Takedowns

Jasp · 05-05-2008, 09:15 AM

Should the judges really score points on takedowns?
The way i see it when you are taking someone down you get a superior position and its what you do with that position that can earn you points on the judges scorecard. I think we see far to many close rounds ending with one guy taking the other one down, holding him down without doing anything and that gives him the round. So i say lets not award point to takedowns, instead give points for what a fighter does once he is on top.

Ofcourse if you do some big slam that hurts your opponent its a different matter.

What do you guys think?

OneBigThrow · 05-05-2008, 12:08 PM

yes they should be scored just like every other technique in MMA

i dont see why it would be any different

fullonshred · 05-05-2008, 12:38 PM

Takedowns should be scored as they are now. However,if the guy on the bottom is scoring well with elbows or punches, or near submissions then he needs to be rewarded as well.

OneBigThrow · 05-05-2008, 04:52 PM

agree, thats one of the issues i have with the scoring, its not that i think they dont consider them, its that im not sure how they score offense from the bottom

i lean toward the believe that the consideration is minimal, case and point, diego v.s. jon fitch

MTKrav911 · 05-05-2008, 05:08 PM

I would like to see a BJJ guy's takedown vs a Wrestling Takedown and see a judges score card if they score it differently.

Thre are differences in the two and would wonder if a judge would be biased against the BJJ guy.

OneBigThrow · 05-05-2008, 05:15 PM

it depends on whether they see being on bottom is an advantageous position or one of detriment and that really depends on the fighter

and to be honest...i wouldnt feel comfortable with judges considering a fighters past styles and experiences because that theoretically takes away from the objectivity of deciding a contest...in theory

alot of times it is hard to tell whether a guy puts himself on his back on purpose or just screwed up and made the best of the situation u know

MTKrav911 · 05-05-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBigThrow

it depends on whether they see being on bottom is an advantageous position or one of detriment and that really depends on the fighter

and to be honest...i wouldnt feel comfortable with judges considering a fighters past styles and experiences because that theoretically takes away from the objectivity of deciding a contest...in theory

alot of times it is hard to tell whether a guy puts himself on his back on purpose or just screwed up and made the best of the situation u know

I meant more in the sense, that a BJJ guy's takedown is more conservative single leg type to try and achieve top position. More of a single leg trip in other words to get to a position where they can transition into a position of submission.

A wrestler u sually goes double leg or body lock takedown and tends to be more spectacular because of the strength and explosion needed, then of course the inevitable slam.

I wonder if a judge would score the two differently

OneBigThrow · 05-05-2008, 05:57 PM

i dont think strength is as much of a factor as you say in the double leg

unless somebody wants to walk around the cage with dude on his shoulders

so i hope the judges dont award it more points or credence because of that, lol

it should be "hey this guy did something...and that other guy is on the ground....POINT"

Kurtis636 · 05-05-2008, 08:16 PM

The problem is not that they give too much emphasis to the takedown, it's one fighter dictating where the fight is going to go, the real problem is that they don't score takedown defense in the same way or score offense from the bottom correctly.

An example: Tito wants the fight on the ground, but his shots are repeatedly stuffed by Forrest Griffin who dictates the location of the fight by forcing Tito to stand and trade. If a fighter is repeatedly stuffed I think it should be scored for the guy stuffing it, not just as a neutral position.

Another example: Last week's TUF. Dante should never have won that fight. The guy on the bottom outworked him. Yes, Dante was able to force the fight to the ground a few times, but once it got there that was neutralized by the fact that he got outlanded about 10 to 1 by the guy on the bottom who was constantly throwing elbows and eventually getting back to his feet.

MTKrav911 · 05-05-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurtis636

The problem is not that they give too much emphasis to the takedown, it's one fighter dictating where the fight is going to go, the real problem is that they don't score takedown defense in the same way or score offense from the bottom correctly.

An example: Tito wants the fight on the ground, but his shots are repeatedly stuffed by Forrest Griffin who dictates the location of the fight by forcing Tito to stand and trade. If a fighter is repeatedly stuffed I think it should be scored for the guy stuffing it, not just as a neutral position.

Another example: Last week's TUF. Dante should never have won that fight. The guy on the bottom outworked him. Yes, Dante was able to force the fight to the ground a few times, but once it got there that was neutralized by the fact that he got outlanded about 10 to 1 by the guy on the bottom who was constantly throwing elbows and eventually getting back to his feet.

Wow, that's a great post that made me think.

ALOT

You're right

LABJJ · 05-05-2008, 09:07 PM

I think take downs should be scored. Against good opponents takedowns are hard to get and at times take a lot of energy to get and defend. Now I will also agree that I have seen some lazy and half A$$ed takedowns that should not be weighed heavily on.

Jasp · 05-06-2008, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurtis636

The problem is not that they give too much emphasis to the takedown, it's one fighter dictating where the fight is going to go, the real problem is that they don't score takedown defense in the same way or score offense from the bottom correctly.

An example: Tito wants the fight on the ground, but his shots are repeatedly stuffed by Forrest Griffin who dictates the location of the fight by forcing Tito to stand and trade. If a fighter is repeatedly stuffed I think it should be scored for the guy stuffing it, not just as a neutral position.

Another example: Last week's TUF. Dante should never have won that fight. The guy on the bottom outworked him. Yes, Dante was able to force the fight to the ground a few times, but once it got there that was neutralized by the fact that he got outlanded about 10 to 1 by the guy on the bottom who was constantly throwing elbows and eventually getting back to his feet.

Thats actually what i was thinking of when i wrote this thread.

