Do harmless takedowns matter?

[Rvd Slmr]

The issue gets brought back every time takedowns are the deciding factor in scoring a close fight, like Cejudo vs Mighty Mouse. We pretty much all agree that a takedown with just control, no damage, no serious attempts to improve position or submission threat, should never matter more than a knockdown, heavy damage or close submission attempts.

But sometimes, just like in Cejudo against MM, there are no big actions, no moments when a fighter is in imminent danger... In that case, such takedowns with only harmless top-control do become the highlight of the round and the decisive scoring factor.

Judges aren't actually counting the strikes and rewarding the guy that landed 2 more jabs, or using algorithms to decide if a heavy leg kick is worth more than three weak G'n'P punches. If a round is close within a certain margin of error, the guy that lands the biggest move will get the round, even if the move is not actually that big in itself.

This is nothing new or unfair about it.

 

[so creamy]

The full guard should be considered a neutral position.

Let's say for example one guy takes his opponent down at the start of a round, but stays in his guard the whole time and literally lands zero G&P; that round should be scored a 10-10 if nothing else happens. If the guy on bottom lands any clean shots off his back or gets close to finishing a submission, the round should be scored in favour of him.

However I think being able to pass into half guard or side control is enough to tip the scales to the guy in top position in an otherwise uneventful round.

 

[DIRTYCOP]

"Yes" - HC

 

[Thug Rose]

neither takedowns, sub attempts, or attempts to improve position should count at all. they are just ATTEMPTS to end the fight or inflict damage. the only thing that should matter in scoring is who landed the most/hardest shots, it shouldnt matter which positions the shots came from.

 

[gono btw]

neither takedowns, sub attempts, or attempts to improve position should count at all. they are just ATTEMPTS to end the fight or inflict damage. the only thing that should matter in scoring is who landed the most/hardest shots, it shouldnt matter which positions the shots came from.

Hence a tight armbar or kneebar attempt, should count for nuthin´?

Interesting...

 

[DorianGray]

The issue gets brought back every time takedowns are the deciding factor in scoring a close fight, like Cejudo vs Mighty Mouse. We pretty much all agree that a takedown with just control, no damage, no serious attempts to improve position or submission threat, should never matter more than a knockdown, heavy damage or close submission attempts.

But sometimes, just like in Cejudo against MM, there are no big actions, no moments when a fighter is in imminent danger... In that case, such takedowns with only harmless top-control do become the highlight of the round and the decisive scoring factor.

Judges aren't actually counting the strikes and rewarding the guy that landed 2 more jabs, or using algorithms to decide if a heavy leg kick is worth more than three weak G'n'P punches. If a round is close within a certain margin of error, the guy that lands the biggest move will get the round, even if the move is not actually that big in itself.

This is nothing new or unfair about it.

This is all true imo. Just a shitty way for the current mm era to end. I still can't decide if I'm more impressed with cejudo or disappointed in dj (I'd have to walk it again).

Cejudo was so fucking humble after the first mm loss though and obviously improved after experiencing that upper echelon of fighting. That is extremely admirabea imo and I can't help but feel happy for cejudo.

It's funny, if Romero had beaten Whitaker
Then 4 beltd would be held by former Olympians

 

[Thug Rose]

Hence a tight armbar or kneebar attempt, should count for nuthin´?

Interesting...

why should it? explain. should an attempted punch that missed count for something?

 

[justbetter]

Nope, but neither do weak ass flyweight strikes

 

[gono btw]

why should it? explain. should an attempted punch that missed count for something?

Might be coz sometimes the attempt is so tight that the fighter almost taps, saved by the bell, or the dude releases the hold. Depends..

 

[loisestrad]

why should it? explain. should an attempted punch that missed count for something?

A good sub-attempt that ultimately doesn't succeed is certainly a dominant position while it lasts, and it's close to ending the fight. Hence it counts in scoring.

 

[tenniswhiz]

It all depends on each individual judge.

I don’t know why y’all pretend there isn’t a vast range of interpretation possible from each judge.
No matter what the rules say about striking, grappling, and 8tagon control, each judge will evaluate those however the F they feel like.

 

[Thug Rose]

Might be coz sometimes the attempt is so tight that the fighter almost taps, saved by the bell, or the dude releases the hold. Depends..

thats not an answer. you just say failure should be rewarded but dont give an argument for why you think so. should an attempted punch that missed count for something? should a ball that hits the crossbar count for half a goal? i dont think so

 

[gono btw]

thats not an answer. you just say failure should be rewarded but dont give an argument for why you think so. should an attempted punch that missed count for something? should a ball that hits the crossbar count for half a goal? i dont think so

A missed punch has no lasting effect on your opponent´s body.

A failed armbar or leglock or choke attempt has an effect on his leg,arm, body etc... Weakens his cardio, his ability to throw punches or kicks etc

 

[JeffDredd]

thats not an answer. you just say failure should be rewarded but dont give an argument for why you think so. should an attempted punch that missed count for something? should a ball that hits the crossbar count for half a goal? i dont think so

By your logic every punch or kick that doesn't knock you out doesn't count.

Your position is silly and I think you're being serious which is worrying.

 

[GreatSaintGuillotine]

If no significant damage or guard passes are done full or half guard then I don't think it should score heavily. It's still controlling where the fight goes and thus fighting on your terms but if it ends up as a stalemate then it should be treated as such.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

The full guard should be considered a neutral position.

It could be neutral, it could be advantageous to the fighter on the bottom. In situations where guys are grappling for control, the one in control should get the point. If you're in Damien Maia's guard doing your damnedest to get out when the bell rings, I'd say you lost the round. More often then not though, the guy on the bottom is trying to get out. This is what happened the other night in round 4 and IMO Henry deserved that round.

 

[Toco]

I don't think it should. scoring should be based on intent to finish and damage. and that's it. so what if you have a great position but you don't do shit from there? great half guard buddy, how about you actually work now? maybe you could give points to a full mount, but there should be finish/damage involved

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Octagon control

So yes they should count as long as the guy doesn't get up instantly.

 

[Rvd Slmr]

you just say failure should be rewarded but dont give an argument for why you think so. should an attempted punch that missed count for something?

It actually does count, as it is rewarded as agression. That's how Leonard Garcia won several bad robberies and Holly Holm won rounds against Cyborg, despite being vastly outstruck (up to 4 to 1 in a round) and eating the strongest blows.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

I don't think it should. scoring should be based on intent to finish

Then you get assholes like Cecil Peoples

http://www.cagepotato.com/cecil-peoples-leg-kicks-certainly-dont-finish-fights/

This asshole robbed Shogun of that first Machida fight