Judges FINALLY understanding grappling?

[FictionIsReal]

Tldr

 

[devilrojo145]

Mounting someone and giving a 10-8 would result in fighters point scoring more than they do now.

Sure you managed mount, but show us that you can do damage from that position. There have been fights where a guy can advance position the entire time but not do any significant damage.

Damage ISN'T criteria buddy, sorry.

 

[VicariousVice]

Damage ISN'T criteria buddy, sorry.

You sure? I was pretty certain that it was. If it isnt it should be.

Edit: right, but clean strikes and throwing harder strikes than your opponent are.

Actively trying to finish a fight should be judging criteria if you ask me.

Under the judging criteria improving position from guard to mount is judged, but giving a 10-8 is not fair because you arent causing damage with that alone whereas getting a 10-8 from a knockdown is based on doing damage and nearly finishing the fight.

 

[LampShade94]

Should take downs be worth points? Yes.

Should guard passes be worth points? Yes.

Should they be worth as many points as Damage? NO.

Also, being on top for an extended amount of time should still be worth points. It should be similar to "riding time" points in wrestling.

Should riding time points be worth as much as Damage? NO.

It's ok to give points for takedown and positional advantages. But damage should always be worth more. It becomes very judgemental obviously.

 

[Paradigm]

Markos won that fight, no doubt. she was also closer to finishing with those elbows at the end of the 2nd.

TD is control. It is imposing your will. Imposing your will deserve points. Octagon control.

Octagon control does not supercede effective striking and grappling.

Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.

http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations#14

 

[born2killl]

Not totally true. She won because of the takedown and controlling her.
The fact that Torres could not get back up (and boy she was trying) that is where Randa won the fight.

Passing & getting mount is nice and just solidifies who dominated that grappling exchange in case you werent clear. But it doesnt score in itself.

 

[HOLA]

I never understand ppl complaining about tds scoring points, but then want to give points for passing?

How's passing worth points if tds aren't?

Fight starts on the feet n by td your opponent you dictate where the fight should take place.

If your argument is it shouldn't score any points cause there's no damage done, then how's passing any different?

In that case passing should lead to damage. GNP or subs.
Even with subs, it has to be deep n obviously painful.
Just attempting a sub shouldn't score any points

the beta butt scooters never make sense.

 

[Toco]

thanks for reminding me of TUF

downloading now

 

[MilesAbove]

Honestly, if Tecia hadn't been throwing those elbows the judges likely would not have thought she was winning.

So while I hold your optimism.... I have a feeling it was that simple. I doubt they felt her on the bottom was better.

I never understand ppl complaining about tds scoring points, but then want to give points for passing?

I can 100% explain this. If you take down Royce Gracie into guard or half-guard, you cannot assume you are now more safe than you were before. However, if you pass to side-mount, mount, or back-mount, you can assume you are more safe than you were before.

It's called "Practical Advancement". I wrote a huge, long, boring paper on it that the NSAC ignored.

 

[grimballer]

Honestly, if Tecia hadn't been throwing those elbows the judges likely would not have thought she was winning.

So while I hold your optimism.... I have a feeling it was that simple. I doubt they felt her on the bottom was better.




I can 100% explain this. If you take down Royce Gracie into guard or half-guard, you cannot assume you are now more safe than you were before. However, if you pass to side-mount, mount, or back-mount, you can assume you are more safe than you were before.

It's called "Practical Advancement". I wrote a huge, long, boring paper on it that the NSAC ignored.

Even if it's Tito Ortiz or Jon jones?

What are you advocating? Scoring points base on who's your opponent?

So taking jds down should score points cause he's dangerous on his feet n not know for his sub game

On the other hand taking Damian Maia down shouldn't score any points cause he's good on the ground n not so good on his feet?

Would you score passing the same way?

Would Tito get points for passing even if he's very efficient at fighting inside the guard n doesn't really need to pass?

A lot of fighters do more damage in side control than full mount, would they get points for going full mount?

Judging gotta be consistent

 

[rsbones]

Damage ISN'T criteria buddy, sorry.

Of course damage is a criteria. It's called effective striking, and the effect they are talking about is what we call "damage." Striking that doesn't do anything to the opponent, shouldn't even score points.

 

[Toco]

Lay and Pray will never become illegal. Even if it was illegal, fighters would still do it. What are we going to do, deduct a point everytime?

y, why not, nice suggestion

 

[MilesAbove]

Even if it's Tito Ortiz or Jon jones?

What are you advocating? Scoring points base on who's your opponent?

No sir, scoring points on a practical understand of what is/isn't more/less dominant than what was previously held in position.

So taking jds down should score points cause he's dangerous on his feet n not know for his sub game

Incorrect. Standing is neutral until proven otherwise. Guard ought also be as such. The criteria isn't that being on top in a guard is, in-and-of-itself dominant compared to ground. It has to be proven.

On the other hand taking Damian Maia down shouldn't score any points cause he's good on the ground n not so good on his feet?

Damien Maia is simply another good example of why you can't assume the takedown is putting one in a better position.

Would you score passing the same way?

A pass into a less dangerous position would be scored.

Would Tito get points for passing even if he's very efficient at fighting inside the guard n doesn't really need to pass?

If he scores within the guard it is the same as scoring during stand-up. As a neutral position (both combatants have weapons to use) it must be proven who has advantage through action.

A lot of fighters do more damage in side control than full mount, would they get points for going full mount?

Side control is a safer position than guards by it's nature. The bottom opponent has less weapons from the position as compared to a neutral such as guard or standing.

