Should defended takedowns count on scorecards as much as takedowns?

[CFGroup]

Its frustrating to watch some fights where a fighter defends 3-4 takedowns, then the round gets stolen when the other fighter gets a takedown towards the end of a round.

The judges have been trained over the years to reward offensive grappling more then defensive grappling. Perhaps they consider offensive grappling as octagon control?

I feel that when a fighter initiates a takedown and the other fighter fends off that takedown successfully, then the defending fighter won the grappling exchange.

It would be nice to see all the talk about evolving the ufc rules we have been for years actually happen.

I'd like to see everyone elses thoughts, and give the poll a vote as well.

Totally with u on this one! MMA rules favor grappling because MMA was a gimmick to promote the Gracie's. That day is long gone and all the old rules need to be chucked that favor dragging guys to the ground and not neutralizing TD's.

Takedowns should only be scored if a clean throw or TD is executed and the same point should be rewarded if a throw is neutralized. Points should be taken away for stalling on the wall or on the ground for more than 30 seconds.

Those fights where Jon Jones crawls out to the center of the octagon so his opponent cant kick him in the head did it for me. Gaming the rules like that is rampant and makes MMA seem fake!

 

[Based and White Pilled]

*should* being the key word, no? But that's not how the rules are written (for the remaining 4 days of 2016).

Yes it is. Effective striking and grappling are supposed to be weighted more heavily than the other two already. In 2017 they are providing amplifying instructions that say to completely ignore the other two unless striking and grappling are even.

Yes, 'should' is an important word there. There is certainly a judging problem in the sport.

 

[WinZip]

Yes it is. Effective striking and grappling are supposed to be weighted more heavily than the other two already. In 2017 they are providing amplifying instructions that say to completely ignore the other two unless striking and grappling are even.

Right, there is a weighted average to it, but the aggressor is almost always awarded the grappling, regardless of how "effective" it is - a failed TD is scored higher than defending a TD. It should be neutral for both or even negative for the person failing the TD, but it seems to benefit them instead.

Yes, 'should' is an important word there. There is certainly a judging problem in the sport.

Indeed. And the rules should definitely help provide clarity, but "clarity" isn't the issue with some of the judges. It really seems to me that some of them either don't watch the fight at all or they're disgruntled boxing judges who don't appreciate MMA to begin with and just write down random scores that don't really make any sense. I cannot fathom that some of these judges have been trained and certified on the rules and scoring of MMA because their scores are just so insane - fights are regularly scored 30-27, 30-27, 27-30 - and while some fights may actually have all 3 rounds be so close that you could score it like that, the majority is just terrible (or corrupt) judging.

 

[giusti825]

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.

if you want to score, go on the offensive....do reversals instead of escapes.....

its a silly question because the second u start giving points for defense, you are going to make fighters start trying to exploit that system......fighters will try to win fights by stffing takedowns instead of attacking.....

should a blocked field goal score points for the defense?

in your alvarez pettis analogy, all pettis had to do was attack.....he failed to do so....

 

[NHB7]

Should a defended punch count as much as a landed punch? If so, we can rescore the Nate Quarry vs Kalib Starnes fights. Kalib evaded literally hundreds of punches and would have been wayyyyy ahead on the scorecard.

 

[johncola]

Its frustrating to watch some fights where a fighter defends 3-4 takedowns, then the round gets stolen when the other fighter gets a takedown towards the end of a round.

The judges have been trained over the years to reward offensive grappling more then defensive grappling. Perhaps they consider offensive grappling as octagon control?

I feel that when a fighter initiates a takedown and the other fighter fends off that takedown successfully, then the defending fighter won the grappling exchange.

It would be nice to see all the talk about evolving the ufc rules we have been for years actually happen.

I'd like to see everyone elses thoughts, and give the poll a vote as well.

I'd agree with the first reply in the thread.

However, it doesn't matter much. The issue you're talking about mainly concerns control. And control doesn't matter much in the scoring. Thankfully, this will be made official with the new scoring changes. Effective offense is what it's all about. Neither a TD nor TDD are about offense; they're about control. The winner of the round should be based on who has the better offense. If offense is even, then it's about who was more aggressive, ie who attempted more offense. If that's also even, then finally control starts to matter. Thus at that point, the subject of TD vs TDD starts to matter. But that'll be a rare occasion.

 

[Furious77]

in your alvarez pettis analogy, all pettis had to do was attack.....he failed to do so....

