Wrestling, Scoring & how it poisons MMA

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?

i agreed with everything you said, minus the part about a fighter being rewarded for defending a takedown.

in my opinion, a takedown that is attempted and stuffed, results in a stalemate for each fighter. no one gets rewarded. it's a neutral result. in theory, if a fight were to go this way all throughout, i'd call it a draw. aggression doesn't mean anything if nothing happens as a result.
 
The only solution is "Do not award points for takedowns at all". Only award points on what happens after the takedown.

- If the fighter taking down his opponent doesn't do anything with it, no point.
- If the fighter taking down his opponent takes advantage of his position by beating him or attempting subs, then awards points for that and ONLY that

agreed.
 
I would leave everything else as is, I just wouldn't look at the takedown itself.

Scoring-wise, just pretend it never happened (unless it's a slam).

While I do agree there have been times when the TD was scored too heavily, I believe it has to be worth something. You have been aggressive and you have imposed your will.
 
Scoring-wise, just pretend it never happened (unless it's a slam).

Then you get into what constitutes a slam. More crap for the judges to get wrong
 
Back
Top