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?