Takedowns should not score big at all

[7437]

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

Igor/shamrock
shogun/coleman
rampage/arona
woodley/condit
harris/branch
hughes/newton
maynard/ emerson (double, LOL)
wineland/stone
Kaufman/modareffi (women)

And those are just some of the finishes.

 

[moreorless87]

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

It would be a risk hopping on one leg whistling the star spangled banner but that doesn't mean it should count for a lot on the judges cards.

 

[Evcity]

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

TD's should indeed count for something, but for some reason people place the same value on them as a knockdown, and 2.5 mins of sitting on someone doing no damage is somehow equal to 2.5 mins of getting tuned up on the feet.

Getting a takedown should be desirable because it gives a fighter a dominant position with which to DO something - not just bear hug their opponent for 15 minutes getting boxed on their ears and then win because they were on top.

 

[Sigmafight]

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.

But as long as takedown in and of themselves are fight changing on the judges scorecards, means exactly this, that fighters will focus on simply getting them, and not doing anything what so ever with them. That has nothing to do with fighting in my opinion.
But i guess maybe it has to do with different people coming in to the fight with difference expectations of what it should be about.
I always view the MMA game as you are there to defeat your opponent, thats it. Takedowns and control does nothing to help you with this, in and of iftself, which is why i dont see any justification for it to be a round-winning move or anything close to it, its basically as significant as a strike in that reguard, and it has some severe negative side effects on a "fight".

Getting to the ground itself should have no more significance than standing up, and should just basically be a matter of fighters preference.

 

[MilesAbove]

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.

Sure, I can see that. But that's where we end up getting all murky. What I meant by the takedown being a single significant strike is ONLY if it's just the takedown and isn't controlled. The moment control or damage is inolved, it's inherently worth more.

So to reiterate. Takedown = Significant strike. Takedown+X = Significant Strike + X

 

[Evcity]

Igor/shamrock
shogun/coleman
rampage/arona
woodley/condit
harris/branch
hughes/newton
maynard/ emerson (double, LOL)
wineland/stone
Kaufman/modareffi (women)

And those are just some of the finishes.

Some of those are unusual injuries and the rest are slam ko's. I think everyone can agree that slams should score big and if someone is tko'd then that is pretty clear cut. Comparisons can't really be drawn between these fights and awkwardly dragging someone down the fence and then hugging on to their legs for a round.

 

[morohbj]

Takedowns are used to gain a favourable position. It's what you do with that position that should score. If you are unable to do anything with it, then it wasn't that favourable after all and shouldn't score.

 

[Evcity]

Getting to the ground itself should have no more significance than standing up, and should just basically be a matter of fighters preference.

Interesting perspective, you make a good point. In a classic striker vs grappler match, only the grappler is awarded points for getting the fight into their comfort zone. The striker will be 100% dependent on their output no matter how many times he wall walks up the cage or how long he keeps the fight standing.

 

[Krayv]

Igor/shamrock
shogun/coleman
rampage/arona
woodley/condit
harris/branch
hughes/newton
maynard/ emerson (double, LOL)
wineland/stone
Kaufman/modareffi (women)

And those are just some of the finishes.

Well, you're calling slams from top position when they're already grappling, yet caught in a submission, as takedowns. That's not the same thing. That's a slam intended to do damage, not a fluke injury from a takedown attempt.

A takedown should only count as a small step forward in position, unless you do something with it. I fully believe that if you take someone down, and transition yourself to better positions and attempt submissions and ground and pound or something, that should count as serious offense. Even if you don't end up doing a ton of damage, improving position to a place where you can do more damage should count for quite a bit.

A takedown shouldn't count for much more than a jab if it results in stalling and no change in position or offense.

 

[Sigmafight]

Takedowns are used to gain a favourable position. It's what you do with that position that should score. If you are unable to do anything with it, then it wasn't that favourable after all and shouldn't score.

Precisely.

 

[ShreddinMMA]

EDIT: Also, your stance on this is quite stupid.