Judging gotta be consistent

And it is, would be my assertion.

 

[Bigj383]

Judges have been giving a lot more credit to fighters who are active off their back. See Sarah Morais' last fight for example.

 

[rbastid]

There has always been an wrestling bias in MMA where the rules favor them which have almost made bottom and guard players extinct (coincidently, see Pettis-Guida to prove my point). It was always thought that takedowns "score points" and win rounds.

I've played around with the idea gaining mount should score you like a 10-8 round, the same way a knock down does in boxing. If anyone has ever competed in BJJ, you know that as you climb the ladder from bottom to guard to sweep to guard pass to mount you score more points as you go. THAT's a facet that's lost with watered down MMA, where all these wrestlers who learn to strike, who don't just learn ground n' pound, but also Lay n' pray and wall n' stall.

It much tougher to give someone 10-8 for getting mount or even a knock down in MMA because there are so many facets to the sport. In Boxing or Muay Thai you can do that because everything is based on one criteria, knocking your opponent down/out.

I think getting a TKD, and especially mount, for any fight needs to be judged in a situational way. As in the Markos fight there was nothing going on in the first 4 minutes, by taking her down she edged the match in her direction and by getting mount she sealed it. But if she was knocked down, beat on from the bottom (as in the first round) or in trouble it could have been a toss up. Granted there's lots of BS there too as you have fights where guys are getting credit for submission attempts from the bottom when all they did was fecklessly grab for a leg as they got the snot beat out of them, one of the consequences of having an idiot like Joe Rogan calling fights and screaming that everything a guy does is one millisecond away from getting a sub.

I think what judges finally learned is that Torres needs to stop winning matches she clearly lost, even if that takes her much longer, as we see it did last night.

 

[XxanaxX]

I'm gonna preface this by saying I'm a BJJ Blue Belt, and preferred to play guard a lot when I trained.

After watching the Randa Markos-Tecia Torres fight just now (had to OnDemand it because of work this morning) I feel any judge who thought Torres won that 3rd round I was on crack, despite what Gil and Tecia said afterward.

There has always been an wrestling bias in MMA where the rules favor them which have almost made bottom and guard players extinct (coincidently, see Pettis-Guida to prove my point). It was always thought that takedowns "score points" and win rounds.

But after that fight last nighty on TUF you was a decent player from the bottom win a round from the ground, but you also saw the missing piece the judges have been forgetting all this time: GUARD PASSING!

Markos didn't win that fight because she took Torres down repeatedly (a la Rashad-T.Silva or Ben Askren), she won 2 and 3 because she took her down AND passed he guard to mount!

I've played around with the idea gaining mount should score you like a 10-8 round, the same way a knock down does in boxing. If anyone has ever competed in BJJ, you know that as you climb the ladder from bottom to guard to sweep to guard pass to mount you score more points as you go. THAT's a facet that's lost with watered down MMA, where all these wrestlers who learn to strike, who don't just learn ground n' pound, but also Lay n' pray and wall n' stall.

Thank GOD Markos knew that to win wasn't just to convince the judges with takedowns, but to impress the judges with guard passing and gaining position. THATS why all 3 judges scored the 3rd in favor of the #14 seed.

Hardly. Knees to the head have been outlawed on the ground and people that tie up wrestlers from the bottom are rewarded with a stand up via referee intervention.

Unless your working to submit, sweep, or strike your opponent from guard, the position is inherently defensive and should be treated as such by the judges-hence it being scored lower than the wrestlers initiative to maintain top control from a take-down.

Now, go work on your sprawl and have a nice day:icon_chee

 

[Mattitude V1]

I never understand ppl complaining about tds scoring points, but then want to give points for passing?

How's passing worth points if tds aren't?

Fight starts on the feet n by td your opponent you dictate where the fight should take place.

If your argument is it shouldn't score any points cause there's no damage done, then how's passing any different?

In that case passing should lead to damage. GNP or subs.

Even with subs, it has to be deep n obviously painful.

Just attempting a sub shouldn't score any points

First of all, none of those things "score points."

But TDs shouldn't really mean anything. If someone is getting Fitch'd and can't do shit from the bottom, okay, they lose. No argument.

But you can get a takedown, stay on top and still lose the round. We've seen it and are seeing it more and more.

 

[Mattitude V1]

Hardly. Knees to the head have been outlawed on the ground and people that tie up wrestlers from the bottom are rewarded with a stand up via referee intervention.

Unless your working to submit, sweep, or strike your opponent from guard, the position is inherently defensive and should be treated as such by the judges-hence it being scored lower than the wrestlers initiative to maintain top control from a take-down.

Now, go work on your sprawl and have a nice day:icon_chee

Taking someone down and laying in their guard is also defense, especially if you were getting lit up on the feet.

And again, THERE IS NO "SCORING POINTS!" Judges just watch the rounds and mark down a score. If they think you're losing while on top, YOU'RE FUCKED.

 

[XxanaxX]

Taking someone down and laying in their guard is also defense, especially if you were getting lit up on the feet.

And again, THERE IS NO "SCORING POINTS!" Judges just watch the rounds and mark down a score. If they think you're losing while on top, YOU'RE FUCKED.

Okay, genius, then why do they call it score cards. :icon_chee Poor humor aside, I'm more than aware this isn't true in the literal sense. I was simply addressing the quality of judging in the bout in favor of one fighter over the other.

Do you even count to potato?

 

[Dale Denton II]

I only agree with mount being worth a 10-8 if it's like a Shogun Hendo I round 5, in which Shogun got to mount and kept Hendo there while attempting subs/throwing strikes.