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.It should counteract the point for the original takedown.... unless there was offense from the takedown (pass, gnp or sub attempts). If there was no offense, and the guy stands back up twenty seconds later, it should be equal.
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.should a dodged or blocked punch or kick score points? an avoided or escaped submission? this is a silly question.
the person attempting the takedown is attacking his opponent....
So just spamming TD attempts should win you a fight, even if they're all stuffed?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.
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.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.
If one guy is spamming takedown attempts AND the striking is equal, then he should win. The striking isn't usually even.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.
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.If one guy is spamming takedown attempts AND the striking is equal, then he should win. The striking isn't usually even.
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.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.
*should* being the key word, no? But that's not how the rules are written (for the remaining 4 days of 2016).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.