How many times have we seen a ridiculous decision win because of a takedown? What the hell is so special about a takedown if the fighter pops right back up? Its a massive blemish on this great sport of ours how judges can be swayed from a shitty tackle. If a fighter is taken down, controlled and inflicts damage, then sure. BUT NOT IF ANYTHING HAPPENS AND THE FIGHTER GETS BACK UP WITH EASE. Shouldn't a fighter DEFENDING the takedown get awarded? Definitely. A defended attempted takedown should be equivalent to a takedown. Anyways I think its a poison in judging mma. What say you?