Takedowns should not score big at all

Why on earth do takedowns in and of themselves score big on the judges scorecards? its not like they actually do anything what so ever by themselves?!

How about scoring whats actually done from getting that takedown??

So many bullshit strategies of simply grabbing and holding on to a fighter for 3 rounds or more, without doing any damage what so ever, or coming close to finishing at all. Yet this somehow means you won the fight? On the contrary i think it should count negatively on the scorecards if a **** does this kind of thing, because it basically means you are avoiding a fight, which is the exact opposite of what you came to do, and what we paid to see?

Kennedy vs Bisping case and point. Kennedy didnt even scratch bispings face? I mean there are countless examples of this non-fighting leading to idiotic victories. Has nothing to do with fighting, its actually the exact opposite of fighting.

/rant

Commence flaming

Ps. I dont just want to see blood, in fact i dont like it when fighters bleed at all, i like technically beautiful matches, but technically beautiful does not equal avoidance, and should not. Technical superiority shold show in strikes landed, submission attempts, etc.

 

There's inherent risk in going for a TD so they deserve to be scored relative to that risk

 

Tyron Woodley just beat carlos condit via takedown injury from a shot. Takedowns are aggresive and dominate the position of the fight..

 

Why? It does nothing to "win" the fight in and of itself as a move. It can potentially lead to fight winning moves, but in and of itself it doesnt. The reason why this distinction is important, is because this makes it possible for fighters to steal rounds, avoid engagement (while also severely limiting theire own output) as a general strategy. Imagine if there wasnt a clock and it was a real fight, then these dry humpers could just lie ontop of you for days or even weeks, but without actually doing anything what so ever to defeat theire opponent.

I genuinly think its to the detriment of the sport.

Im a huge fan of wrestlers, and BJJ, thats not the point im trying to make here that these diciplines are not valid

 

Thats a fluke, probably 1:15000? The fact that it has happened by accident once or twice in the entirety of the sports existence does not justify this as a point winning strategy for all fights

 

The post you quoted explained why

If you don't get it, then you don't get it

 

rampage vs king mo

oh yea!

 

I would argue theres higher risk involved in throwing a haymaker right hand, than going for a takedown. Just look at the number of counters on right hands, compared to the number of strikes received while going for a takedown? Its virtually non existant

 

Ive said it for a long time and it gets you nowhere.

Just be right, know you're right, and accept it won't change. Then you're ready to have a relationship with a woman.

 

Honestly I just hate when a fighter spams takedowns and the other fighter CANT defend them.

BOTH of the fighters should learn to be more well rounded and stop focusing on one aspect of mma.

 

Takedowns seem to score too much in opinion, especially weak barely completed takedowns.

 

:icon_sad:

 

afaik the woodley condit stuff happened actually just before the takedown, i heard someone saying that

 

A takedown should count as much as a jab.

 

While I do think takedowns are often overscored, I feel that not assigning them any value removes the sport further from reality. In a lot of real fighting contexts, control is important, and takedowns damaging. Furthermore, the top position is far stronger in a situation without rules, where head butts, gouging and knees are available, all which benefits tremendously from leverage. Not scoring the fact that somebody has the skillset to force the other fighter to fight in his world doesn't make much sense to me.

"Imagine if this was a real fight". More often than not, the guy on the bottom would be Colaman'ed or Kerr''ed. Top position might be overscored, but bottom position is protected. Hell, if UFC 173 was on concrete, Hendo would be dead a few minutes into the fight from takedowns alone.

I think that stalling should be punished more, though. No matter if you're on the bottom, top or standing, but that would require better refs overall.

 

Something like that, yeah. I really cannot think of any good arguments to the contrary

 

Maybe more like a "a single significant strike but not a near-knockdown or anything".... jab seems a little too soft on it.

 

I've always imagined if you tried to single leg on a guy in real life you'd have to eat some big elbows to the back of your head. Anyone have any experience using/recieving any form of a takedown in real life?

 

Considering what strikes are considered significant, a good takedown into a control position should score more than several siginificant strikes, but definitely less than a knockdown.

 

theres a risk trying a kick to the head, theres a risk throwing a punch etc, whats so special about taking someone down and not attempting to finish? its like leaving a job half done