I think the value the judges give a takedown is fine. It's the stalling where the fighter on top does very little other than try to keep the other guy on the map that bothers me. In wrestling, if the top wrestler mostly worked to keep the other guy down, he'd get bumped for stalling. He should always be going for back points or a pin. Likewise in MMA, the top guy should always be going for a submission, guard pass, or t/ko. If you spend more than 5-10 seconds in the guard w/ both knees on the ground and your head in the other guys stomach/chest, that's stalling. The sporadic punches from the top should be given as much credit as the guy on the bottom's punching. So if you had a lay-n-pray fighter who's not doing much, but the bottom guy is going for submissions & punching & trying to get up, the bottom guy should get the round.
I completely agree with this. You make an excellent point. I think with MMA still in the stages of being a growing sport there's certain things about it that should be relooked. This is definately one of those areas.
Yep, it's a ****in shame that Hughes won vs Serra when he just LnP'ed him... St.Pierre, Kos, Lesnar are good GnP'er
It really does depend. I think after aggression, striking and grappling it goes to ring generalship, octagon control etc Basically it all comes down to the impression your giving. What is your gameplan, how are you executing, how are you controlling the action no matter where the fight goes etc I don't think anything really scores more than anything else, it comes down to generalship. In olympic wrestling sure you might be considered stalling but in MMA you can get elbowed, heel kicked, subbed etc so top CONTROL is very important. For example Ortiz likes to work into a position to sit on a guys hamstrings so he can control their guard while GnP. It might take him a few seconds to do this. Control, positioning etc must also be considered in scoring. Everything I just said still goes back to generalship, execution, gameplan, impression etc and I think it will always depend. There never will be a perfect way to do anything. We must simply try our best to ensure there is no corruption, consistently bad cards, inexperienced refs/judges etc etc Ultimately a fight will always come down to opinion. This is why its great to see aggression promoted because it finishes fights and that can help take the decision out of the judges hands... ...BUT even then unless the guy is spark out or taps people will debate the stoppage etc
I don't think scoring punches from the botttom equally to punches from the top makes any sense, how many times has anybody KO'd somebody from the bottom? Even landed a stunning blow? Not very often, that's for sure. 5 seconds? Really? Might as well make it kickboxing if you can't take 5 seconds to establish position. How is it any different than a guy backing up and not throwing punches on the feet? I can understand wanting to stop stalemates on the ground, but just as often it is the guy on the bottom just hanging on; so if a guy takes the opponent down, the guy on the bottom just ties him up trying to get a standup, which are stupid to begin with, you are going to punish the guy on top? Adding more chances for refs to **** up, and taking away from the original idea of MMA even further than the current rules do is just going to ruin the entire purpose of the sport.
It's true. Every rule change proposal that changes the fight dynamic further away from a NHB fight should be met with extreme skepticism.
I tend to think that a takedown should give some sort of points, but then a good stuff should give the same amount as a takedown. After all, a good stuff will render an opponent knocked out if it were not for the rules of not kneeing, or stomping a helpless/grounded opponent. This is in line with the original idea of the fights.. As for as dominant position? What exactly is that these days? If you are supposed to have dominant position, and not utilizing it, you should probably be penalized in some way.. No card, but.. If your in dominant position and you don't land a single clean punch in a minute, or even attempt a sub, you should have a serious penalty... If a guy is that good on his back that you cant do anything to him, then you likely can find a way to stand up, and force it back to your feet.. I'm sick and tired of watching wrestlers go for takedowns and do jack **** on the ground. They are good enough to counter a sub and drown an opponent, but not going to strike or go for subs because they are worried about being countered? This is some John Ruiz ****. It's ****ing awful.
I agree with everything you just said also, but don't you think after a certain amount of seconds the fighter on top should be able to mount an offense? Sometimes the fighter on top doesn't do anything, while the fighter on the bottom goes for sub attempts but doesn't get credit sometimes. Like back in Pride. When Guys stalled, they got yellow cards. In Pride more times than not, the stalling rule kept the action going. Guys didn't want yellow cards, they got a percentage of they're purse deducted everytime they got one. Don't you think a rule like that would be much better than seeing a lay & prayer stall his way to a decision? I agree 5 seconds is to quick, the fighter on top should be able to have a certain amount of time to work. Lay & pray is pretty much the same as a guy backing up and not throwing punches on the feet, I very much agree there also. But IMO someone backing up and running still gives the other guy a chance to catch him, so in a way still keeps the action going, while a lay & prayer pretty much pauses the fight.