 

[7437]

Some of those are unusual injuries and the rest are slam ko's. I think everyone can agree that slams should score big and if someone is tko'd then that is pretty clear cut. Comparisons can't really be drawn between these fights and awkwardly dragging someone down the fence and then hugging on to their legs for a round.

It is looked at the same as a knock down. It puts your opponent on the ground, with you on top. Sometimes guys finish there, sometimes they dont.

 

[Irenaeus]

But as long as takedown in and of themselves are fight changing on the judges scorecards, means exactly this, that fighters will focus on simply getting them, and not doing anything what so ever with them. That has nothing to do with fighting in my opinion.

I'm no fan of stalling, so I do have a problem with somebody planning not doing anything with takedowns, but that's a game theory problem. I still think takedowns should score, and I do think takedowns are a part of fighting - not avoiding a fight. Not scoring them would be a huge overreaction.

But i guess maybe it has to do with different people coming in to the fight with difference expectations of what it should be about.

Yeah, I think you've come to the crux of the issue here.

I always view the MMA game as you are there to defeat your opponent, thats it. Takedowns and control does nothing to help you with this, in and of iftself, which is why i dont see any justification for it to be a round-winning move or anything close to it, its basically as significant as a strike in that reguard, and it has some severe negative side effects on a "fight".

I see where you are coming from here, though I disagree in some respects. A good takedown is worth far more than a strike which doesn't obviously hurt the opponent. It forces a change in the nature of the fight into a superior position, which is currently handicapped by the rules of MMA. Soft(ish) surface, limited attacks, standups and rounds. It should score significantly, but it certainly shouldn't be a round winner no matter what else happens.

Getting to the ground itself should have no more significance than standing up, and should just basically be a matter of fighters preference.

Here I'm in complete disagreement. Forcing the opponent into a situation which he's controlled and disadvantaged by the realities of physics should definitely count more than forcing (or maintaining) a position where you have no control of the opponent, and no inherently superior mechanical advantage.

 

[Krayv]

Getting to the ground itself should have no more significance than standing up, and should just basically be a matter of fighters preference.

I like this.
Standing up from a takedown is often harder than getting the takedown in the first place.
What should really count is the offensive attempts from your position.

 

[Irenaeus]

Sure, I can see that. But that's where we end up getting all murky. What I meant by the takedown being a single significant strike is ONLY if it's just the takedown and isn't controlled. The moment control or damage is inolved, it's inherently worth more.

Ok, I'm in complete agreement to this one. No problems at all with this point of view. Takedowns without control or damage done are ridiculously overscored.

Interesting perspective, you make a good point. In a classic striker vs grappler match, only the grappler is awarded points for getting the fight into their comfort zone. The striker will be 100% dependent on their output no matter how many times he wall walks up the cage or how long he keeps the fight standing.

This is exactly how it should be. Top position has inherent value for one fighter, both standing hasn't.

 

[Evcity]

It is looked at the same as a knock down. It puts your opponent on the ground, with you on top. Sometimes guys finish there, sometimes they dont.

Yes, but they shouldn't be. Bringing someone to the ground in such a way that no damage is incurred should not be scored the same as cracking someone on the jaw so hard that their legs give out from under them. Regardless of whether or not a takedown or a knockdown can lead to the same kind of finish, they should not be viewed the same on the scorecards because the knockdown in and of itself causes significant damage.

 

[Krayv]

This is exactly how it should be. Top position has inherent value for one fighter, both standing hasn't.

Unless you're Jake Shields, in which case any time spent standing up should count as being mounted.

 

[Irenaeus]

Unless you're Jake Shields, in which case any time spent standing up should count as being mounted.

Heh. That's blatant disregard for Shields' world-class eyepoking technique.

Seriously, though. One fighter will often have an advantage in a given position due to his skill set and how he matches up with his opponent, but that something he has to show by results. An inherently mechanically superior position is something else entirely.

 

[Hawkman3111]

Cormier style rag doll slams from hell should score well, Chael P Sonnel power doubles of doom should also score. The Rowdy death flip should also be worth points

Limp wristed my little kitty takedowns from a fairy with a blonde wig, not so much.

 

[UJustGotChaeld]

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

It was the sprawl while Condit was trying to defend the takedown.