If you take a fighter down and then do nothing whats the point? A fight is a fight. Whoever gets bashed up the most looses. Simple.
You have to grade the takedown and grade the work being put in no matter what the position. If a takedown is more of a falldown then you don't give the round just because of sloppy takedowns where the guy got up straight away. If a guy is on his back but punching, elbowing and going for subs then he'll win. However Koscheck, GSP etc are usually controlling their opponent too. It's just as much their opponents fault that they don't know how to defend the takedown or fight off their back. It is so tiring being on your back, just holding your head up and going against gravity with your shots. Using your whole core to try and lock subs. Guys usually conserve their energy. Fit guys can do well on their back. I think it was Sanchez vs Guida where he just rained down elbows on his head.
Although I understand that takedowns should be taken in to consideration as can put you in an advantageous position. But it seems to be used as a precursor for lay and pray. Simply used to stifle an opponant from doing his work, rather than you going out there to try win it, it's like trying not to lose rather than trying to win. Something needs to be done as fighters can just win by simply getting the man down, and laying on him for 3 or 5 rounds rounds. I mean, if he's taken the guy down, and used effective ground and pound and put some damage on the guy on the bottom or kept busy trying to work submissions then he should be rewarded for that. I mean the likes of fitch, GSP use the takedown and lay and pray to get the decision. That isn't fighting! that's riding out the storm until it's safe to come out from the bunker. Maybe throw a few pitter patter punches in to conning the ref's/judges that they are working so they are able to keep the position. I totally see what BJ is saying though, fighters are now going in there looking to get a decision. But their needs to be greater emphasis on finishing a fight.
Not really...the takedown lets them work in some GNP....more shots can be landed from there than from standing.
lets say I kick you in the head then you fall on top of me and lay on me. You won the fight? that is an extreme example, but scale it back a little. Thats what Im talkin about! damage > position control by that same logic you should be able to win boxing matches simply by not getting hit and controlling distance- basically with Ring Generalship alone and with no punching. fights are about damage son, not cage/ring generalship. you must be a fan of some boring **** if you disagree.:deal
I totally agree. I usually end up ranting about this very thing at some point during every event. It is not a takedown competition, its a fight. Takedowns on their own should count for very little/nothing. Damage done, strikes landed,submission attempts - these should be the main point scoring criteria IMO. I hate to say it, but in my possibly biased UK opinion, the points system/rules are far too generous to wrestlers, and it needs some serious revision.
GnP is not the same as a guy sitting down on a straight right I still think both takedowns (not fall downs like other mentioned) and striking should be taken equally the point is effective aggression a clean landing looping arm punch should not get more points than a solid single leg into side control the punch was pointless, unless it lead to a combo or something....the takedown lead to control which allows for GnP or a mount or other things as a fan, i hate GnP (sloppy GnP that is) but I hate lay and pray even more...but i do understand that controlling your opponent is a skill, and is important i love solid leg kicks that buckle someone's knee (effective) and it should be scored highly, and I love someone getting rocked by a short left hook when trying to close in for a clench, and that should be scored but so should the solid single by the guy whom evaded that short left hook and put you on your ass and last but not least, for MMA and boxing, if you don't want your W or L determined by a judge, then don't let it get that far...KO the guy, submit the guy, or entirely outclass the guy if can't end it, but if you let it get to the judges, you have to deal with their crap (and that goes in any sport that had judges)
if your dumb ass lands a solid head kick then allows me to lay on you for 15-25 minutes sure learn how to fight off your back or get the f out of mma
If I see you in the street and we get into it, you throw me to the ground 5 time and I punch you in the face 5 times then it gets broken up. Me without a scratch and feeling fine and you with a smashed up eye and bloody face, who won?
With that said if you throw me on the ground and punch the **** outta me then you'd be considered the winner. My point, punches alone are effective and do damage. Takedowns alone do pretty much nothing unless you land on your head or something outlandish. Even if you take someone down and land in a dominate position like a full mount and do nothing with it then it shouldn't be scored as if you did something to inflict damage to your opponent.
I agree that takedowns may be somewhat overrated. Fighting is about doing damage but IMO also about controlling your opponent and making sure he can't to damage to you. Also if Rampage picks me up and slams me on the curb, there will be damage. I've done judo for a while and had a lot more aches and bruises than with kickboxing. IMO it has to count for something. To me a good takedown is better than a jab and a right hand power punch better than a lay and pray attempt.
He's right. I understand you get points for take downs. But what if the guy that's been taken down works his way back to the stand up. Doe's the guy forcing the stand up get any points?