Rogerio Nogueira: ‘They Worship The Takedowns A Lot’

Nog definitely did a good job stopping the takedowns, I would have to watch 2 and 3 again, but I thought it could have gone either way, Bader did do some standup work of his own.

What was annoying was that he kept trying the same takedown over and over, the knee tap where you get the underhook on one side and, well, tap the opposite knee. If he mixed up the takedowns he probably could have gotten a lot more of them.

 

Next question, more aimed at you Beebs. Outside of round 1, did Bader dominate the ground fighting from a perspective that, other than full mount, all things are even on the ground.

Do you really give a guy credit for having top position, and not doing anything? I'll say, that if a guy gets full mount, that is certainly an advantagious position. But, unless you can capitalize from places like the full guard, or even half guard, those positions mean jack ****. Especially against someone who has legit bjj, and is easily capable of submissions from his back.

I strongly feel there is something missing, hugely missing in MMA scoring. By default the wrestler is forseen to have some sort of advantage from top position, even against top level, proven bjj players who have pedigrees when it comes to their ability to finish from their backs.

Top position dominance is something that is a given in the sport, when it shouldn't.

 

I understand your point but should you win the round for being on your back and getting taken down.

 

I don't know really, obviously you don't want to reward somebody for doing nothing, but rarely do they do absolutely nothing. All things being equal though, if the round is 100% even, but one guy spent a decent amount of time on top, doing minimal work, that should probably be the edge that wins it.

The hard part is balancing that with the more likely situation, where the round is spent doing a lot of things. There really just isn't an exact science to it, I can't say well one takedown equals 1 punch or whatever, it really comes down to what you see.

 

So, in this hypothetical situation, you might say that the fighter on top gets the nod for controlling the fight in a position. So, then it should be that the guy who can take the fight to where he wants it should get the nod in that location. Meaning if you are fighting against a wrestler and are able to keep the fight standing, or are able to dictate the fight back to the feet, and keep it there for the majority of the round, that should mean you dominated position, so long as you don't get schooled on your feet.

Also, say you are a nuts bjj practitioner and have crazy triangles. If you pull guard and keep yourself on your back, then you are dominating position, arent you? You are keeping the fight where you want it, so long as you get sufficient sub attempts off and don't get your ass kicked in your favored position.

Same goes for a wrestler taking anyone down.. You keep the fight there and stay busy, inflict more damage and appear to be in control, then you should get the nod, I agree with this much..

But it should apply in all facets of the fight. Sometimes a wrestler will be where he wants to be like Sonnen, and a bjj player will be where he wants, Maia.. If Maia dominates off his back, then he should win the round, if Sonnen edges him in damage, then he should get it being both fighters are where they want to be..

Fighters strengths and weaknesses should be taken into account. Sometimes there is no clear dominant position, and there should be no points awarded.. Sometimes a fighter will get out of what is an inferior position for him, and that should count for something, similar to a takedown. As he is taking the fight to where he wants it. In the case of Nog, he is good off his back, but he clearly wanted to fight on his feet.. The times he stuffed takedowns seems to mean he is dominating position, the times he escaped off his back and back to his feet, or if the fight is stood up, then that should mean something too.

 

Well no, I don't think a sub specialist pulling guard is the same as a takedown by itself, it is still putting yourself on bottom, and in MMA that is not a neutral position. Now, if ass you say the guy is very busy off the bottom, especially with sub attempts, then yes, certainly he should get the advantage for that portion of the fight, as he is being attacking, striking off the back is pretty useless in my opinion.

Keeping a fight standing is sort of the same, in and of itself it isn't really doing anything, it is a defensive action, and it keeps you in what is a neutral position. Of course in reality if a striker is keeping it standing he is going to be landing at least some strikes, then he should be winning that portion of the fight, assuming he isn't being outstruck.

I think we both want to reward attacking, however I don't think keeping a fight standing is in and of itself an attacking move, as you are defending something. With pulling guard it is even more so, you are giving away position. Whereas a takedown is an attacking move, although I still think you should have to do at least something after.

The fight being stood up is a tricky situation, because often the guy on bottom is stalling just as much as the guy on top.

Basically I think attacking should be rewarded.

 

I tend to think actually pulling guard, like jumping on someone and forcing them down to you is a form of offense for a handful of fighters, and it should be treated as such if you, jump on someone, grab the back of their head and pull them down into your guard. I view it as, taking the fight to where you want it, thus controlling where the fight is, thus controlling the fight.

Same with all positions. I don't automatically consider a location a dominant position, unless it is where a fighter clearly wants to be.. Once there, in order to prove they should be rewarded for dominating position, they need to then dominate in damage/ or things like sub attempts as well.

I'm just trying to think up a way to get away from the direction MMA seems to be going, short of penalizing with things like Yellow Cards.

