Takedowns to steal a round is a cheap tactic

[SuperNerd]

How many times did GSP have to “secure a takedown” to win a round? His wins were typically much more dominant than that.

Penn 1, Bigg Pigg.

Twice. Which makes it officially Georges' thing now.

Just like an effective jab. That also belongs to Georges.

 

[Billthebutcher]

Disagree.
Going for a TD means that the fighter is pushing and initiating the action, and a TD is a huge risk, coming in the fighter can get kneed, reversed, or stuffed. A TD at the end of a round can also drain the defending fighter, who will be more gassed at the start of the next round.

 

[tekkenfan]

until you go into a mma gym and see how hard it is to take someone down whos half ass decent hen you come back ad see if you feel the same way

 

[snackgod]

and should not be an indication of winning. That said, fighters shouldn't be punished for exploiting loopholes. Judges just need to be more educated and the criteria needs to be more clarified.

you do understand winning is what matter right said bye mr boring himself gsp.

 

[soulsstealer]

I've used this example for years as an indictment of the 10pt system of scoring MMA fights. The 10pt, round by round, system has always promoted points fighting. Nothing is worse than a guy looking at the clock and shooting for a do-nothing takedown with 10-20 seconds in a round thinking it will win it for him.

Start scoring fights as a whole, similar to the way Pride did and make damage the main scoring criteria and you won't see shit like that.

MMA is the only sport that took it's scoring system from a different one, boxing. In boxing they have many more rounds to make up for poorly scored or extremely close rounds.

THIS damage is all that matters

 

[egk]

Some wear damage better then others, case in point anderson silva.

I don't mean superficial type damage. Cuts and things of that nature. I mean damage that comes closest to finishing the fight. That's what Pride scoring was supposed to do.

 

[Magnum1978]

Its just the shitty unified rules, round by round with 'control' as something rewarded is garbage

Takedowns with no follow up no damage etc. should be worthless. And if a takedown is scored, then getting back to your feet should also be scored

I've whined about this for well over a decade, but I'm just meh to it now

 

[KarateStylist]

Its just the shitty unified rules, round by round with 'control' as something rewarded is garbage

Takedowns with no follow up no damage etc. should be worthless. And if a takedown is scored, then getting back to your feet should also be scored

I've whined about this for well over a decade, but I'm just meh to it now

Interesting perspective.

Take down marks a successful technique. So it should be rewarded. The takedown also takes the opponent out of their game and places them on the defensive.

All this makes sense to count it. Weight,? I'm thiumkinggggg.

 

[fzoid4454]

and should not be an indication of winning. That said, fighters shouldn't be punished for exploiting loopholes. Judges just need to be more educated and the criteria needs to be more clarified.

I think knocking a fighter down with a punch when you're behind in the round is a dirty and deceptive way to steal a round, as well. Damn loopholes, though I think they call those loopholes "scoring criteria."

 

[Magnum1978]

Interesting perspective.

Take down marks a successful technique. So it should be rewarded. The takedown also takes the opponent out of their game and places them on the defensive.

All this makes sense to count it. Weight,? I'm thiumkinggggg.

Well for the person to take the fight down, they are thinking they are going to do better on the ground than they are standing (else why take the fight down?), so I'd reward them for that. Conversely, if they are then forced BACK to their feet by their opponent getting back up, they are going back to the place they started and don't really want to be (hence they wanted the takedown in the first place).

So you must reward their opponent for getting it back to the place they are less comfortable in. Whoever is trying to get the fight to the ground is indicating they are less comfortable standing. So a fighter successfully defending takedowns or returning to their feet should be rewarded by keeping it in their favored domain. Likewise, if a fighter is defending a takedown but ends up on their back, they indicated they didn't want to go down but were forced there. THus the fighter should be rewarded for taking the fight down and any time they keep them down (as long as they are doing damage)

A better way (and if it were up to me), position would not be valued at all, only look at what is happening in terms of damage/threat or proximity to finishing the fight, IRRESPECTIVE of position. If damage/threat of finish is approximately even THEN look at position/takedowns etc.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

Well it is is mma - so you use all your tools and the rules that apply.

