Big takedowns should always count, failed subs no

goku - 
ausgepicht - 
goku -  logic fail...takedown is the very definition of means to an end
The takedown leads to a superior postiion. That superior position is the means to an end, no? Excepting slams. If a guy leaps into guard is he equally held to your standard? Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's the position you get into that is the means to an end?

 
so, in other words, a takedown is even worse than a means to an ends because it is a meeans to a means to an end?

 
C'mon man.



When you sweep someone or escape, does everyone expect you to now finish? Why the bias that when a wrestler gets a takedown it's assumed he must now finish. The takedown is an "end" if it results in a slam KO, other wise it's a positional change....just like a sweep or escape. What follows is a separate dynamic. If a wrestler gets a takedown and gets into the side mount we now see how good he is at the side mount. If he fails to finish from here it has to do with his skills at SIDE MOUNT and NOT the takedown. Or a tribute to the person on the bottom's defense.



If a person gets taken down and manages to get to guard and the person on top can't finish or pass isn't that a combo of good defensive guard skills and/or poor guard passing skills?



Is this far fetched and unreasonable?

 

Kai Tremeche - I very much disagree.

Like others have said: A submission that is on long enough for the ref to recognize it and needs to be defended with a significant amount of movement and/or two hands needs to be recognised like half a knockdown.


Why?

A fight is either about defending yourself or hurting the other guy. These guys fight for money, but the measure should be the same: Did I hurt him more than he did me. what does a submission attempt matter if it didn't do you any good and you couldn't capitalize on it?
If he got tired and you hurt him later, the damage should count, for sure, but not the attempt who got him tired. Getting someone tired isn't an objective of a fight, it can be means to get to that objective.

PS. maybe I should explain that I deplore street fighting and unnecessary violence (except for GSP-BJ II)

dudefromisrael - Let's say I fight someone in the street. He roughs me up a bit standing for a minute, bloodies me up, and gets a knockdown from a right cross. He proceeds to my guard, where I control him for five whole minutes, almost submit him once and even get a sweep. Then the crowd breaks us up - hence, time up.

Who won? I love grappling and I say he. Damage counts more.





 I would say you won, because, you survived! Thank god you trained in a form of grappling that let you survive a street encounter, where at first, you were in a great deal of trouble.

From my end, I'm keeping it to a mma scoring debate. In a street fight, I'm not going to argue that slamming someone's head into the concrete will end it right there, because, it's going to end right there.

ausgepicht - 
goku - 
ausgepicht - 
goku -  logic fail...takedown is the very definition of means to an end
The takedown leads to a superior postiion. That superior position is the means to an end, no? Excepting slams. If a guy leaps into guard is he equally held to your standard? Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's the position you get into that is the means to an end?
 
so, in other words, a takedown is even worse than a means to an ends because it is a meeans to a means to an end?
 
C'mon man.

When you sweep someone or escape, does everyone expect you to now finish? Why the bias that when a wrestler gets a takedown it's assumed he must now finish. The takedown is an "end" if it results in a slam KO, other wise it's a positional change....just like a sweep or escape. What follows is a separate dynamic. If a wrestler gets a takedown and gets into the side mount we now see how good he is at the side mount. If he fails to finish from here it has to do with his skills at SIDE MOUNT and NOT the takedown. Or a tribute to the person on the bottom's defense.

If a person gets taken down and manages to get to guard and the person on top can't finish or pass isn't that a combo of good defensive guard skills and/or poor guard passing skills?

Is this far fetched and unreasonable?
 


IMO, Slams should count because they can cause damage in a real situation, which the cage is supposed to emulate, while sweeps by themselves generally can't really cause damage

Beeza - 
dudefromisrael - Let's say I fight someone in the street. He roughs me up a bit standing for a minute, bloodies me up, and gets a knockdown from a right cross. He proceeds to my guard, where I control him for five whole minutes, almost submit him once and even get a sweep. Then the crowd breaks us up - hence, time up.
Who won? I love grappling and I say he. Damage counts more.


 I would say you won, because, you survived! Thank god you trained in a form of grappling that let you survive a street encounter, where at first, you were in a great deal of trouble.
From my end, I'm keeping it to a mma scoring debate. In a street fight, I'm not going to argue that slamming someone's head into the concrete will end it right there, because, it's going to end right there.


