my shoulder, but he lands on his chest (chest down) or on his knees and elbows? thats not a takedown because his back didnt touch, or because I didnt hop on his back? thats fucked.

I see it as, siver wanted conor off of his feet, connor wanted to (presumably) stay on his feet, siver took conor off his feet, against connor's desires, and such, scored a takedown (twice).