Opinion: Takedowns/Grappling Scoring needs to be changed

[Zebra Cheeks]

The new unified rules were supposed to correct this. They did to some degree. Judges are just retarded. You can take a random off the street and they would have a better idea of who won a fight. Because it's a fight. It's not that complicated. It's not some point scoring system, it's just who fought better.

They should just let the great folks who post on Sherdog score the fights.

Honestly I’d prefer media polls to the system we have now. At least they are educated and have reasoning. I find I agree with media polls far more frequently then judges. It’s sad that the entire community can fully grasp a clear victory for a fighter. yet they frequently get hosed on the cards. There should be a better system where that’s not something that can happen

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

Honestly I’d prefer media polls to the system we have now. At least they are educated and have reasoning. I find I agree with media polls far more frequently then judges. It’s sad that the entire community can fully grasp a clear victory for a fighter. yet they frequently get hosed on the cards. There should be a better system where that’s not something that can happen

Agreed.

 

[capnlarge]

I actually think judging is heading in this direction. A good recent example is Derrick Lewis vs Blagoy Ivanov. I think 5 years ago, Ivanov would have gotten the nod

 

[Istryker]

If a fighter doesn't do shit with the TD, it shouldn't count in the scoring imo, lay n pray and stalling need to be dealt with.

Who stalls and LNPs in this current era of mma

 

[DagOban**]

what if you get your ass beat for 4 mins and 50 seconds but get a takedown for 10 seconds?

because that’s how judges are scoring it right now.

once you land that last 10 second takedown you automatically win the round.

dont @Me

You are exagerating. A lot.

A takedown should be counted as a significant strike pointwise. It's much more important what you do with the takedown, then the actual takedown itself.

 

[Huligani]

Quick follow up ^ this is exactly why cejudo shouldn’t have been given the win over Mighty Mouse.

Yup. The judges have no idea what a takedown is either. They think as long as a guy is taken off of his feet, even if he keeps a whizzer, then it's a takedown. Cejudo's wrestling really amounted to nothing against Mighty Mouse, no control which is what is scored.

Similarly this is why Ivanov didn't beat Derrick Lewis. Idiots score takedowns or even not-takedowns with no control over effective striking, even Lewis' bombs on Ivanov.

According to the unified rules, takedowns without a subsequent attack resulting from the established takedown are not supposed to be scored as takedowns at all. I think the rules are alright, the problem might be inside the judges' heads.

PRIORITIZED CRITERIA: Effective Striking/Grappling “Legal blows that have immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute towards the end of the match with the IMMEDIATE weighing in more heavily than the cumulative impact. Successful execution of takedowns, submission attempts, reversals and the achievement of advantageous positions that produce immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the match, with the IMMEDIATE weighing more heavily than the cumulative impact.” It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown. Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position. This criterion will be the deciding factor in a high majority of decisions when scoring a round. The next two criteria must be treated as a backup and used ONLY when Effective Striking/Grappling is 100% equal for the round.

https://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/forms_pubs/publications/unified_rules_2017.pdf

EDIT: didn't notice some earlier posts. This will teach me to read the thread before replying

Nice to know even the unified rules support this very clear logic. More proof that the judges are often objectively wrong.

 

[DevNull69]

agree completely. If takedown doesn't lead to any damage, whats the point.

It’s also hard to do a double back flip, that doesn’t mean it was an effective technique in a fight.

 

[seanb1979]

Who stalls and LNPs in this current era of mma

Usman.

 

[tenniswhiz]

OP isn't saying it shouldn't be scored positively.

He's likely referring to fighters like Fitch who land a takedown (which they absolutely should be granted credit for on the scorecards) but do very, very little with it.

For instance, if you outstrike someone for 2 minutes in a round, but they land a TD and lay on you for the other 3 mins of the round - IMO the guy who outstruck him should 100% win the round over the guy who just laid on him pitter-pattering him, doing just enough activity to not get stood up for inactivity.

The judges will give the guy who got the TD and laid on the other fighter the round 99/100 times.

Actually, Fitch is a bad example.
In his solid wins, he kept his opponent down for entire rounds, threw rabbit punches, and the opponents did absolutely nothing.
In a case like that, Fitch 100% deserved to win.

But I think this thread is about something else.
A fight like MM vs Torres is more what the OP is talking about. Torres swept MM 7 times in this fight.

IMO, guard passes, mount, and taking the back should be worth far more than a TD.

 

[Loiosh]

Fucking terrible comparison. A double back flip is not being defended. If you are trying to drag someone from their feet and you do so with them defending, you should get some points. Less so than they score, but some

If a double back flip is being defended, it's a thousand times as hard.