Fair view which holds true in any street situation. But, MMA is a sport and as so it is about beating the other guy and not about surviving.
When I saw Miranda escaping Maia's attempt I wasn't all like: "Look at this guy, he could have totally survive and escape a real life situation"
(and yes, I know he's one tough guy who'd have no problem with me or just about anyone)

The only problem with this scenario is that takedowns are currently factored pretty heavily into MMA scoring where attempted subs are not.

I think we need to keep the emphasis on takedowns in scoring as they currently stand and just add more relevance to attempted submissions.

dudefromisrael - 

Why?



Because simply: You have someone closer to losing the fight with a locked sub than you do with a takedown.

A takedown is just an improvement of position, where a sub is like being knocked down. You are heartbeats away from losing the fight, but you get back up.

Ultimately, we want fights to be finished and fighters to go for the finish.

...and this is coming from a former wrestler, judoka and sambo player.

Right now, with the way things are scored, it is always better to keep position and land a few slaps than possibly give up position going for a submission in the scoring and that is massively wrong.

bryanand - I think we need to keep the emphasis on takedowns in scoring as they currently stand and just add more relevance to attempted submissions.



This.

 

bryanand - The only problem with this scenario is that takedowns are currently factored pretty heavily into MMA scoring where attempted subs are not.



I think we need to keep the emphasis on takedowns in scoring as they currently stand and just add more relevance to attempted submissions.





 I need to hire you to write my posts, because, that's how I feel.

 The OP is absolutely on target with his argument.  Very good points.  I'll be looking out for more of your posts.  Very refreshing from some of the crap that gets posted on these boards.  

Kai Tremeche - 
dudefromisrael - 

Why?



Because simply: You have someone closer to losing the fight with a locked sub than you do with a takedown.

A takedown is just an improvement of position, where a sub is like being knocked down. You are heartbeats away from losing the fight, but you get back up.

Ultimately, we want fights to be finished and fighters to go for the finish.

...and this is coming from a former wrestler, judoka and sambo player.

Right now, with the way things are scored, it is always better to keep position and land a few slaps than possibly give up position going for a submission in the scoring and that is massively wrong.


A knockout blow is everything. A big blow who missed by half an inch is nothing.

A completed submission is everything. A failed submission is nothing.

A submission coming in the last half of a 5 round bout where the other guy just beat the crap out of the guy submitting is a win. It doesn't matter how much he pounded on you earlier. Sonnen kicked Silva's ass and Silva won, because a broken arm or falling asleep negates any damage you delivered beforehand. The guy who got caught lost, because if he didn't tap he would lose in a very real way.

A big slam may knock someone out on mats. It would almost surely render him useless on any other surface. Sanctioned fights should only be held on suitable padding, that's obvious, but it can also be looked at as bias against takedown monsters, who are getting a major weapon firmly weakened.

About what bryanand said: I agree that takedowns are given emphasis in today's scoring. I say big takedowns should count for more (just as much as knockdowns),even if the opponent just immediately stands up.
I also argue that subtle trips or dragging someone down SHOULDN'T earn you any points by itself. (except maybe for control points if everything else - damage, knockdowns, slams, saved by the bell submissions - are as equal as can be).

SinCityHustler -  The OP is absolutely on target with his argument.  Very good points.  I'll be looking out for more of your posts.  Very refreshing from some of the crap that gets posted on these boards.  


Thanks man! I love the UG and thought I'll take a few minutes to try and contribute something

ausgepicht - 
goku - 
ausgepicht - 
goku -  logic fail...takedown is the very definition of means to an end
The takedown leads to a superior postiion. That superior position is the means to an end, no? Excepting slams. If a guy leaps into guard is he equally held to your standard? Wouldn't it be fair to say that it's the position you get into that is the means to an end?

 
so, in other words, a takedown is even worse than a means to an ends because it is a meeans to a means to an end?

 
C'mon man.



When you sweep someone or escape, does everyone expect you to now finish? Why the bias that when a wrestler gets a takedown it's assumed he must now finish. The takedown is an "end" if it results in a slam KO, other wise it's a positional change....just like a sweep or escape. What follows is a separate dynamic. If a wrestler gets a takedown and gets into the side mount we now see how good he is at the side mount. If he fails to finish from here it has to do with his skills at SIDE MOUNT and NOT the takedown. Or a tribute to the person on the bottom's defense.