Lol ohh is that all you have to do? He did attack, but Alvarez wasn't fighting he was grabbing and hanging on. It almost seemed like stalling at times. I don't think you should get points for tdd but I do think how Alvarez fought that night shouldn't be rewarded.

 

[Ancient Warrior]

No.

Points for blocking encourages both parties to not attempt any takedowns.

What's next? Are we going to give points for avoiding punches too?

 

[Cazador]

According to Big Jon in the new judging criteria takedowns won't even score points, it's what you do with it.
As it should be

Finally!

 

[fatlipjesus]

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.

I guess the way I look at it is...... fighter A lands the takedown, putting it in the position he wants... he gets a point.... then fighter B gets the sweep or gets back to his feet, so he has put the fight in the position he wants.... he gets a point... Tit for tat kind of.

Its kind of a gray area though because different positions are advantageous for different fighters. Like, should scoring a takedown on Demian Maia really count as controlling him when he clearly wants the fight on the ground? And really, what is the point of control if you're not using it to inflict damage or go for any offense? Really only effective offense should be considered.

 

[fatlipjesus]

Totally with u on this one! MMA rules favor grappling because MMA was a gimmick to promote the Gracie's. That day is long gone and all the old rules need to be chucked that favor dragging guys to the ground and not neutralizing TD's.

Takedowns should only be scored if a clean throw or TD is executed and the same point should be rewarded if a throw is neutralized. Points should be taken away for stalling on the wall or on the ground for more than 30 seconds.

Those fights where Jon Jones crawls out to the center of the octagon so his opponent cant kick him in the head did it for me. Gaming the rules like that is rampant and makes MMA seem fake!

The Nunes-Shevchenko fight was another example of that hand on the ground thing. Nunes was getting lit up in Round 3 by the clinch knees of Shevchenko, so she neutralizes them all by just ducking her head and putting a hand on the ground. Absolutely silly rule. Thank God they changed it.

 

[sb413197]

No. Defending a technique isn't worth "points".

 

[CFGroup]

The Nunes-Shevchenko fight was another example of that hand on the ground thing. Nunes was getting lit up in Round 3 by the clinch knees of Shevchenko, so she neutralizes them all by just ducking her head and putting a hand on the ground. Absolutely silly rule. Thank God they changed it.

They did?

Good!

Vitor should have taken the DQ and punted Jones into next week!

 

[Sinedd]

This is the dumbest idea ever. Defence is not scored in any sport

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

I guess the way I look at it is...... fighter A lands the takedown, putting it in the position he wants... he gets a point.... then fighter B gets the sweep or gets back to his feet, so he has put the fight in the position he wants.... he gets a point... Tit for tat kind of.

The one difference I see is it's easier to defend and easier to sweep. So I can't give equal points for someone doing something easier.

 

[hydro481]

That's the dilemma with mma scoring in general...everything is subjective. One judge may emphasize one aspect, another judge may be the total opposite. This is why you constantly see scorecards that are all over the place. It's not black and white like other sports where a goal is worth a certain amount of points.

 

[fatlipjesus]

The one difference I see is it's easier to defend and easier to sweep. So I can't give equal points for someone doing something easier.

Yeah. I'm fine with them making only offense count. Advantageous positions should be rewards in themselves, if you get a takedown and don't do anything with it... then it really wasn't an advantage.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

Yeah. I'm fine with them making only offense count. Advantageous positions should be rewards in themselves, if you get a takedown and don't do anything with it... then it really wasn't an advantage.

I agree with that and it should count for next to nothing. It should be what you do with it more than getting it.

 

[fatlipjesus]

I agree with that and it should count for next to nothing. It should be what you do with it more than getting it.

Agreed. I only had a quick scan through Big John's video, but I think that's what they just changed it to also? So I'm pretty happy with it, if that's the case.

 

[tramendous]

Its frustrating to watch some fights where a fighter defends 3-4 takedowns, then the round gets stolen when the other fighter gets a takedown towards the end of a round.

The judges have been trained over the years to reward offensive grappling more then defensive grappling. Perhaps they consider offensive grappling as octagon control?

I feel that when a fighter initiates a takedown and the other fighter fends off that takedown successfully, then the defending fighter won the grappling exchange.

It would be nice to see all the talk about evolving the ufc rules we have been for years actually happen.

I'd like to see everyone elses thoughts, and give the poll a vote as well.

Takedowns shouldnt count for anything unless you at least land in side control or half guard. Unless its a throw/slam