Here the judges scored the takedowns higher then the actuall damages inflicted. Therefor i think that if you do nothing from you top position then you shouldnt be rewarded. Takedowns alone isnt a way to finish the fight or inflicting damage, therefor it shouldnt be rewarded with points.
Im not sure of this but do you get rewarded for going from guard to sideposition and back to guard? i dont think so (correct me if im wrong).
I think that this is the same thing as taking someone down, doing nothing and stand up again.
You improve your position in both cases but that alone wont end the fight, its what you can do from that position that could end the fight and then you can score points.

Maybe Im being alittle harsh in saying that you shouldnt get rewarded, maybe you should but not as much as today. Today takedowns is such a huge factor that its usually the deciding factor when considering who won the round.

Mickey Finn · 05-06-2008, 10:02 AM

i think a takedown should be rewarded in the judges minds but not greatly. i like how in bjj tournaments takedowns are rewarded (2 points) but its being effective on the ground that really counts, such as getting into mount (4 points)

Kurtis636 · 05-07-2008, 01:35 AM

Exactly. MMA is not wrestling, simply being on top is not something that should be worth points. It's all about position and what you do with it. I mean, realistically how do they score it when someone pulls guard (like jumps to guard)? Is that a takedown? Should it be scored as one, etc.

A lot of the people who are judges now for MMA events don't really have any better grasp on the finer points of MMA than your average Joe, or worse have been judging other combat sports and can't properly judge MMA. Honestly, correct scoring is going to be something that comes up again and again until we have people dong the scoring who are very familiar with the sport, and since this sport is really only 15 years old it's going to be a matter of time.

GeorgeXVX · 05-07-2008, 02:23 AM

you guys ever try to take someone down that is trying to punch you in the face? it isnt very easy and the points you get for it are just fine. I agree points should be earned from the bottom for sub attempts and elbows... punches dont really do much at all but elbows hurt like a mother ****er!

Jasp · 05-07-2008, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeorgeXVX

you guys ever try to take someone down that is trying to punch you in the face? it isnt very easy and the points you get for it are just fine. I agree points should be earned from the bottom for sub attempts and elbows... punches dont really do much at all but elbows hurt like a mother ****er!

Have you ever tried a triple backward spinning flip flop from the top of the octagon fence and landing right in front of you opponent?
Its extremly hard!!!!
Its not worth any points in the eyes of the judges because it dosent do anything except make you land infront of your opponent, why should takedowns be any different?
You should be not awarded points for doing hard thing, you should be awarded for doing effective things.

Yes taking someone down gives you a better position, thats fine and it should maybe render a FEW points. But a takedown(normal one) in itself isnt gonna win you the fight its what you do with your improved position that should render points.
Your reward for taking someone down is the better position to do some damage and shouldnt be points IMO.

OneBigThrow · 05-07-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Have you ever tried a triple backward spinning flip flop from the top of the octagon fence and landing right in front of you opponent?
Its extremly hard!!!!
Its not worth any points in the eyes of the judges because it dosent do anything except make you land infront of your opponent

thats gotta be one of the worst anlogies ive ever read

a takedown is a fighting technique that dictates where you wanna take the fight and puts the opponent in a position to either be struck or be set up for submissions

the hell do you get doing "triple backward spinning flip flops" from?

you arent even allowed to use the cage in that manner during a fight

Jasp · 05-07-2008, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBigThrow

thats gotta be one of the worst anlogies ive ever read

a takedown is a fighting technique that dictates where you wanna take the fight and puts the opponent in a position to either be struck or be set up for submissions

the hell do you get doing "triple backward spinning flip flops" from?

you arent even allowed to use the cage in that manner during a fight

Chill dude! I made it up, think you missed my point alittle

My point is that you should get rewarded for fightending or possible fightending moves and not moves that are hard to execute.
Even tho takedowns are hard to execute, that alone IMO isnt enough to score you points. Its what you do once your opponent is on the ground that can score points. and once he is on the ground maybe you have better luck with some fightending move.
Your reward for a takedown is the better position and shouldnt be points.

Since this isnt a grappling match where you get point for improving you position on the ground, lets say from guard to sidecontroll why should it be any different from taking someone down?
In both cases you improve your position but its really what you do with the improved position that matters.

Im tired of takedowns being such a huge factor when deciding who won the round. Today its pretty much Fighter A outstrikes fighter B and then B takes A down and all of the sudden they are even again. If B can control A for the rest of the round and just make enough not to get stood back up again he will win the round. We saw this VERY cleary when Dante and that Sniper guy fought in the TUF.

Im okey with the judges scoring the takedown, but not as big as today and if you dont do anything from the top that should render zero points from the takedown.

I think it would be good for the sport and the entertainment value.

OneBigThrow · 05-07-2008, 12:17 PM

i think you should get a point from improving your postion

in most grappling matches that point is only awarded if you go from a neutral to a good position, since theoretically it is ones obligation to escape a bad position

so if someone is switching positions withou winding up in danger it should be considered in his favor toward the round tally

fullonshred · 05-07-2008, 12:28 PM

Meh..... Takedowns are scored just fine. If you have 2 guys doing nothing otherwise, but one guy is scoring takedowns then he should get points and the round/win.

And as I said before, any effective techniques used from the bottom should be scored as well. Elbows and near submissions. Dry humping the guy on top with poor "sub attempts" ala Bisping vs Hamill should score exactly nothing. There are many FAAAAR greater problems with MMA scoring than any inequity regarding takedowns. Like Cecil Peoples.