Should take downs be worth anything in terms of scoring?

Wade3Iverson · Post #1 » by **Wade3Iverson** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:24 pm

Should take downs be worth anything in terms of scoring? It seems that judges give too much credence to this transitional move.

I know people consider ring control to be important but if you take someone down and don't do any damage then why should you get any positive scoring from the judges. Take for example the Rory vs Condit fight from UFC 115. Hypothetically, if the judge let the round finish and go to a decision who do you think won the first two rounds? Rory definitely had the take downs in both rounds but he did no damage and actually got out damaged by Condit from the bottom. (there is no doubt in my mind that Rory would've have won those two rounds on the scorecards)

I just don't want to see MMA head in the direction where people take down opponents and just lay on them until the round is over. Hurt him or finish him! Or some people *cough* RashadEvans *cough* just hold people against the cage and pretty much stall an entire round.

The judges overall need to do a better job of standing up fighters or separating them when no one is advancing position.

Thoughts?

jTF2 · Post #2 » by **jTF2** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:41 pm

IMO, takedowns should be worth something in the judges minds but IFF the fighter follows up with any combination of improving position, decent GnP or sub attempts. If the fighter cannot do any of those three then it shouldn't be worth anything.

Wade3Iverson · Post #3 » by **Wade3Iverson** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:50 pm

jTF2 wrote:IMO, takedowns should be worth something in the judges minds but IFF the fighter follows up with any combination of improving position, decent GnP or sub attempts. If the fighter cannot do any of those three then it shouldn't be worth anything.

This would be fair. But even if he improved position (lets say he goes from guard to taking the dudes back) and does no damage, should it be worth something?

Shouldn't the round be scored on who does the most damage to the opponent?

jTF2 · Post #4 » by **jTF2** » Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:55 pm

superior position should be worth a lot. If the fighter can go from full guard to half guard AND side control, that should count as a point for getting the TD in the first place. Similarly if the fighter can go from full guard to mount or taking the back. Whereas, if the fighter just goes from full guard to half in 1 minute of work with virtually no gnp or sub attempt then the TD point should not count. This will reduce LnP hopefully as fighters will realize that just getting the TD and sitting there will not sway judges' minds.

of course lets keep in mind that any decent amount of GnP (2+ punches, 3+ elbows in one minute) regardless of changing positions should automatically give points for the TD and the damage.

Nemesis21 · Post #5 » by **Nemesis21** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:39 am

Wade3Iverson wrote:Should take downs be worth anything in terms of scoring? It seems that judges give too much credence to this transitional move.

I know people consider ring control to be important but if you take someone down and don't do any damage then why should you get any positive scoring from the judges. Take for example the Rory vs Condit fight from UFC 115. Hypothetically, if the judge let the round finish and go to a decision who do you think won the first two rounds? Rory definitely had the take downs in both rounds but he did no damage and actually got out damaged by Condit from the bottom. (there is no doubt in my mind that Rory would've have won those two rounds on the scorecards)

I just don't want to see MMA head in the direction where people take down opponents and just lay on them until the round is over. Hurt him or finish him! Or some people *cough* RashadEvans *cough* just hold people against the cage and pretty much stall an entire round.

The judges overall need to do a better job of standing up fighters or separating them when no one is advancing position.

Thoughts?

I scored the first rd 10-9 for Rory, gave the second rd to Condit even though Rory had a takedown or 2, but unlike the first he wasn't able to do much or any damage.

REDDzone · Post #6 » by **REDDzone** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:22 am

For me, in the end, its a FIGHT.

If the guy gets a slam or hurts the guy with or after the takedown, then absolutely. If he Rashad Evans' his opponent and lays him on the ground only to see the guy stand right back up and then lay him down again...no.

Mike Hunt · Post #7 » by **Mike Hunt** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:57 am

I'd rather have a guy win a round by taking another guy to the mat than having 70% of fights end in draws. The thing about establishing dominant position (and why I believe you have to score for getting it) is that there is a specific amount of work that goes into getting that position. You earn a takedown. It's not given to you. Once you're in that dominant position, you have to try things or they'll stand you up (I will concede that they could stand up fighters a little more). The reason you have to score points for takedowns and establishing progressively better positions is two-fold: A) like I mentioned earlier, a lot of work goes into earning such positions (you want to reward EFFECTIVE work) and B) You are doing damage, in terms of your opponent's stamina, while in that postition, regardless of whether or not you're successfully damaging him in other ways.

Think about it. Lie on the floor for 4 minutes (assumes they stood for 1 minute) and have someone put their weight on top of you and don't even try to fight your way out. See who feels fresher at the end of those 4 minutes. Then do it again but fight to make your way out from under them. They'll be tired but you'll be worse for the wear.

That's why so few rounds are ever scored 10-10. There's always a guy who suffers more than the other, regardless of the degree of that suffering.

On the other hand, if there's a fight where the strikes are relatively even but one guy has attempted 4 takedowns and the other guy's sprawled and stuffed the attempts all 4 times, I might give the edge to the latter because the other guy exerted a lot of energy for no results (You want to reward effort/work but only when there is some type of result for it).

Ring generalship is keeping the fight where you want it. The guy who sprawled 4 times wanted to keep the fight standing and that's exactly what happened.

Wade3Iverson · Post #8 » by **Wade3Iverson** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:03 am

^^^nice post, points taken.

El Hardee · Post #9 » by **El Hardee** » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:17 pm

Take downs should count for something but I wouldnt say taking a man down is octagon control though. If a guy gets a TD and ends up defending himself against subs while on top then I would score the aggression off the back higher than the actual TD. It seems as if a TD trumps everything in the judges eyes when scoring the ground and I think that is lame. If we had Pride rules we would not be having this discussion.