This is more a descriptive approach at heart, rather than just saying point awarded for x. There are control aspects of fighting that are more complex than simple x was in Y position, award X point.

 

I see your point, but I think it's a dangerous road to go down awarding different fighters different for the same thing.

I do think that you have to consider top position a superior position to bottom, until the bottom guy actually executes some dangerous offense, and I think standing should be considered neutral, although a fighter moving from bottom position to standing could be considered the same as a takedown.

I certainly see your point, but I just think it's a dangerous road to go down in that respect.

 

I dont think you would award a point, until someone actually inflicted damage, or attempted a sub from a so called, "dominant"/ or controlled position.

The point is to take emphasis away from just a pure takedown. This allows for you to award things like stuffs, counters which lead to getting fights back on the feet, sweeps, and takedowns, not equally. But they all should be worth something. Not saying you should only give a guy credit for the sweep after he inflicts damage, as the sweep by itself is very nice, just as a throw or a slam is.

But, lets say fighter A takes down fighter B. Fighter A isn't able to really do anything, and fighter B is able to counter, or stall and force the fight back up.. Then there should be no point for the takedown, or there should be equal points awarded to both guys, since the fight ended up back at the standup.

Scenario 1
On the other hand, if fighter A takes fighter B down, and absolutely dominates him there with damage and sub attemps, then that should be worth something significant..

Scenario 2
If Fighter B stuffs takedowns, and dominates the standup, or even if Fighter B is taken down, takes no damage and gets back up to the feet, and dominates the standup.. It should be worth the same as the above.

They should be valued equally based on dominating position, dictating where the fight takes place, and inflicting damage regardless of position. Position means jack **** unless you can show you dominate it.

If its somewhat split, then what should be considered is how long which fighter dominated in what position. It would be based both temporally and based on how much damage is inflicted.

 

I disagree completely. Moving from a disadvantageous position to a neutral position should absolutely not be considered as many "points" (whatever they are) as moving from a neutral or disadvantageous position to an advantageous one.

A sweep from the bottom? Sure that deserves as many points as a takedown (or more depending on the sweep, I just rewatched Hughes-Newton and that hip sweep into full mount was beautiful) but moving back to a neutral position should not.

Also, if nothing happens the entire round except fighter A shoots for 10 double legs and fighter B stuffs 9 of them but gets taken down once I think fighter A wins that round. Blocking a positional change from a neutral position should not count for anything at all.

It may sound weird because being able to stuff takedowns can be extremely important to your being able to win a fight, but I still don't see them as "scoring" in any way, just avoiding being scored on.

 

I actually agree with you, just didn't express it as well.

I do think that if all that happens, literally nothing else, but one takedown and an escape to standing, then the takedown is worth more.

I was just trying to say that standing up from bottom is more of an offensive move than pulling guard.

 

I certainly agree your scenarios.

I disagree about a takedown being worth nothing, I think they are overvalued in a lot of fights, but in a vaccum, as in nothing else happens, the guy who got the takedown has done more offensively than the guy who got taken down.

I do agree that what happens after words is much more important, no doubt about that.

This is not a great example because so much was done with the takedowns, but Fedor Nog 3, Fedor basically kept taking Nog down and then letting it go back to standing. Remove everything else from that fight and it is pretty clear that Fedor was the one doing attacking and should be rewarded for it.

I think the takedown is being scored to heavily, but on the other hand it isn't a non issue, it is an offensive move that should be rewarded, just not as much as it often is.

On the other hand, fighters that complain about "just getting layed on" or "just getting taken down" often exagerate, they are usually eating some punches.

As for stalling for a standup, that should not be rewarded in any way.

 

They need to change the rules to make the fighters work harder on the ground or risk being stood back up quicker. Most of the UFC's are starting to turn into hump fests. So horrible and boring to watch.

 

I often had Nog ahead but Bader would do something noteworthy like rock him with a punch or force a takedown. Bader is a big strong powerful guy who looks like **** alot but can have big moments.

The whole takedown argument isn't to do with the scoring, it is to do with education of the sport and evolution.

Someone like Nog shouldn't feel the need to keep a fight standing. He should be confident and skilled enough to fight off his back, sweep etc Not only that but often I see wrestlers go after BJJ guys. BJJ guys need to stop thinking that being on their back is where they are comfortable but will lose points. They need to have the confidence to take it to the wrestler and beat them in stand up grappling, takedowns, trips etc

 

I understand everyone's points here, and do agree that the judging needs to be changed, possibly in the direction to score more from damage done than position.... BUT

Everyone, including Nog, knows the exact state of judging as it currently stands. It is stupid of any fighter to complain about the judging after the fight. Everyone knows there are problems with it at the moment, but everyone knows how the judges do it.

If you let the fight go the distance, then you need to ensure that you fight your game, and your game is what scores in the judges eyes. Better yet, don't let it go the distance.