 

[RiotWyatt]

I think knocking a fighter down with a punch when you're behind in the round is a dirty and deceptive way to steal a round, as well. Damn loopholes, though I think they call those loopholes "scoring criteria."

Knockdown >>>>>>>>>>>>> Takedown

If you can't grasp that then you are too retarded to judge a fight.

Now, going for a flurry at the end of the round that resulted in no damage is the equivalent of trying to steal round with a takedown because that takedown resulted in no damage.

 

[NicholasJBasile]

and should not be an indication of winning. That said, fighters shouldn't be punished for exploiting loopholes. Judges just need to be more educated and the criteria needs to be more clarified.

I'm usually biased towards wrestling but I agree. A late takedown to secure a round makes sense, but I don't feel that shooting to end a round should be considered tangible offense unless there's a legit effort displayed at finishing the fight and not simply trying to get a takedown for the hell of it.

 

[KarateStylist]

Well for the person to take the fight down, they are thinking they are going to do better on the ground than they are standing (else why take the fight down?), so I'd reward them for that.

Not necessarily. I'm tired so I won't elaborate now.

Conversely, if they are then forced BACK to their feet by their opponent getting back up, they are going back to the place they started and don't really want to be (hence they wanted the takedown in the first place).

Point of forum acknowledged, yet the battle back to the feet is still on the defensive (& more but who am I?).

So you must reward their opponent for getting it back to the place they are less comfortable in. Whoever is trying to get the fight to the ground is indicating they are less comfortable standing.

By implication this could be so. Yet actual fighting is not so 1-dimensional tactically, as opposed to MMA forums.

So a fighter successfully defending takedowns or returning to their feet should be rewarded by keeping it in their favored domain.

It's a substantive position to take. It's not exclusive in it's conclusion, however.

Likewise, if a fighter is defending a takedown but ends up on their back, they indicated they didn't want to go down but were forced there.

Now the circular logic is kicking in.

THus the fighter should be rewarded for taking the fight down and any time they keep them down (as long as they are doing damage)

That's sensible & defensible. It's not the only way or complete way to interpret the action.

A better way (and if it were up to me), position would not be valued at all, only look at what is happening in terms of damage/threat or proximity to finishing the fight, IRRESPECTIVE of position. If damage/threat of finish is approximately even THEN look at position/takedowns etc.

Yes, this is martially centered standards.

And it's how I generally agree with your view.

PRIME EXAMPLE: Wonderboy Thompson thought he did enough to out score Tyron Woodley. Woodley physically dominated Thompson throughout both fights & furthermore, demonstrated he could do so. Thompson didn't.

KarateStylist Scorecard: Thompson lost both fights handily.

 

[THEfightsAREfixed]

there shouldn't be judges in the first place and if the fight doesnt end in a finish both get -50% off their purse

And if one fighter manages to successfully kill the other then he gets to either comandeer his wife and children or sell them on the open market to the highest bidder

 

[Rea_ctor]

In a real fight that takedown could be the difference between pummelling someone or being pummelled yourself, this is a fight if you can't defend it that's your own problem.

 

[mallen7272]

Valentina would be double champ rn

 

[JustBleed69]

and should not be an indication of winning. That said, fighters shouldn't be punished for exploiting loopholes. Judges just need to be more educated and the criteria needs to be more clarified.

Punching people in the face is a cheap tactic to steal a round.

 

[spilotes]

If you can’t stop the takedown and it’s close enough that being taken down is the deciding factor you deserve the loss.

 

[Magnum1978]

Not necessarily. I'm tired so I won't elaborate now.
....
And it's how I generally agree with your view.

PRIME EXAMPLE: Wonderboy Thompson thought he did enough to out score Tyron Woodley. Woodley physically dominated Thompson throughout both fights & furthermore, demonstrated he could do so. Thompson didn't.

KarateStylist Scorecard: Thompson lost both fights handily.

Thumbs up mate. And yes there is an element of circular logic in there, thus eventually cancelling out of "position" in the equation.

In any case yes, agree Thompson clearly lost both fights