Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by HAWTRIDDUM, Dec 27, 2016.
JUdges just need to use their eyes. That's it.
No, but it should definitely be worth something on a score card.
I can respect that opinion, I personally think it should count SOME (The TD) .. but very little. In your scenario the guy on top has 25 seconds of controlling position, that's more than the 3 seconds it takes to get back up. I feel it should 99% be what you do on the ground that matters though.
MMA is an offensive sport and should always reward offence over defence. If you are exclusively defending and are not able to mount effective offence, you are losing.
They break up stalled fights on the ground and against the cage quite quickly most of the time.
It's not a silly question. Especially for fights like Alvarez vs Pettis. Eddie probably threw a total of 5 punches in 3 rounds. No way in hell should you win a fight like that. Also getting to your feet when a grown ass man is trying to hold you down isn't the same as checking a leg kick.
No. What about time when guys use half-assed takedowns just to set up strikes? Achieving a takedown is far better than defending one. If you were to implement this then I guess you should also say that blocking a punch should count just as much as landing a punch.
I think that good takedown defense or striking defense should certainly count more than it often does. Perhaps defending a takedown should count as half of what landing a takedown would count as. That would be better than what it is now, since currently defending takedowns really don't count for anything at all.
Regardless, offense should always be more rewarded than defense.
Not really. Or it would be the same as evading a punch counting as hitting.
It should be noted, but shouldn't count as much as a takedown.
But I do feel like there's too much of this "stealing the round" with a lame ass takedown in the last 30 seconds of a round.
It shouldn't be counted the same, but they should be considered FAR more than they currently are. Take Bader/Lil' Nog 1 for example. Nog stopped like 18 TD attempts, and got taken down like twice and lost the fight based on it.
I don't think so... even if a guy does defend a TD... he is doing it from a defensive position while the opponent is being offensive.
So the question becomes: "is it more impressive that fighter A put fighter B in a defensive position... or is it more impressive that fighter B managed to eventually get out of that defensive position. Obviously it's more impressive that Fighter A controlled his opponent during that time. Even if he didn't get the take down... it's still control... & all fighter B did was defend.
I think it depends.
A TD that's fully executed but gets stuffed? Yeah, that should count. A TD that doesn't really count as a TD attempt but technically does? No, that shouldn't.
I think the judging criteria needs to be overhauled anyway. We'll see how things go after January with the new rules and clarifications, but I think that anyone whose gameplan is grapple-heavy should be penalized for failing to execute their gameplan, even if their opponent is moving backwards most of the time to avoid clinching and TD attempts (but landing strikes).
If anything, the fighter who fails to get the takedown should lose points.
So just spamming TD attempts should win you a fight, even if they're all stuffed?
You need to have success in your offense for it to count. Otherwise yes, I think you should be penalized.
Defending a takedown doesn't mean shit
My point is mainly that it certainly can't go the other way & count more toward the guy who defended it because he has been put on defense while his opponent is threatening.
There are a lot of variables to what you are saying about "being penalized if you don't get your take downs." I expect you are referring to people who hold on to it in a last ditch effort to stall... in which case I would agree... but there are also many times when the guy is legit going for it & all the opponent is doing is defending. I just can't score a guy on defense higher than I score a guy on offense... but per your point... it's not a cookie cutter philosophy... it depends on how it's done.
No, it's a defensive action. Blocking a strike is not worth as much as landing a strike.
Thankfully, this question won't matter in 2017 because octagon control has been relegated to almost meaningless tie breaker criteria. The changes to scoring sound exciting. They are also encouraging more 10-10s, 10-8s, and 10-7s.
If one guy is spamming takedown attempts AND the striking is equal, then he should win. The striking isn't usually even.
The same day that avoiding a strike score equally to a significant strike.
But the striking doesn't have to be even, does it? A guy moving backwards is losing both aggression and octagon control. Fighter A can be winning the striking, but fighter B can be moving forward and getting picked apart, but still win the fight by spamming TD attempts - they win the grappling, the aggression, and octagon control - 3 of the 4 criteria.
But again, we'll see how the new rule changes affect things. Hopefully it'll be less prone to fuckery. I wish they would institute some kind of oversight where if a score card is suspicious (however they want to define that) then they can investigate or at least give the judge a "point" - too many "points" in a short period of time will prevent them from judging in the future.
The best rule changes are ultimately meaningless if the judges still get it wrong.
If the takedown attempts are being stuffed, then he is not winning the grappling. The criteria are supposed to have a descending order of significance. Winning striking and stopping all of the takedown attempts should definitely be a win.
*should* being the key word, no? But that's not how the rules are written (for the remaining 4 days of 2016).
Separate names with a comma.