Attn: Joe - Why pretend round-end takedowns count?

First off: You're the best commentator in the biz when it comes to calling high-level MMA, so don't take this wrong.

This always confuses me though - why does Joe Rogan (And not JUST Joe for the record, but he's the commentator fans actually listen to and base opinions on far more than others) placate the idea that scoring a quick takedown at the end of a round can win you a round in the judges' eyes?

At the end of Wiman/Siver round 1, Wiman got a takedown and Rogan said something along the lines of 'That could take the round for Wiman!' and later acknowledged in the fight it could have been Wiman's round, despite the fact Siver beat him up on the feet. I know that judges are often foolish and seemingly inept at what MMA even is, but as a voice that reaches the wide MMA public it seems a bit odd to me that you would say things like that when you KNOW yourself that a meaningless takedown doesn't actually accomplish anything.

Now this is a tricky situation, and I do understand where you're coming from. The judges often DO think things like the guy who ends a round on top won it, but I gotta imagine you don't think that yourself no? Hell, the average UGer (even the trolls) knows that isn't true, but for what seems to be some effort to explain and rationalize awful judging for more mainstream/casual fans watching a UFC broadcast Joe often makes an effort to make sure that the average fan knows what the judges are erroneously looking for as opposed to what they SHOULD be looking for (effective grappling and striking).

Again, don't get me wrong. Joe's a pro, HAS been occasionally vocal about MMA's bad judging/reffing in the past, and obviously I couldn't do his job. But it is alarming to me that a man so in the know would say things that obviously aren't true like that if Wiman gets a takedown with 10 seconds left in a round it could potentially nullify an entire round of losing - it's not like your average fan then thinks to himself after hearing that 'Riight, I forgot you can win a round with a takedown at the last second in MMA because judges are blind and assume takedowns mean dominance irregardless', what it ACTUALLY does is foster this group-mentality that this is how MMA actually works, that you CAN in fact win rounds and fights with takedowns and control whether or not your opponent was effective in their striking and grappling, and finally it creates a climate where judges can get off the hook for bad decision-making because the average MMA fan simply assumes based off hearing things like 'Looks like he coulda stole the round with that takedown!' that this is actually TRUE, and not just being said so people understand how the judges (who suck at their jobs) might be looking at it.


Sorry that's a bit of a FRAT, and I'm sorry this came off so Joe Rogan-specific or at-all bashing, but he happens to be the face of MMA commentating (at least the one anyone cares about, sorry Goldberg) and the things he says affect how a fan who doesn't understand MMA thinks - and to hear these things, they might simply start thinking MMA has wacky and apparently-wrong judging, but that's just how the sport works and it's ok.


Just my thoughts though! I await your flames and explanations as to why I'm gay/wrong/retarded/actually a potato rolling around on a keyboard. And again I do hope this doesn't come off rude, if it does I am sorry.

I guess my main point is this: Should judging in MMA be able to get away with 'making a case' when there really isn't a case to be made 90% of the time? Should we validate this, should professional commentators?

P.S. I think these "Attention famous person!" topics are lame as hell, and I acknowledge that I am way lamer than I previously was for even making this thread and am sort of disgusted with myself.