 

[Regal Boy]

Reversing a position on the ground should be scored higher than taking someone down IMO. Also, taking someone down but they pop right back up should actually score in favor of the opponent, you should lose points if you fail a takedown. A successful takedown should require you putting the opponent down and then controlling him for at least 5 seconds on the ground. If you put someone down for a second or three and they get back up, you should lose points, so as to disincentivize spamming worthless takedowns because it's a pointless martial tactic that doesn't matter in real life.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Reversing a position on the ground should be scored higher than taking someone down IMO. Also, taking someone down but they pop right back up should actually score in favor of the opponent, you should lose points if you fail a takedown. A successful takedown should require you putting the opponent down and then controlling him for at least 5 seconds on the ground. If you put someone down for a second or three and they get back up, you should lose points, so as to disincentivize spamming worthless takedowns because it's a pointless martial tactic that doesn't matter in real life.

exactly, there needs to be risk associated with it. Or the lay and pray tactic will consistently dominate because there’s essentially no risk to the initiator

 

[mudrubble]

I’m tired of seeing guys get credit and be given points by judges for takedowns when they abandon it, or don’t properly secure their opponent after the takedown. And I’m tired of someone leaning someone on the fence and getting credit for a “dominant position”.


Let’s be clear here, getting out of a takedown, or escaping from your opponents ground game, or reversing a position is just as much “grappling” as a takedown. Points should only be scored if the fighter not only uses the position or move, but also does something with it. Otherwise, in my opinion, the escape often times negates the “grappling advantage” gained on the scorecards and fighters should be considered equal.

I'd even go so far as to say that sometimes the reversal or get up is more impressive than the TD. If fighter a struggles to complete a TD, chaining together 3 or 4 attempts and then barely gets fighter b down but then fighter b pops up like he didn't break a sweat, and fighter a is tired and dejected - to me fighter b clearly just won that exchange. Physically and mentally.

Just like striking. Counters count as much as lead strikes. It would make no sense to say "he struck him and landed so he won the exchange even though it was a weak strike and it got countered impressively".

So yeah, agree.

I also think they should have spikes that slowly rise up from the floor the longer they're on the ground. Like a mm every 30 seconds. Just to give them something to think about.

Another idea I've been meditating on recently is if the cage floor tilted and wobbled predictably. Predictable so that a smart fighter could time when his part of the octagon floor will rise him higher than his opponent and use that to power jumping attacks and stuff.

Somebody give me the UFC telephone # please.

 

[Cpt Migraine]

It means more than not doing it at all, and it certainly means more to take someone down than to get taken down.

That's something the people making these arguments never seem to consider. "It's just a takedown, and shouldn't be scored since nothing happened." Presumably this is coming up because all other aspects of the round have been even so far; otherwise, it wouldn't matter. So then, who should get the advantage? The fighter on his back?

Like it or not, that's octagon control - one fighter is determining, through physical action, where and how the fight is going to take place. And, like it or not, that's one of the primary criteria for scoring a round.

Yeah but the other side of that coin will sound absurd.. being..

The guy standing up isn't collecting points for standing up.. it's the offense..

If someone defends a takedown then the judges should hit the timer and the guy who defended the takedown gets points for dictating were the fight takes place..

This ofcourse is idiotic but it's just as idiotic getting points for doing nothing/getting punished from the bottom from a td..

 

[Huligani]

I'd like to add: if fighter A desperately wants to take down fighter B and spends a LOT of energy trying to do so, succeeds, but then fighter B pops right back up anyway, judges will score that in favor of fighter A usually even though that's only beneficial for fighter B (and the unified rules don't say this should be scored for fighter A).

 

[Isthat-yo bop]

Mma has adopted too many elements from wrestling, it’s still hard for people to recognize that this is a fight , not a sport , this is fighting . Fuck man some guys stall way to fucking much . And when does position outway significant strikes . Only in mma .

 

[Regal Boy]

I think a big flaw is the time limit.

When you're expending so much energy just to keep some guy on the wall, that might be okay in the cage where you know you are only fighting for 15 (or 25) minutes, because you have the "dominant position". But in a real fight, you will end up gassing before him if you keep that up over time and then your opponent will kill you. So it's actually an INFERIOR position in martial arts that you shouldn't be attempting to have.

Pushing someone up against the wall over time without being able to take them down should also count against you, you should lose points and be disincentivized from doing this because it is not a valid martial tactic.

 

[Intellidamus]

It’s also hard to do a double back flip, that doesn’t mean it was an effective technique in a fight.

Yeah doing a back flip that results in no positional advantage in a fight is exactly the same thing as taking your opponent off his feet.

 

[markg171]

We all love the Just Bleed fights, but this is such a ridiculous notion. For every takedown landed there by generally must've been a takedown defence that failed. The guy didn't take himself down unless he pulled guard. So how the fuck is it correct to say that a takedown shouldn't be scored over their opponents efforts when it literally beat theirs? That's ridiculous. Who gives a shit what happens afterwards, the event still happened.

I mean, no one goes around saying someone shouldn't get points for landing a punch their opponent didn't successfully block/dodge.

 

[Regal Boy]

Yeah doing a back flip that results in no positional advantage in a fight is exactly the same thing as taking your opponent off his feet.

Taking your opponent off his feet only for him to stand right back up and continue with no positional gain for either of you is, effectively, EXACTLY the same as just doing a random backflip. They are the same thing.