Let me rephrase then.
And it's not just kennedy, but practically all fighters this could apply to, he is only an example.
The only reason why he ended up simply lying down with Bisping and not doing anything at all, is because there is a scoring system that rewards this behaviour. He knew that he didnt actually have to do anything to defeat Bisping, he just had to hold on to him in order to win the fight. In which case both fighters might aswell have stayed home and not shown up at all, since the only reason for them to show up would be to enter into a fight, which didnt happen.
Scoring of simple takedowns that do nothing, essentially provide an incentive for shitty non-fights.
All fighters currently know that all they have to do incase they are losing a round, is lie down for a while and hold on to the other guy, and that somehow wins them the round for some reason.
Now lets imagine that all fighters instead knew inherently, that they actually had to defeat theire opponent, or perform moves that would aid in this objective in order to win fights, now suddenly nobody would take down for takedowns sake and just know that they would be golden just for that, but now they would have to actually do something with it, like strikes, chokes etc. Imagine how good this would be for the sport, how much more competetive it would become.
And all of this could happen (and only this way) with as simple an action as not scoring simple takedowns, but rather stick to scoring what the fighters actually do to win the fight, and not something that in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with defeating their opponent.
Thank you for rephrasing it, but we still mostly differ on both the Kennedy-Bisping fight and that a takedown doesn't have anything to do with defeating the opponent, I'm afraid. I have some sympathy for your point of view, since stalling is a legitimate problem at times, but I assign a fundamental value to both takedowns and control which you don't agree with. Your example empazises this, as my feeling is that Kennedy thoroughly grapplefucked Bisping. He passed guard, established mount and took the back several times, and worked diligently for chokes or striked most of the time. He might not have risked position for it, but he worked. That he didn't accomplish much more is a credit to Bisping's skill, for sure, but surviving on the ground is just that - surviving. If you're 100% defensive for large amounts of the round, that should count for something (though certainly not everything).
If you still disagree, then lets just leave it at that you and me, i cant see either of convicing the other, i think we are different from the outset of what we expect/want from fights
I think you're right here. I'll reiterate (and to some extent clarify) my position, just to be clear about it, and we'll leave it.
I want MMA to be a litmus test of what unarmed combat skills works the best, constrained by some safety matters, but as few stylistic preferences as possible. I believe that top position has a stronger inherent value if you remove these safety rules, and that the guy with leverage and control of the opponent's body is tremendously advantaged if allowed eye gouging, knees, head butts, no gloves, no stand ups, and no rounds (which are free stand ups).
I believe that this unrealized value should be given weight in scoring, and I'm lucky enough that the current system mostly agrees with me, seeing as effective grappling
is given value, although I think it's often given a little too much value, due to the judges having less trouble with assessing the fighters' physical position (that guy's on top) as compared to more difficult terms such as "effective agression".
I'm happy to incentivize action, penalize stalling (including from the bottom), and the such, but I'd loathe if this compromised MMA's position as the combat sport suffering from the least stylistic constraints.
