Takedowns without much control time shouldn't get you the round

Hazuki Ryo

Hazuki Ryo

Brown Belt
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
3,345
Reaction score
4,593
I'm good with the fact that takedowns should have an impact on judge scoring. It's not easy to execute, it's energy taxing, and there's no guaranteed success.

However, there needs to be at least some time spent on the ground. If your opponent gets up almost immediatly, it shouldn't steal the round.

Reminds me of Phil Davis VS machida where last seconds takedowns won Phil the fight with all the controversy

Anyway, DDP won with that
 
Where does it stop though? If a takedown doesn't score because it doesn't lead to anything fight ending, why is holding the centre of the ring / forward advancement score? Why does an unsuccessful guillotine score? Why does holding someone against the cage score? Why does holding someone at bay with a few jabs score? Why does sitting with back control doing a bit of hand wrestling score?

If you use a technique within the rules that your opponent has been unsuccessful in defending against and it presents a chance of being in a dominant or fight ending position for a time (even if unsuccessfully) it should score

I don't think it should be a significant/decisive criteria but if everything is more or less even then it's hard to argue against someone being unable to stop another man from lifting him off his feet and dumping him onto the ground as being in a lesser position score wise

Successful manoeuvre Vs unsuccessful defence is a point scoring advantage whether it's fun or exciting or not
 
Depending how the previous week’s fights went. We get the same threads we’ve seen over and over before.

This one is the “Didn’t do shit with the TD. Shouldn’t have won because of it” thread.
 
After a takedown is executed there should be a time limit to pass/being active.

Once it goes passed the time limit, not only does it get stood up, but directly after the fight they'll receive an honorary message from Dana White telling them how much the fight sucked which we all get to watch.
 
Many disagree with me here but stuffing a takedown for me should count.. You have a guy go 2 for 10 in takedowns and the guy gets credit for the 2 but no credit for the 8 stuffed takedowns. Getting a takedown or stuffing a takedown are both versions of controling where the fight takes place.
 
agreed, if the attempt doesn't actually translate into control, ground positions, strikes, sub attempts, if it only equates to someone getting back up to their feet, then to me, that cancels out the takedown attempt. it's harder to defend a persons weight, gravity, forward momentum, and get back up to the feet, than vice versa. it should at the least be cancelling out the attempt. it would be different if the takedowns did translate to the ground game, but, it simply never happened. i'd say it's more impressive that Sean got up repeatedly, every time without incurring any control time, physical strikes, positioning, etc. but im a sean strickland fan, so obviously i'm anti-love and good things.
 
Hazuki Ryo said:
I'm good with the fact that takedowns should have an impact on judge scoring. It's not easy to execute, it's energy taxing, and there's no guaranteed success.

However, there needs to be at least some time spent on the ground. If your opponent gets up almost immediatly, it shouldn't steal the round.

Reminds me of Phil Davis VS machida where last seconds takedowns won Phil the fight with all the controversy

Anyway, DDP won with that
Click to expand...

When the striking is basically even (and from fans' opinions and the stats in the three dricus rounds, the striking was seemingly very even) then it is understandable why the judges would look at other tangibles like aggression, and octagon control, which takedowns do fall under. Also, under any scoring criteria, takedowns with impact like trips and suplexes should score a bit.

If people think takedowns shouldn't score, please let dricus tackle you and suplex you six times, then fight him off of you each time, and then tell him "that was nothing at all, nothing happened"

They weren't much, but they were something, and something is better than nothing.
 
Last edited:
Takedowns with no control no score, strikes without knockdown - don't score... I say bring back no time limit fights like in pride, two men enters - one leaves... get rid of the judges all together, referee is also redumbnant... all saved money goes towards ring girls, who keep walking for 90 minutes matches, slowly taking their clothes off...
 
There's an easy way of preventing your opponent from stealing the round by takedown: Don't let him take you down. Or even better: You can steal the round yourself by taking your opponent down.

It's easy, right?
 
Agreed.

There is no way Evloev won that fight agaisnt Arnold Allen.

Cuddling Allen's bum for 80 seconds after being outstruck for the first 3 minutes and 40 seconds of round 1 shouldn't have won him that round.
 
Azure said:
Many disagree with me here but stuffing a takedown for me should count.. You have a guy go 2 for 10 in takedowns and the guy gets credit for the 2 but no credit for the 8 stuffed takedowns. Getting a takedown or stuffing a takedown are both versions of controling where the fight takes place.
Click to expand...

Getting a takedown is advancing position. Stuffing a takedown is keeping status quo.Trying to get a takedown and not succeeding is still forcing your opponent to defend aka controlling the fight. There's a good reason many disagree with you: There's no good reason to agree with you.
 
I agree.

If the fight is under the old ruleset though does that suggest the judges score under the old criteria which did favour takedowns more?
 
HeffDoesWant said:
Cruz Dillashaw is the best example of ineffective takedowns winning a belt.

Iirc 5 tds for a total of 15 seconds control time and no strikes.
Click to expand...
That's why Cruz gets so defensive about his no-offense grappling winning rounds. He gets salty asf when he gets shown that the unified rules clearly say that wrestling with no sub attempts, damage or control time is ineffective grappling.
 
loisestrad said:
Getting a takedown is advancing position. Stuffing a takedown is keeping status quo.Trying to get a takedown and not succeeding is still forcing your opponent to defend aka controlling the fight. There's a good reason many disagree with you: There's no good reason to agree with you.
Click to expand...
Not what the rules say at all.
 
I don’t know about tds with no ground control but I’ve always felt that if fighters gain points for successful tds then fighters should also gain points for stuffing td attempts.
 
Hazuki Ryo said:
I'm good with the fact that takedowns should have an impact on judge scoring. It's not easy to execute, it's energy taxing, and there's no guaranteed success.

However, there needs to be at least some time spent on the ground. If your opponent gets up almost immediatly, it shouldn't steal the round.

Reminds me of Phil Davis VS machida where last seconds takedowns won Phil the fight with all the controversy

Anyway, DDP won with that
Click to expand...

You have to do something with a takedown to get points from a takedown


Screenshot 2024-01-23 at 4.52.43 PM.png
 
he didnt win the fight based on takedowns, he won the fight on effective aggression and takedowns were encompassed within that factoring. he was controlling where the action took place.

people also disregard the heavy body shots ddp landed because they arent as glorified as headshots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Legendary
Takedowns with no damage wont win the round
Replies
0
Views
197
Legendary
Legendary

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,264,995
Messages
57,315,715
Members
175,636
Latest member
whocares1993

Share this page

Back
Top