MMA rules and regulations - Page 3 - Fight Forum - MMA - UFC - Boxing - K1

ScottBolinger · 11-20-2006, 06:19 PM

thanks, that helped out alot

Shawn03 · 01-12-2007, 12:36 PM

If you take a guy down, thats a point, but if you don't try and pass the gaurd and get stood up, I think you should get that point taken away. Kosheck and Joslins fight is a perfect example, Kosheck won, cause he got the most take downs, but he just sat in guard and didn't try to better his position, they got stood up just about everytime. In Titos case he can acually do damage in that position, but most guys can't or don't try. Just a thought.

I heart LNP · 01-12-2007, 12:44 PM

Ya I agree for the most part, if your gonna take it to the ground do some work.

GeorgeXVX · 01-12-2007, 01:07 PM

i agree a new system needs to be put in place but thats like saying if you land a clean jab but dont follow up with a kick or cross if doesnt count.

something needs to be done but i think that taking points away from takedowns is a bad idea.

RockemSockem · 01-12-2007, 02:06 PM

I agree the system doesn't work perfectly. And i agree Koscheck lay n prays a lot. But imo Koscheck tried to advance his position and do damage in the Joslin fight, he was just unable to. Joslin showed a very impressive guard. I try to give credit where it's due.

BlingDogg · 01-12-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn03

If you take a guy down, thats a point, but if you don't try and pass the gaurd and get stood up, I think you should get that point taken away. Kosheck and Joslins fight is a perfect example, Kosheck won, cause he got the most take downs, but he just sat in guard and didn't try to better his position, they got stood up just about everytime. In Titos case he can acually do damage in that position, but most guys can't or don't try. Just a thought.

I see what you mean. I think that would be a good rule. It doesn't make much sense to award points for takedowns if the guy doesn't do anything.

But IMO the Koscheck/Joslin fight is not an example of this. IMO Koscheck was trying nearly the whole time to get a better position, but just couldn't do anything in Joslin's guard. Not much happened on the ground because Joslin has a good guard, and Kos needs work passing. Kos was active and trying to land shots on the ground, not just laying.

I think a rule like this would be good. But then again, what about in the case where the fighter tries to do damage and pass guard, but can't do anything? I think the fighter should still be awarded the point for the takedown. But when the fighter obviously doesn't try to do anything at all, then the point should be taken away.

But then that would just depend on the judges' opinion, so it won't be reliable.....LOL, when I started typing this post, I though it would be a good new rule. But now I'm thinking it's best the way it is.

Takedowns are moves that are major enough to deserve getting a point. But the argument makes perfect sense.

Mouth For War · 01-12-2007, 04:59 PM

i cant wait to see Joslin again, gotta root for the hometown boy

Gygax · 01-12-2007, 05:03 PM

I agree with the replies. The Koscheck-Joslin fight is a bad example. Kos did try to advance multiple times, but Joslin's guard was excellent as well as very defensive. He had a ton of overhooks in neutralizing Koscheck's arms. If Joslin had been working more for sweeps and triangles from the bottom, you would have seen more GnP from Koscheck IMO.

The Lay'n'Pray is very frustrating, but I think we're seeing more guys get away from that as the sport advances.

Saskabush · 01-12-2007, 05:51 PM

Koschek isn't well rounded enough to win fights in an exciting fashion. All he seems to know how to do is LnP, average boring one dimensional wrestler.

If you couldn't tell I don't like him

sitnspin · 01-12-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mouth For War

i cant wait to see Joslin again, gotta root for the hometown boy

You're from the Hammer?

jbomb919 · 01-12-2007, 06:25 PM

look at the matt serra and chris lytle fight. Matt won only because he had take downs. But the "great" bjj dude did exactly crap with it. And tito won the second round because of his take down and did nothing with it and got an elbow across the face for it. I think that a point should be awarded ONLY if the fighter does something effective with it.

Bomber · 01-12-2007, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gygax

I agree with the replies. The Koscheck-Joslin fight is a bad example. Kos did try to advance multiple times, but Joslin's guard was excellent as well as very defensive.

Problem is, that superb guard got him nothing in the judge's eyes. A butterfly guard like that is a major skill. Joslin totally stymied Koscheck's ground attack. It's a shame that the current rules with timed rounds and judging favor the guy who's on top. Royce would NOT be dominant in this more formatted UFC. It's exciting to watch though. That snoozer, Royce/Shamrock II left a lasting impression.

Bomber · 01-12-2007, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbomb919

look at the matt serra and chris lytle fight. Matt won only because he had take downs. But the "great" bjj dude did exactly crap with it. And tito won the second round because of his take down and did nothing with it and got an elbow across the face for it. I think that a point should be awarded ONLY if the fighter does something effective with it.

Lytle showed NO offence. All his effort was put into stopping the takedown. Someone who shows zero aggression cannot be declared the winner.

I don't know what second round you're talking about with Tito.

BlingDogg · 01-12-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bomber

I don't know what second round you're talking about with Tito.

Tito/Liddell II perhaps?

Primetyme199 · 01-12-2007, 07:43 PM

I don't agree with taking points away, you get the takedown you get a point. On the otherhand if the fighter on the bottom can nullify the fighter on top's attack he should be awarded a point for his defence.

Mouth For War · 01-13-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sitnspin

You're from the Hammer?

damn right i am lol

ScottBolinger · 01-15-2007, 02:39 AM

the main thing to try and do is make your scoring on strikes equal to the grappling arts, so there has to be some sort of way to equal them out so you don't give one more of a advantage.

The take downs should be scored a point, maybe full guard should be a point and staying in control of the fight for a certain amount of time would be another point. But staying in control of the fight would be with grappling and getting in your strikes. It couldn't be a hold without strikes to be considered in control of the fight.

Ryduce · 01-15-2007, 10:49 PM

I didn't want to start another thread on this,but I was able to get a response from a UFC judge on a qauestion I asked.

I asked what was being done to properly educate these judges,being that it seems most of them don't understand MMA scoring criteria.

His response:

ryduce: The premise of your question seems ( I am choosing my words carefully) to indicate your belief that all Judges are the same, and that all Judges need education. I disagree on both counts. Therefore, I cannot provide you with an answer to a question whose premises I reject. Get yourself a book titled "the Archaeology of Knowledge" by Michel Foucault. In fact, you should ALL read that book, and another one titled "7 Types of Ambiguity" by William Empson

marnold · 01-17-2007, 07:52 AM

Foucalt rules. Get past his past and consider his domination of dogma: punishment, madness, sex. All the good stuff.

Gooner · 01-19-2007, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryduce

I didn't want to start another thread on this,but I was able to get a response from a UFC judge on a qauestion I asked.

I asked what was being done to properly educate these judges,being that it seems most of them don't understand MMA scoring criteria.

His response:

ryduce: The premise of your question seems ( I am choosing my words carefully) to indicate your belief that all Judges are the same, and that all Judges need education. I disagree on both counts. Therefore, I cannot provide you with an answer to a question whose premises I reject. Get yourself a book titled "the Archaeology of Knowledge" by Michel Foucault. In fact, you should ALL read that book, and another one titled "7 Types of Ambiguity" by William Empson

You just got served, Ry-Ry.

Some homework that is.