Regarding scoring of takedowns...

[One4Deuce]

Bear with me, I might be completely wrong. But as I understand it, defending a takedown does not "score" for a fighter as it's a defensive move. I can somewhat understand the logic though I don't entirely agree. The issue I have is if a takedown scores so greatly as they seem to in typical MMA judging, and often failed takedown attempts end up being seen favorably by judges (controlling a guy on the cage for extended periods even though it really is a failed takedown much of the time). Why not score a defended takedown, in my opinion it's just as much controlling the fight as the successful takedown.

Quick summary, it seems to me there's a huge imbalance in takedown scoring. Anyone see what I'm saying here and agree? Disagree?

 

[m52nickerson]

Bear with me, I might be completely wrong. But as I understand it, defending a takedown does not "score" for a fighter as it's a defensive move. I can somewhat understand the logic though I don't entirely agree. The issue I have is if a takedown scores so greatly as they seem to in typical MMA judging, and often failed takedown attempts end up being seen favorably by judges (controlling a guy on the cage for extended periods even though it really is a failed takedown much of the time). Why not score a defended takedown, in my opinion it's just as much controlling the fight as the successful takedown.

Quick summary, it seems to me there's a huge imbalance in takedown scoring. Anyone see what I'm saying here and agree? Disagree?

Taking somone down puts you in a dominate position. Defending a takedown keeps you in a neutral position. Defending a take down, or submission is not controlling the fight. Defending is simply staying in the fight.

 

[SeattleFightFan]

agreed.

the first time i'd ever considered this was Diego v Alessio. first round Diego had about 12 failed takedowns. virtually nothing else happened the whole round. 2 judges gave it to Diego.

looks, the fact is, subjectivity is built into the system. we can banter on about how it IS and/or how it SHOULD BE, but the simple truth is 2 judges sitting side by side could score it completely differently because they both view things like takedowns, top control, damage from the bottom, octagon control, etc slightly (or not so slightly) differently. it's systemic - built into the system - not the judges fault. everyone wants to blame the judges for the fact that these thing are not (and possibly cannot be) specified, and it's wrong to blame the judges for something that the AC has defined.

i'm not talking about the random round where a judge is way off base. for that we can blame judges all we want. i'm talking about trying to define who wins a toss-up round.

the good news is, it's probably better than making mma a "point" game, like karate & wrestling.

the bad news is, every time we have close rounds, we have to spend 4 days of going over all of this yet again.

 

[hto63]

Big John talked about this in great detail on the MMA hour and I agree with him, a lot of judges go full retard when they see a takedown. Now matter how irrelevant.
Defending a takedown shouldn't score points but landing meaningless takedowns scores too much, that's a problem.

When GSP takes a guy down and stays on top of him for 5 minutes that is one thing.

But a lot of takedowns have literally no effect whatsoever on the fight if the other guy stands up immediately and are usually scored way too highly by many judges.

 

[cumafish]

Taking somone down puts you in a dominate position. Defending a takedown keeps you in a neutral position. Defending a take down, or submission is not controlling the fight. Defending is simply staying in the fight.

you missed the point, what TS is saying is more about "octagon control" not scoring a TD or strike.

 

[jiujitsuforever]

tdd should count alot

 

[Dimhrek**]

No one wants to get taken down. If your opponent takes you down, he wins that battle.


If you defend a takedown, you neutralize the attack, but you're still the one defending.

 

[Cygnus-X]

Both takedowns and takedown defense counts as effective grappling in the unified rules. Neither score, because there are no scores in MMA other then the round score.

 

[One4Deuce]

Big John talked about this in great detail on the MMA hour and I agree with him, a lot of judges go full retard when they see a takedown. Now matter how irrelevant.
Defending a takedown shouldn't score points but landing meaningless takedowns scores too much, that's a problem.

When GSP takes a guy down and stays on top of him for 5 minutes that is one thing.

But a lot of takedowns have literally no effect whatsoever on the fight if the other guy stands up immediately and are usually scored way too highly by many judges.

