Do harmless takedowns matter?

[Rvd Slmr]

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

My point is if neither guy dominates the other aspects of the round. It becomes the only thing to decide the winner, in a sport where judges almost completely avoid scoring draws.

 

[Thug Rose]

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.

i never said that it doesnt. i said that it shouldnt.

 

[Toco]

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.

they should because they're trying to finish. but positions shouldn't be counted, I believe. you're in half guard, even in full mount and you're not doing shit, why you should won the roudn because of that if the other fighter inflicted actual damage when the they were both standing and trading?

 

[Toco]

My point is if neither guy dominates the other aspects of the round. It becomes the only thing to decide the winner, in a sport where judges almost completely avoid scoring draws.

oh in this case yes. but solely being on half guard or full mount should barely count

 

[gono btw]

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

Hmmm... Technically, the only way he gave the fight to BJ vs No Rush 1, is coz he considered that No Rush did nuthin with his TDs in Rd 2 & 3...

 

[IsNormal]

To me, holding someone down is a type of control that should matter.
Think of a real street fight. Holding someone down for a few minutes can basically win you a fight.
Like that clip of Matt Serra holding down a drunk guy. Wouldn't you say that Matt won that fight, despite not doing any damage?
If you have a 15 minute fight and you hold someone down for 15 minutes, feels to me like you've won.

It would be very strange to see a 10-10 round if one guy was being held down the entire time.
Unless it was obvious he chose that position and was constantly attempting subs.

As much as I hate blanket wrestlers, I have a hard time arguing top control shouldn't matter at all.

That being said - I do also think takedowns are often overrated. Like Gus vs Jones - people often point out Gus' takedowns. But he didn't do anything with them.
To me, 2 takedowns where the opponent gets right back up is worth less than 1 takedown where you hold the opponent down for a long time.

 

[Thug Rose]

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

again, you didnt answer the question. scoring criteria is not chosen based on the ability to weaken cardio. all of physical exercise weakens cardio. should a ball that is cought by the goalkeeper count because it weakened his cardio and his ability to defend future goals? thats just silly
if an attempted, failed technique really did have an effect then that will reflect on the total score of the fight because the fighter who got fail-armbared will be able to land less shots. so why score them extra?

 

[gono btw]

again, you didnt answer the question. scoring criteria is not chosen based on the ability to weaken cardio. all of physical exercise weakens cardio. should a ball that is cought by the goalkeeper count because it weakened his cardio and his ability to defend future goals? thats just silly
if an attempted, failed technique really did have an effect then that will reflect on the total score of the fight because the fighter who got fail-armbared will be able to land less shots. so why score them extra?

Do you understand that, for instance,, a leglock attempt can be a legit damage?, even if the dude doesnt tap.

Did you watch the fight Ken vs Don ?

 

[Toco]

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

intent to finish AND damage

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

Does the other fighter want to be taken down or not? If not, why? Answer those questions then think about it.

 

[loisestrad]

if an attempted, failed technique really did have an effect then that will reflect on the total score of the fight because the fighter who got fail-armbared will be able to land less shots. so why score them extra?

Because it wasn't a failed technique. Is a punch that hurt your opponent but doesn't lead to a finish, failed? So it shouldn't count?

 

[Thug Rose]

Do you understand that, for instance,, a leglock attempt is a legit damage?, even if the dude doesnt tap.

Did you watch the fight Ken vs Don ?

so you agree that fights should be scored on damage. takedowns, attempts to improve position and sub attempts generally dont do damage, only if they do then sure, score them. sound good?

 

[Siesta]

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.

They do, but they shouldn't.

 

[gono btw]

so you agree that fights should be scored on damage. takedowns, attempts to improve position and sub attempts generally dont do damage, and if they do then sure, score them. sound good?

what´s the keyword I used in my 1st post?




"Tight".

 

[IsNormal]

should a ball that is cought by the goalkeeper count because it weakened his cardio and his ability to defend future goals? thats just silly
if an attempted, failed technique really did have an effect then that will reflect on the total score

Imagine if football, for some dumb reason, was judged like fighting - judges had to score each half for one team even if there were zero goals.
Then I would argue that all attempts (like shots on goal) should be a factor in scoring.
Arguably ball possession should also be a factor. (At least possession on the opponents side of the pitch)

In a scoreless game I would award points based on which team seemed the most dominant and closest to scoring.

If you look at a scoreless game you often have an idea of who should earn the win, based on who made the best attempts. No?

 

[Thug Rose]

Imagine if football was judged like fighting, and judges had to score each half for one team even if there were zero goals.
Then I would argue that all attempts (like shots on goal) should be a factor in scoring.
As well as some types of ball possession.

that would ruin it

 

[IsNormal]

that would ruin it

I agree.

 

[Mr.Maelstrom]

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.

Fantastic post, I agree and I think many others see it the same way.