How does a Take Down in the last 15 secs "Steal the round"?

[nni]

double post

 

[nni]

Says who? That may have been how it was before time limits and judges. See the object of a modern MMA fight is to win the fight, see there are other ways to do this than "finishing your opponent", ya dig?

I really disagree with you here. The objective of an MMA fight is to win the fight by either submission or knock out. If you can't achieve that, and after regulation time both fighters are still standing, the judges come in. And what the point system should look for is effort to finish the fight, either through inflicting damage or attempting submissions.

If you want to disagree about the essence of an MMA fight, then we don't have a base to argue on about scoring.

thats my point in most of these arguements, I fight better off my back then any other place and thats led me to LET people take me down before but when I do everyone screams "oh he took you down with ease, he must be better" its complete bull being on your back DOES NOT mean your losing the fight.

Even in ADCC pulling guard results in negative points.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

If you want to disagree about the essence of an MMA fight, then we don't have a base to argue on about scoring.

The essence of an MMA fight? WTF? I think the difference is you're looking at it from a an unrealistic, somewhat utopian, fighters are all honorable and want to go out on there shield type of view and im looking at it from a realistic point of view.


Listen, fighters fight fights to win......... if you can't read between the lines enough there it isn't my fault.

I mean why didn't Shogun go after Machida in the last round of there first fight?:icon_neut Why? because his corner told him he had the fight won.:wink:

 

[Auspex]

Just because your martial art allows you to be strong off your back doesn't mean that it should be the preferred MMA position for scoring.

If you let someone take you down just to be on your back, then you better finish the fight with a sub, or you should lose. Going to your back might be to your advantage, but it's not a more "dominant" position.

If my game plan is to get punched in the face repeatedly, hoping to counter punch him, then I better knock the guy out because I let the guy control the fight.

Being on your back, in every sport, in every joke, etc is viewed as a weaker position. If you take someone down to this position you should score a point. If you do damage in that position you should get a point, if your opponent does damage they should get a point.

Stalling in guard after 10secs should be restarted and stood back up. Pitter patter punches to look busy should be ignored. If you repeatedly stall from inside someones guard then you should lose your TD point.

 

[InFunkWeTrust]

I highlighted the most important word there. Takedowns should not be scored. The damage inflicted after a takedown should be scored.

That is how it should be. That is not how it is.

I disagree. Frankie Edgar picked BJ up and slammed his ass to the mat HARD. Even if he did nothing afterward from BJ's guard, that was a point scorer.

 

[InFunkWeTrust]

sadly to the florinis and edgars of the world, it is a game and not a fight :icon_neut

Are you kidding me, who has more finishes at LW than Kenny? Edgar beat Penn's ass hands down. What was it about that fight that led you to believe BJ would beat Edgar in a street "fight?"

 

[Darkslide632]

This is really simple. Take it to the extreme. For 4:50 the two guys do nothing but circle and feint. In the last 10 seconds, one guy gets a takedown. Does he win the round? Of course.

In an even round, a takedown swings the needle. Pretty simple.

 

[nni]

The essence of an MMA fight? WTF? I think the difference is you're looking at it from a an unrealistic, somewhat utopian, fighters are all honorable and want to go out on there shield type of view and im looking at it from a realistic point of view.

No, you're not thinking it through. The rules of a sport are there so that the sport can be played according to people's perception of what that sport is about. That's universal across all sports.

If we disagree about whether a finish is what the fighters are looking for in an MMA fight, then we can't argue about the scoring. Because the scoring is dependent on what the objective of an MMA fight is.

Different sports have different rules, even very similar sports. Hockey is a very good example of that. You have three different versions of the game (field, ice and on skates). The three are played so differently and have completely different visions on different aspects of the rules.

I would also argue that the majority of people closely involved with MMA (the organizations) share my vision.

 

[nni]

This is really simple. Take it to the extreme. For 4:50 the two guys do nothing but circle and feint. In the last 10 seconds, one guy gets a takedown. Does he win the round?

No. That round should be a draw imo.

 

[nni]

I disagree. Frankie Edgar picked BJ up and slammed his ass to the mat HARD. Even if he did nothing afterward from BJ's guard, that was a point scorer.

Refer to earlier posts where this was talked about.

 

[Darkslide632]

No. That round should be a draw imo.

Well, I can't help the fact that you're an idiot. Sorry.

You score the rounds based on what took place, regardless of whether or not you LIKE what took place. Takedowns > nothing. Therefore the guy who got the takedown wins the round.

Does is suck as a fan of the sport? Maybe. But so doesn't shitty, biased reffing.

 

[nni]

Well, I can't help the fact that you're an idiot. Sorry.

You score the rounds based on what took place, regardless of whether or not you LIKE what took place. Takedowns > nothing. Therefore the guy who got the takedown wins the round.

Disagreeing with one aspect of the rules does not make me an idiot. I don't have a problem with takedowns being scored. I think they should be. Right now they are just too important. Hence the term "stealing the round". I don't think the situation you described has ever happened, but if it did I would be ok with the fighter that got the takedown winning.

 

[tenniswhiz]

The key term is fairly even round. A takedown is a major technique and changes the fight significantly. In the absence of another major moment, it steals the round. Also anything major that happens at the end of a round is fresh in the judges mind when they score the round.

Ideally, it SHOULD be the way you are describing. In reality, I've seen rounds where a fighter clearly wins and the other gets the round because of a late/short lived/pointless takedown.

Also, you are describing what a takedown SHOULD be, not what it is.
Very often a fighter escapes immediately, or time expires with no damage being done by either fighter. Personally I'd like MMA to be different that a wrestling/judo match and think what happens AFTER the takedown is what matters, IMO the takedown is a only a vehicle to change the fight significantly.

 

[Darkslide632]

Disagreeing with one aspect of the rules does not make me an idiot. I don't have a problem with takedowns being scored. I think they should be. Right now they are just too important. Hence the term "stealing the round". I don't think the situation you described has ever happened, but if it did I would be ok with the fighter that got the takedown winning.

[YT]22wYrVmj4Tk[/YT]

 

[nni]

[YT]22wYrVmj4Tk[/YT]

Lol, I'm not going to watch the fight but I presume they just dance around for 10 minutes?

That actually boils over to my second major problem in MMA which is stalling. Way more warnings need to be given for stalling, either on the feet or on the ground. Top position without advancing or damage, avoiding contact while standing, etc.

 

[Title Fight Productions]

If we disagree about whether a finish is what the fighters are looking for in an MMA fight, then we can't argue about the scoring. Because the scoring is dependent on what the objective of an MMA fight is.

Well i already proved you wrong on this issue by just mentioning one fight.:wink: You somehow forget to mention a response to the Shogun vs. Machida round 5 issue i mentioned.


And actually, no you are 100% wrong again!!! The scoring is not dependent on what the objective of an MMA fight is at all. The MMA fight is actually dependent on what the rules are. People fight a certain way because of the rules, not the other way around.

No, you're not thinking it through. The rules of a sport are there so that the sport can be played according to people's perception of what that sport is about. That's universal across all sports.

I don't even know what this means!??!!?!??!!? "The people's perception of what a sport is about"? The rules are there in MMA because if they weren't the fights wouldn't get sanctioned, thus there would be no to very little MMA. You can't lump all sports and there rules in with MMA, just doesn't work at all, MMA is a total other monster. Come on man use your brain!!!!!!