In ONE FC successfully defending a takedown counts for scoring should the UFC follow suit?

[laleggenda27]

1. Takedowns alone don't score points, unless it's a damaging takedown.
2. The UFC doesn't determine the scoring criteria; the athletic commissions do.

 

[ElLunico]

Probably the dumbest shit I've read today

 

[ElLunico]

They should just make it a kick boxing fight lol. Is Glory kick boxing still around?

 

[Rear Naked Toke]

Holding someone down on the mat or up against the cage shouldn't count as anything in the first place. Stalemating a fight ≠ winning.

If we're in a cage fight and one of us is being held down, or against the cage, for 15 to 25 minutes while neither of us essentially do anything else, who's winning?

Same question, different wording.

If two people are fighting and one of their backs is pinned to the ground, or against a wall, who's winning?

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

If we're in a cage fight and one of us is being held down, or against the cage, for 15 to 25 minutes while neither of us essentially do anything else, who's winning?

Same question, different wording.

If two people are fighting and one of their backs is pinned to the ground, or against a wall, who's winning?

No one.

 

[Doctor Grudge]

If we're in a cage fight and one of us is being held down, or against the cage, for 15 to 25 minutes while neither of us essentially do anything else, who's winning?

Same question, different wording.

If two people are fighting and one of their backs is pinned to the ground, or against a wall, who's winning?

If two guys were eating apples and oranges for 25 minutes, who's winning the fight?

If they're not fighting, then they're not fighting.

Pushing someone against the cage is just playing a game where you run out the clock to win on a flawed scoring criteria. Why are we pretending that isn't the full intent? Everyone already knows this, but tries to make up some strange strawman argument about people not liking grappling.

If the scoring criteria was changed not as many people would resort to that tactic. So it should probably be changed.

 

[Rear Naked Toke]

No one.

Why not? If one imposes enough offense to entirely nullify the other's defense, and offense, then what else is required to declare them the winner?

Especially in a timed fight where one utilizes more offense than the other.

Is being pinned to the ground or wall, without a finish in the defenders favor, not universally considered a defensive position?

 

[g*r*b]

Of course not! Gah. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Stength, Defence is Offence....What Orwellian ideas you're willing to embrace, all because you have a hateboner for wrestling.

 

[drowned]

It already does count; it's called octagon control. The judges and the vast majority of spectators simply don't understand the rules, or fighting in general.

 

[mangokush]

The UFC should just become a mixed striking combat organisation only and ban grappling/wrestling since casuals who pay for the PPVs and tickets find grappling/wrestling boring and only want striking

 

[Rear Naked Toke]

If two guys were eating apples and oranges for 25 minutes, who's winning the fight?

If they're not fighting, then they're not fighting.

Pushing someone against the cage is just playing a game where you run out the clock to win on a flawed scoring criteria. Why are we pretending that isn't the full intent? Everyone already knows this, but tries to make up some strange strawman argument about people not liking grappling.

If the scoring criteria was changed not as many people would resort to that tactic. So it should probably be changed.

In my unbiased opinion: If you hold me down on the ground, or against a wall, in a street fight (or a cage fight) and I don't do shit about it, I lost that fight.

Dana has straight up told fighters that got held down and lost, then complained that they got held down and lost, that it's their own fault for not finding a way to get back up.

It's not about about favoring grappling over striking, or vise versa. It's that in a fight the most dominant fighter, regardless of position, should win that fight.

Boxing's 10 point must system will never work in MMA, regardless of the criteria. The most dominant fighter should always win the fight. Period.

To clarify my unbiased opinion at the start of my reply; when I was on bottom doing nothing and you won ----

If I was on top and didn't consistently attempt to damage or sub you, just simply held you down while you turned my offense (or lack thereof) into defense by actively working to get back up, you're winning.

If I'm doing fuck all from the top and you're using sub attempts for sweeps, or nullifying my offense with your own offense throughout the round - hitting me, or hitting sub and/or sweep attempts. Especially sub attempts that I only got out of because of the horn ~ When the final horn sounds, you won the fight.

I don't have a preference on striking over grappling or grappling over striking; this is MMA.

Marketing set the expectations of MMA as a whole when the criteria became introduced as, and in this specific order ~ Effective Striking, Grappling, Aggression, and Octagon Control.

Are KOs more exciting than subs? Subjective.

Are subs more exciting than KOs? Subjective.

Should the most dominant fighter in any fight win?

Fucking duh.

 

[Mittens]

As I vastly prefer striking and grappling over wrestling, I would love to say yes. But then again, thinking of it from a striking perspective.

If a fighter throws 227 strikes at Anderson Silva and Silva brilliantly dodges them all but for some Anderson Silva -type of reason does not bother throwing a single strike of his own, would it be ok for him to win the round? Well, I think I would say "yes" but that would be silly. Let's also assume Anderson did not play air guitar, cause that could maybe be considered scoring offense...

So in comparsion - Couture Leanning and 22 relentless but failed attempts at a takedown vs. a chap who did nothing but magnificently stifle your every wrestling move? Guess they should be draws too.

On the other hand, 22 failed takedowns with 0 strikes vs 22 defended takedowns with one (1) strike - that's a 10-9 for the chap who threw the successful strike.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

If you defend the TD, you're dictating where the fight takes place

Sure but then you should use that to throw offence and win the fight.

 

[wufabufa]

Yeah, I can see the case for that. Effective grappling, right? You can't just be evasive like with striking defense. In order to defend a takedown you still have to engage with your opponent, so if you stuff a takedown you won that exchange.

 

[Feaser]

Nah, defense is the point of doing it. Should a guy get points for slipping punches? Have guys more tentative to throw punches under the knowledge that missing a punch means your opponent scores for it? The reward you get for preventing your opponent from doing any effective maneuvers on you is that they didn't do any effective maneuvers to you

I agree with this generally, but some defense is so great that it feels wrong not scoring it favorably. If a fighter is so good at slipping punches that he causes his opponent to hit air 95% of the time, and he throws fewer punches but lands with better accuracy, I think it’s fair to score defense favorably. What good is “aggression” if just amounts to spent energy?

 

[Joe-Buck]

Should a successful takedown count for scoring, but successfully defending that takedown, which arguably requires just as much effort, not count? Jose Aldo would have won a few of his last fights if takedown defense had been factored in scoring

It would certainly disincentivize takedowns. Hey, why not also score successful blocks to strikes while we’re at it?

 

[TITS]

Solution: ban takedowns.