Should defended takedowns count on scorecards as much as takedowns?

['Rocky']

Too complicated. This issue isn't so black and white. Not every takedown attempt is created equal. Some takedown attempts aren't even an actual takedown attempt, but a disguise to get you to drop your guard, or to pop up and get you in the clinch instead. This is why MMA judging is so unpopular in the MMA community. Stats do not work in most sports. This isn't baseball. The sooner everyone learns that, the better.

 

[tramendous]

Should defended punches & kicks count on the scorecards as much as punches & kicks?.....

Its not the same thing. You dont have to outstrike someone to defend a strike but most of the time defending a takedown involves having to outgrapple that person (sprawling, preventing underhooks in clinch etc)

 

[ErnestoRoost]

Without doubt the stupidest question I've ever heard on Sherdog. No offence TS. It's just... ridiculous on many levels that I wont waste a second on explaining.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

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.

I think the takedown itself now counts for nothing or next to nothing yes.

 

[ErnestoRoost]

Should we score running? That's also evasive action.

 

[revoltub]

Should defended punches & kicks count on the scorecards as much as punches & kicks?.....

Exactly

 

[revoltub]

No. But also you shouldn't reward a person who takes another down and does almost nothing with the position.

It depends. All things equal, a takedown is more than enough to break an even round

 

[JayE]

Absolutely not.

 

[Chivas GDL]

Yes because most takedowns (not all) lead to boredom, succesfuly defending takedowns should be rewarded because it is good for the fans.

 

[fatlipjesus]

It depends. All things equal, a takedown is more than enough to break an even round

It shouldn't.

If no damage is done from that advantageous position, how was it an advantageous position?

If a round is completely even and a fighter takes down Fabricio Werdum..... should that win him the round? and why? Werdum wouldn't even fight the takedown because he feels that being on the bottom is an advantage to him.... and it almost always will be.

Only offense should count.

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

Offense is the only action that needs to be rewarded with points. Successful defense is a reward in and of itself.

Exactly.

This idiocy is like giving the defense points every time the offense misses a shot in basketball.

 

[revoltub]

It shouldn't.

If no damage is done from that advantageous position, how was it an advantageous position?

If a round is completely even and a fighter takes down Fabricio Werdum..... should that win him the round? and why? Werdum wouldn't even fight the takedown because he feels that being on the bottom is an advantage to him.... and it almost always will be.

Only offense should count.

Because taking someone down is better than being taken down. Youre goal was to put someone on their back and you did

 

[DrHouse]

It's a pretty silly idea, getting a takedown is much more difficult than defending one. If you look at pretty much every fighters' stats, it'll tell you exactly that.

 

[MuayThaiBX]

No, but if a whole round primarily consists of one guy trying takedowns repeatedly and the other guy effectively stuffing them - the guy stuffing the takedowns should win the round. He is winning those moments of the fight. But stopping a takedown shouldn't be scored as heavily as actually getting one.

 

[Andrusz]

Should it count for points? Yes.

Should it count as much as a TD? Fuck no.

 

[Andrusz]

No, but if a whole round primarily consists of one guy trying takedowns repeatedly and the other guy effectively stuffing them - the guy stuffing the takedowns should win the round. He is winning those moments of the fight. But stopping a takedown shouldn't be scored as heavily as actually getting one.

Agreed. Preventing TDs should earn that person points. Failing to achieve a TD shouldn't earn you anything.

 

[fatlipjesus]

Because taking someone down is better than being taken down. Youre goal was to put someone on their back and you did

Does nothing to win a fight if you take someone down and do nothing with it.

This is not the sport of wrestling. Its fighting.

 

[rj144]

Do takedowns really count though? In other words, do judges write or take mental notes of how many takedowns there are?

I think judges just judge on who won the round. If some guy took someone down 5 times in a round, then he's controlling the fight and is given the round. If a round is close and someone gets a takedown in the last minute, then that fighter won the last minute to give him or her the round.

To me it's all about controlling and winning the round which takes everything to account including takedowns.

 

[revoltub]

Does nothing to win a fight if you take someone down and do nothing with it.

This is not the sport of wrestling. Its fighting.

A take down is part of fighting. If someone goes for a rakedown and gets it they should be rewarded

 

[fatlipjesus]

A take down is part of fighting. If someone goes for a rakedown and gets it they should be rewarded

Why? Unless that takedown does damage i.e. a slam... no it shouldn't be rewarded. The reward is being in the advantageous position, which will enable you to more easily score points... if it is truly an advantageous position for you.

Taking someone down and doing absolutely nothing with it accomplishes nothing but rubbing bellies with another man. And you don't win a fight by dragging a man to the ground and rubbing bellies with him.