The Concept of "Working off your back"

[Cazador]

It's a system that won't reward you on your back anyway, if a guy is throwing mad elbows and attempting subs, generally, the other guy will still get the 10-9.

So it doesn't make a lot of sense to do much other than being defensive and hoping for a stand up in a lot of cases.

This.

 

[DrHouse]

Well if you're fighting a guy who can take you down when he wants, getting back to your feet might not even be a great idea. You're not gonna get any credit for getting back up, but he's going to get credit for taking you back down.

At the end of the day, it's not up to the fighters to correct for the the judges' incompetence. The fact is that MMA needs better judges, we all know this. We need judges who know that being on top doesn't mean you're winning, especially if the guy on bottom is doing a lot of work.

Another thing is though, how much should sub attempts even be worth? I'm not talking very near submissions like Belfort against Jones where Jones' arm recieved some damage, but just ones where the guy nearly gets a sub but the other guy defends but doesn't take any damage. He throws up a triangle, locks his legs, but the guy on top gets out. How much is that worth? From a purely technical point, it would be worth something.

From a purely fighting stand point, is it worth anything? He made an attempt to finish the fight, sure, but he failed. That's like throwing a KO punch and missing, you tried to finish the fight clearly, but didn't actually finish the fight or do any lasting damage. Is that worth more than arm punches from top position? I would say no. Even though those punches aren't going to KO someone, they have some lasting effect on the fight.

If a fight is purely stand up and both fighters land the same number of strikes and do equal damage, would the guy who threw more punches be given the win? Sure he threw more strikes, making more attempt to win the fight but the scoring criteria is "effective striking" and missing isn't effective. So in the same way, how much can you consider failed submission attempts to be "effective grappling"? I'm aware of the argument against that, but I'm also aware of the difference between scoring the MMA contest as a technical battle or a fight. It all depends on where you stand. Locking up and failing an gogoplata requires more technique than burying your head in your opponents chest and throwing arm punches, but does less lasting damage in most cases.

I guess the answer is, throw as many strikes as possible from bottom position.

 

[Sherm]

In some ways though, offense from the bottom is a form of defense, and that sort of goes unnoticed. If a guy demonstrates that he could sub you or maybe sweep you, you're going to be much more conservative with your top game. You're going to throw fewer elbows and you're not going to be as aggressive in advancing position. The end result is that you're just going to lay on him and people won't necessarily pick up on why.

I definitely agree though with people who say strikes from the bottom don't help you with the judges. I think the best thing is to try to cut someone. Silva cut Sonnen wide open with an elbow from the bottom in the fourth round of their first fight. People pretend this never happened so they can stick to the simipler, more satisfying narrative that Chael dominated up until the final triangle. Also, Bendo rocked the shit out of Frankie with an upkick from the bottom.

 

[Ladder Master]

 

[Fuzzybread]

I think the fact that its called a "guard" not an "attack" suggests that The founders of BJJ knew that being on your back was defensive in nature, even if you can win from there

 

[The Patient One]

Exactly, you failed to consider it.



Holy jumping to conclusions Batman!

I never said being on your back is a neutral position. I said the judging criteria is retarded because it always punishes you for being there. Regardless of the amount of damage and/or threatening moves pulled off by the guy on the bottom. So many fighters have already stated that fighting off your back is a losing battle in MMA because of the judges and yet this guy just dismisses this as something said by a "BJJ guy" (which I'm not, that is BJ Penn).

This thread isn't about the judging criteria, it's about abilites in fighters off their backs. You failed to read the OP.

 

[Magnum1978]

I never said being on your back is a neutral position. I said the judging criteria is retarded because it always punishes you for being there. Regardless of the amount of damage and/or threatening moves pulled off by the guy on the bottom. So many fighters have already stated that fighting off your back is a losing battle in MMA because of the judges and yet this guy just dismisses this as something said by a "BJJ guy" (which I'm not, that is BJ Penn).

Pretty much - though it SHOULD be considered neutral. Its the result of what happens in each position, regardless of the position that should really matter. Sure dominant positions allow you to do more damage/get closer to finishing, but unless eother of those actually happens, nothing should be rewarded.

So the scoring criteria has EVERYTHING to do with it. Basically the environment under the Unified rules has become so warped, that it has perpetuated this notion that is completely arse about - position over attempting to finish. There is a huge "bias fo position" to the point where even masters on the ground, maia, nogs, etc feel "pressured" to get back to their feet rather than work on the mat from their backs (even though they are completely at ease and comfortable to do so, taking no damage or being controlled) purely due to the risk of losing rounds.

Position is simply a "means to an end", just like good footwork is. Unfortunately this warped notion of judging fights has perpetuated a simplified "back on the mat/cage wall = losing" mentality, without actually looking at the context of the exchanges in terms of net result and in relation to the wider fight dynamic. Couple that with round by round scoring and where an otherwise even round can be 'stolen' by virtue of a late takedown and running the clock, and no wonder everyone avoids doing anything off their back and no wonder fighters attempt to exploit the system by holding on to position for deal life and doing otherwise "out of the ordinary" arbitrary things like attempt a takedown in the last 30 seconds of a round for no other reason by to appease some scoring criteria.

 

[HerpDerp]

Pretty much - though it SHOULD be considered neutral. Its the result of what happens in each position, regardless of the position that should really matter. Sure dominant positions allow you to do more damage/get closer to finishing, but unless eother of those actually happens, nothing should be rewarded.

So the scoring criteria has EVERYTHING to do with it. Basically the environment under the Unified rules has become so warped, that it has perpetuated this notion that is completely arse about - position over attempting to finish. There is a huge "bias fo position" to the point where even masters on the ground, maia, nogs, etc feel "pressured" to get back to their feet rather than work on the mat from their backs (even though they are completely at ease and comfortable to do so, taking no damage or being controlled) purely due to the risk of losing rounds.

Position is simply a "means to an end", just like good footwork is. Unfortunately this warped notion of judging fights has perpetuated a simplified "back on the mat/cage wall = losing" mentality, without actually looking at the context of the exchanges in terms of net result and in relation to the wider fight dynamic. Couple that with round by round scoring and where an otherwise even round can be 'stolen' by virtue of a late takedown and running the clock, and no wonder everyone avoids doing anything off their back and no wonder fighters attempt to exploit the system by holding on to position for deal life and doing otherwise "out of the ordinary" arbitrary things like attempt a takedown in the last 30 seconds of a round for no other reason by to appease some scoring criteria.

I agree completely. Quoted because I feel like your post needs more attention.