Agree with this, another issue is that if a round is 80% standup and 20% ground fighting, the standup is supposed to be weighed more heavily but I really don't see this as being the case. We've all seen far, far too many fights in which a fighter takes his opponent down in the last 30 seconds just to "steal" the round. Well the previous 4:30 should be far more significant than that final 30 seconds. But it's not the reality.

 

[tombombadil]

knees and stomps would punish failed td's, and the judges wouldn't have to. Half of the guys on the roster would have to adapt their games, and we wouldn't have most of the shitty issues we have with stalling to score.

 

[Oblivian]

The problem is that people what to make this a black and white statistical sport which is ludicrous. Watch Eric Koch vs. Jonathan Brookins and note how that fight was scored. Takedown defense meant something since it was pretty apparent Brookins was absolutely desperate for the takedowns and he didn't land anything up against the fence. That's different from someone trying a takedown, failing yet controlling against the fence with short shots landed.

 

[tombombadil]

agreed.

the first time i'd ever considered this was Diego v Alessio. first round Diego had about 12 failed takedowns. virtually nothing else happened the whole round. 2 judges gave it to Diego.

looks, the fact is, subjectivity is built into the system. we can banter on about how it IS and/or how it SHOULD BE, but the simple truth is 2 judges sitting side by side could score it completely differently because they both view things like takedowns, top control, damage from the bottom, octagon control, etc slightly (or not so slightly) differently. it's systemic - built into the system - not the judges fault. everyone wants to blame the judges for the fact that these thing are not (and possibly cannot be) specified, and it's wrong to blame the judges for something that the AC has defined.

i'm not talking about the random round where a judge is way off base. for that we can blame judges all we want. i'm talking about trying to define who wins a toss-up round.

the good news is, it's probably better than making mma a "point" game, like karate & wrestling.

the bad news is, every time we have close rounds, we have to spend 4 days of going over all of this yet again.

great post. as for the highlighted, more 10-10 rds are a must. it irks me when people say something like, 'rd 2 jones/gusto coulda been 10-9 either way' how about only giving someone a rd if you feel they clearly won it!!!

on that note - its sort of silly having 10-9's when all we are really saying is, ' 1 point to Jones' or whoever. Zero points for an indecisive/unclear ound. 1 point to a clear winner, 2 points to a shitkicking. Done.

 

[s1fys]

tdd should count alot

Why not start scoring "alot" for effective striking defense and submission defense too.

 

[soiltostone]

The problem is that people what to make this a black and white statistical sport which is ludicrous. Watch Eric Koch vs. Jonathan Brookins and note how that fight was scored. Takedown defense meant something since it was pretty apparent Brookins was absolutely desperate for the takedowns and he didn't land anything up against the fence. That's different from someone trying a takedown, failing yet controlling against the fence with short shots landed.

This is an important point, and something seattlefightfan mentioned as well. Judges are people, and therefore bring with them their own biases (unintentionally and inescapably) which shape the context with which they score the fight. Commissions can endlessly write up new criteria the judges are supposed to use, but without each judge being explicitly asked to justify their score for each round how can we know what they're thinking? And if we don't know their thinking how can we judge the relevance of the written criteria? Also, the more complex the scoring criteria get, the more gray area opens up, creating more room for misunderstanding. Not an easy question.

What if there were more judges? Wouldn't it help to counterbalance oddball decisions if there were more opinions? Would it be unreasonable to ask dissenters to justify their thinking?

 

[Balzak]

Bear with me, I might be completely wrong. But as I understand it, defending a takedown does not "score" for a fighter as it's a defensive move. I can somewhat understand the logic though I don't entirely agree. The issue I have is if a takedown scores so greatly as they seem to in typical MMA judging, and often failed takedown attempts end up being seen favorably by judges (controlling a guy on the cage for extended periods even though it really is a failed takedown much of the time). Why not score a defended takedown, in my opinion it's just as much controlling the fight as the successful takedown.

Quick summary, it seems to me there's a huge imbalance in takedown scoring. Anyone see what I'm saying here and agree? Disagree?

You are right... the problem is that the judges don't seems to score it right... UFC scoring rules are quite clear that a stuffed takedown should be an equal accomplishment regarding octagon control as a succesful takedown is

the rule is clear:

14. Judging
G- Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking, taking down an opponent to force a ground fight, creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.