Effective Grappling

[BowserJr]

I doubt anyone believes blocking and dodging punches should count for much.

Some people may argue that defending takedowns is displaying more effective grappling compared to the failed takedown attempts.

It then becomes a question of who is being the aggressor and if that should count for more than dictating where the fight takes place (ground v standing)

Much has been made of simply being on top or being in control recently.

So I pose this question.

If the guy on top is constantly under attack by submissions and or strikes from the bottom, who is winning?

The guy on top is showing he doesnt have much control since the bottom guy is able to constantly attack and put him in danger.
The bottom guy is being more effective in that he's forcing the other guy to play defense the whole time (like blocking punches).

But of course the top guy is on top.

Yet if the strikes from bottom are landing and submissions are nearly finished (narrow escapes] wouldn't the bottom guy be doing better?

What say you sherdog?

 

[HHJ]

If the guy on top is constantly under attack by submissions and or strikes from the bottom, who is winning?

The guy on top is showing he doesnt have much control since the bottom guy is able to constantly attack and put him in danger.
The bottom guy is being more effective in that he's forcing the other guy to play defense the whole time (like blocking punches).

But of course the top guy is on top.

Yet if the strikes from bottom are landing and submissions are nearly finished (narrow escapes] wouldn't the bottom guy be doing better?

What say you sherdog?

It depends.

It's one thing to throw up a submission that is just thwarted easily and was of no consequence. Then it might as well not even existed.

But you can certainly win from strikes from the bottom. Gegard Mousasi has def won rounds like that. So has Shara Bullet.

 

[BowserJr]

It depends.

It's one thing to throw up a submission that is just thwarted easily and was of no consequence. Then it might as well not even existed.

But you can certainly win from strikes from the bottom. Gegard Mousasi has def won rounds like that. So has Shara Bullet.

It really does depend on how good of an attempt it was which is why judges should require grappling experience.

But I digress

Too many fights are judged badly in the grappling department

 

[HHJ]

It really does depend on how good of an attempt it was which is why judges should require grappling experience.

But I digress

Too many fights are judged badly in the grappling department

Thats why it was cool that a guy like Nogueira would get a sick sweep, if he couldnt get something going from the guard. He even caught Fedor with one in their first fight.

So many fighters just dont do enough to get out from the bottom. They just hang on for dear life, or go for no hope subs.

If you really dont got the tools on the ground, and you have someone in your guard, do like shara bullet, and completley beat the fuckin everloving bejeezus out of the guys face with elbows like a berserk psychopath. He did that in one fight and the poor guy was cut to shit and just buried his face in the guard cos he couldnt raise it without getting sliced up.

 

[Tito Tapped]

I'm fairly certain that judges are supposed to weigh strikes from on top as more meaningful than strikes from your back. So while it's not impossible to be winning from a guard position, when all things are equal you're just not getting scored as effective. It makes even trying to fight off your back a risky move.

Good news is fighters have learned this and we see many more scrambles to get back up and a sense of urgency is much higher.

 

[HHJ]

I'm fairly certain that judges are supposed to weigh strikes from on top as more meaningful than strikes from your back. So while it's not impossible to be winning from a guard position, when all things are equal you're just not getting scored as effective. It makes even trying to fight off your back a risky move.

Good news is fighters have learned this and we see many more scrambles to get back up and a sense of urgency is much higher.

It's rarely ever equal though. To really score damage from the bottom, you gotta basically shut the other guy down, upkicks on the way in, and then elbows and other assorted harassment from the bottom. Especially if the fighter on top is gassed and just hanging on. It's harder to do early on, and if you do it early on, really tough to maintain it if you settle in to that kinda gameplan. That was Mousasi's issue. He was winning with it, but you cant do that shit fot 5 rounds, you just arent meant to fight that way for an extended period of time.

 

[oski]

 

[Flower2dPeople]

Too many fights are judged badly in the grappling department

UFC is decades old. A purple belt should be at least a minimum requirement for MMA judging license approval.

 

[Thy]

if u got bad knee's ur winning when ur on the bottom, if ur knee's are ok then ur winning on top.

 

[Stoic1]

Judges are highly subjective in this area.

 

[mkt]

But you can certainly win from strikes from the bottom. Gegard Mousasi has def won rounds like that. So has Shara Bullet.

Prime Tony Ferguson probably did as well. Nasty elbows, scrambling and an active submission game.

 

[MarleyLynx]

According to UFC judges if you're in my guard and I elbow you into oblivion and you're saved by the bell in a tight sub you won the round because you're on top.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

In general, the guy on bottom isn't gaining points as quickly as the guy on top for being positionally controlled. BUT, work from bottom work can be very offensive and therefore should be scored for points and could turn (and there  should be more occasions where it does) overtake the top control points.

This is opposed to things like takedown defense or having a impassable guard or having a tight hold to prevent getting ground and pounded. The reason effective defensive tactics should not earn points is because their purpose is already slowing down the points your opponent is getting. To give it points after that is functionally double dipping

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

People who have back control are pretty unanimously not considered the "bottom" position, even if they're the ones with their back on the ground

 

[mkt]

It really does depend on how good of an attempt it was which is why judges should require grappling experience.

But I digress

Too many fights are judged badly in the grappling department

That's one reason it was odd the judges gave Bas the decision over Randleman back in the day. Before that, it was considered common sense (even with no grappling experience) that the fighter on top 90% of the time should win the decision. Look at the wins by Severn, Couture, etc. Of course some of them did more damage than Randleman did, but still.

 

[BowserJr]

I'm fairly certain that judges are supposed to weigh strikes from on top as more meaningful than strikes from your back. So while it's not impossible to be winning from a guard position, when all things are equal you're just not getting scored as effective. It makes even trying to fight off your back a risky move.

Good news is fighters have learned this and we see many more scrambles to get back up and a sense of urgency is much higher.

Correct.

I think offense from the bottom should count for more than it currently does.

I've seen a fair share of fights where the bottom guy is being way more offensive and aggressive but loses just cuz the other guy was laying there almost motionless on top

 

[Pequeño Corey]

Unified rules judging criteria should alleviate that. Damage is king and is > "effective grappling".

Sub attempts also fall under effective grappling though, so it becomes a question of when do sub attempts outweigh positional control. I would think aggression as a secondary criteria should apply. If you're throwing up subs and trying to finish the fight, and the other guy is just impersonating a blanket, you should be given the nod imo.

 

[Tweak896]

I expect judges to score for whoever's on top the most of the round to win. Any punch from the top has to be worth atleast 2 from your back. Some people have pointed out exceptions and I agree. However from my experience, the judges give the round to the guy on top 95% of the time. Now if he's doing nothing but holding or going for subs while the one on bottom is going crazy throwing something kind of damaging then there is your exception.

I feel like sub attempts are basically ignored unless everything else was equal, and then they still have to look like they were really close. I've never seen the stupid guillotines they try before taken down ever really count for much for scoring. Looks are everything and for sub attempts you actually have to have the spectators think one guy is about to lose, not just the dumb commentators hyping a sub as close.