Should defense be scored?

Should defense be scored in MMA?

  • Total voters
    152
Defense should be scored +1 point every time you do it.
However, offense should also be scored +1 point every time you do it.

So, scenarios:

1). If you do offense, you get +1 points. Then if the opponent doesn't defend it, he gets 0 points. Result = You're ahead by 1 point.
2) If you do offense, you get +1 points. Then if the opponent defends it, he also gets +1 points. Result = You're both tied at +1 points.
 
Fahcough said:
Defense needs a lot more weight. Stuffing 13 takedowns is more impressive than them landing 1 with 3 seconds left trying to 'steal the round'.
Click to expand...
I agree. Stuffing a takedown should be +1 point. However, a takedown attempt should also be +1 point.

So, if you do a takedown attempt, and the opponent doesn't defend it, you get +1 points. You're ahead +1 points for the successful takedown.

BUT if you do a takedown attempt, and the opponent does defend it, you get +1 points and he gets +1 points too. You're both tied at +1 points and +1 points each for the takedown and the takedown defense.

So 13 takedown attempts, and 13 defended takedowns = +13 points for you, and + 13 points for him.
 
Iron Monger said:
Defending a takedown should score you points
Click to expand...
No it shouldn't. If it did you could have a fighter that did nothing but defend takedowns win a fight which makes no sense because he did nothing offensivly.
 
superpunch said:
I agree. Stuffing a takedown should be +1 point. However, a takedown attempt should also be +1 point.

So, if you do a takedown attempt, and the opponent doesn't defend it, you get +1 points. You're ahead +1 points for the successful takedown.

BUT if you do a takedown attempt, and the opponent does defend it, you get +1 points and he gets +1 points too. You're both tied at +1 points and +1 points each for the takedown and the takedown defense.

So 13 takedown attempts, and 13 defended takedowns = +13 points for you, and + 13 points for him.
Click to expand...
Sounds good but how come you dont want something like that for strikes?
 
Fahcough said:
This happened recently, forgot who the fighters were. Red gloves wins rounds 1 and 2 clearly, by 3 he's exhausted and blue turns it up. Beats the hell out of red in the 3rd round, only to be saved by bell and can't even get up under own power.
Red wins 2 :1 under judging but was only left conscious because the time ran out.
Click to expand...
right. that just doesn't work.
 
JohnMangala said:
Sounds good but how come you dont want something like that for strikes?
Click to expand...
I'm in favor of doing it for strikes too.

You throw a strike, you get +1 point for trying. If it misses, the other guy gets +1 point for defending it. If it lands, the other guy gets +0 points because he didn't do anything to score a point.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
No it shouldn't. If it did you could have a fighter that did nothing but defend takedowns win a fight which makes no sense because he did nothing offensivly.
Click to expand...
Tyron v Maia. Stood there and waited to defend TD while backing up with no offensive advance.
 
Fahcough said:
Tyron v Maia. Stood there and waited to defend TD while backing up with no offensive advance.
Click to expand...

Not true, Woodley landed strikes in that fight, 57 to Maia's 28 and landed more every round. That is why Woodley won that fight not the defended takedowns.

Defense doesn't score in MMA, it either reduces how much your opponent scores or prevents them from scoring at all.
 
Conor_Is_Overrated said:
It is scored though.
Click to expand...

In a way it is by reducing how much your opponent's offense scores or prevents it. What people are asking for here though is they want it to also score in addition to that as if it were offense.

Basically they are asking for defense to both reduce how much your opponent scores and to also score on it's own which doesn't make any sense in MMA.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
No it shouldn't. If it did you could have a fighter that did nothing but defend takedowns win a fight which makes no sense because he did nothing offensivly.
Click to expand...

No because the fight would be judged on what happens on the feet. And yes if scoring a takedown is a point defending it should be a point too, only fair both take skill.
 
Iron Monger said:
No because the fight would be judged on what happens on the feet. And yes if scoring a takedown is a point defending it should be a point too, only fair both take skill.
Click to expand...

Your first sentence is correct and that is how MMA is scored. Your second sentence is wrong though. If I were to attempt a takedown and my opponent stops it but I wind up in the clinch with his back on the cage it's not even, I won that exchange because I now have a better position than he does.

This is why defense isn't scored in MMA like offense is, defense is defense it reduces how much the other person's offense scores, it can outright prevent the score but that would be like a dodged punch or a defended takedown that doesn't lead to a clinch position that favors one party over the other.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
Your first sentence is correct and that is how MMA is scored. Your second sentence is wrong though. If I were to attempt a takedown and my opponent stops it but I wind up in the clinch with his back on the cage it's not even, I won that exchange because I now have a better position than he does.
Click to expand...

That's only one form of defending a takedown. If my opponent shoots for a double and I sprawl then I underhook and reverse him then he's the on with his back against the cage and I'm the one pressing the action. Not all takedown defenses led to the same result, as it's the case for takedowns themselves
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
In a way it is by reducing how much your opponent's offense scores or prevents it. What people are asking for here though is they want it to also score in addition to that as if it were offense.

Basically they are asking for defense to both reduce how much your opponent scores and to also score on it's own which doesn't make any sense in MMA.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Iron Monger said:
That's only one form of defending a takedown. If my opponent shoots for a double and I sprawl then I underhook and reverse him then he's the on with his back against the cage and I'm the one pressing the action. Not all takedown defenses led to the same result, as it's the case for takedowns themselves
Click to expand...

As soon as you say reverse you are no longer talking about defense, and that reversal is the only thing that scores.

Reversals are offense, escapes are defense. Reversals score, escapes don't.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
As soon as you say reverse you are no longer talking about defense, and that reversal is the only thing that scores.
Click to expand...

Of course a good defense leads to a counter attack.

But there's a infinity of cases. It could be just your random striker that goes by bread and butter sprawl and brawl. If he successfully defends a takedown to continue his striking offense there should be a point for him IMO. This sport is in dire need of a way to sanction wall and stall.
 
Iron Monger said:
Of course a good defense leads to a counter attack.

But there's a infinity of cases. It could be just your random striker that goes by bread and butter sprawl and brawl. If he successfully defends a takedown to continue his striking offense there should be a point for him IMO. This sport is in dire need of a way to sanction wall and stall.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can, but the defense doesn't score, the offense is what scores.

There is, the scoring is from his offensive action after he defends, not from the defense.

A counter is offense just like a reversal is offense.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
It does mean something it's just not scored cause it's not offense. Stuffing a takedown prevents your opponent from getting a takedown which would otherwise score more.

If you scored defense you could have a fight in theory where neither fighter ever lands a strike but one fighter defends a bunch of takedowns and constantly has their back to the cage in the clinch and you would score that fight for the guy that had zero offense, that doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

It seems like your example is implying that one of the fighters has control of the fight. You can't lose if you control where there fight is.

I'm thinkin more of if fighter A gets stuffed and doesn't have any control of fighter B, then fighter Bs defense should be awarded somehow. Maybe half a point? I dunno.

It just seems off to me that a fighter can go 1/7 TD and win the round when 6 of those takedown were stuffed and the fighter that stopped the takedowns may have slightly more sig strikes landed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,221
Messages
58,267,783
Members
175,988
Latest member
xindispider

Share this page

Back
Top