If a person gets taken down and manages to get to guard and the person on top can't finish or pass isn't that a combo of good defensive guard skills and/or poor guard passing skills?



Is this far fetched and unreasonable?

 
i dont think a sweep or escape should count either...bascially i do not believe in scoring position at all...if one guy gets put on his back, but outlands the guy on top 51 shots to 50, i think the bottom guy should get the round

 

dudefromisrael, I used to be in the same camp as you. I felt that failed strikes and takedowns didn't get rewarded so why should sub attempts be rewarded.

The problem is, with rare exceptions, everyone strikes and goes for takedowns. It's not endemic. However we DO see some lazy guard playing, and to reward and promote more activity there should be some kind of encouragement for sub attempts. It will make fights more exciting since it will not only encourage activity from the bottom, but will make lazy guys IN the guard more active, because if they just sit there, they may get caught. This will force people to be more active in both positions and hopefully motivate people to develop higher guard passing skills.

In Kickboxing they had this rule about a 5 kick minimum, if you didn't do it you lost a point. Could we incorporate something like this on the ground to increase activity? If you are playing guard you need "x" amount of sub attempts in a one minute period and/or the top guy needs "x" amount of submission attempts, punches, or pass attempts or lose a half of a point? Just thinking out loud....

goku - i dont think a sweep or escape should count either...bascially i do not believe in scoring position at all...if one guy gets put on his back, but outlands the guy on top 51 shots to 50, i think the bottom guy should get the round

Don't escapes, sweeps, and takedowns demonstrate effective grappling? Octagon control? 2 of the OFFICIAL criteria for scoring.

 

Big takedowns aren't not finishing moves while you're likely to finish your opponent with sub attempts

ausgepicht - 
goku - i dont think a sweep or escape should count either...bascially i do not believe in scoring position at all...if one guy gets put on his back, but outlands the guy on top 51 shots to 50, i think the bottom guy should get the round

Don't escapes, sweeps, and takedowns demonstrate effective grappling? Octagon control? 2 of the OFFICIAL criteria for scoring.

 
i am not arguing about what the scoring system IS..i am arguing what it SHOULD BE



obvioulsy, lay n pray is greatly rewarded in the ufc...but that is a bad thing

 

ausgepicht - dudefromisrael, I used to be in the same camp as you. I felt that failed strikes and takedowns didn't get rewarded so why should sub attempts be rewarded.<P><P>The problem is, with rare exceptions, everyone strikes and goes for takedowns. It's not endemic. However we DO see some lazy guard playing, and to reward and promote more activity there should be some kind of encouragement for sub attempts. It will make fights more exciting since it will not only encourage activity from the bottom, but will make lazy guys IN the guard more active, because if they just sit there, they may get caught. This will force people to be more active in both positions and hopefully motivate people to develop higher guard passing skills.<P><P>In Kickboxing they had this rule about a 5 kick minimum, if you didn't do it you lost a point. Could we incorporate something like this on the ground to increase activity? If you are playing guard you need "x" amount of sub attempts in a one minute period and/or the top guy needs "x" amount of submission attempts, punches, or pass attempts or lose a half of a point? Just thinking out loud....


I see your point, but MMA is basically fighting, and winning that doesn't mean being exciting, otherwise taekwondo fighters would have been the baddest men on the planet.
As for the rules, I think the change they need regarding that is maybe if the bottom guy is stalling the fight in order not to get punched and be stood up, while the guy on top struggles to keep active, the referee should give more time for the guy on top. Let's say Silva just hugs Sonnen from the guard. He is obviously trying to get stood up. So the referee should give sonnen more time. But if both of them are just inactive, that's something else.
Remember: Rules are necessary, but they should interfere as less as possible with a fight progress. They shouldn't really be about making fights exciting (although it can be a by product, like 5 minutes rounds).

However, if the organization feels that the fights should be more exciting, and it is their right, bonuses are the solutions for the problem you pointed out.
Give better bonuses or design a better bonus plan for a submission/KO, and you'll see more guys being more active.

plus, you start giving points to failed submission attempts, you'll also need to give them to failed half guard sweeps

threestars35 - Big takedowns aren't not finishing moves while you're likely to finish your opponent with sub attempts


You don't finish your opponent with an attempt. you do with a completion.

 I 100% agree with Kai on this.