"NOT finishing a sub is like NOT landing a punch."
I've heard this before and think it's a load of crap.
Does anyone really think like this outside licensed judges?
You can miss punches from all the way across the cage, but you can't even attempt a submission without a fair amount of opponent control. For a fighter to have to defend a sub attempt, that means he was in, or was put in, a vulnerable position in the first place.
failed subs > missed punches IMO
Thoughts.....?
More like grazing punches, if anything. A sub still puts pressure on your opponent and can also open the door for sweeps and transitions, all the while tiring your foe out and keeping them guessing.
Missing a punch rarely does those things.
No they would be the equivalent of landing a punch but no KOing the opponent. No one calls a landed punch a failed KO. They are just 2 different things, so not exactly a great analogy, but if you have to make a comparison, subs and KOs finish fights, so that is the direct comparison. Perhaps more like this.
Sub attempt, but not catch is like missing a punch,
a catch would be landing a good punch
a sub is like a KO.
Sub attempt in UFC MMA is high risk, high reward.
If you succeed, you get the payoff no matter the ass-whipping you may have received before. [see Silva/Sonnen]
If you fail, you don't get the reward.
Today's MMA athletes have decent sub defense, which also contributes.
Personally, I think Guida was going for a match-long sub attempt via bear hug. I think he learned it from the big Japanese dude in Bloodsport.
I used to think that failed subs were the equivalent of a missed haymaker.
Then someone brought up, well don't you have to have at least some control to be going for the sub, so wouldn't that demonstrate ring generalship/control?
Yes, yes it would.
After that I started looking at ground fighting a little different. While I still think being on top is generally the more advantagious position, a guy on bottom can be the one winning if he stays active with sweeps, sub attempts, and strikes from the bottom. (Those elbows can hurt! YEOWCH!)
double post.
Missed punches don't allow you to control the opponent before and after.........
K-Dub-"T" - Missed punches don't allow you to control the opponent before and after.........
This is exactly what I meant, in much more concise fashion. :)
how many failed submissions equal a successful takedown?
Petis wasn't able to get back to his feet so I don't think his attempts were enabling him to control Guida...anymore than the fact that Guida didn't stop the attempts shows that he didn't completely control Petis.
Failed sub is like a blocked punch, not a missed one. 
canuck34 - Failed sub is like a blocked punch, not a missed one.
This is what I thought, too.
However, but a guy throwing punches on the feet (even if they're blocked) is scored to be winning.
Why is it different with subs?
DJLastCall -Hmmmm.... never thought about that.canuck34 - Failed sub is like a blocked punch, not a missed one.
This is what I thought, too.
However, but a guy throwing punches on the feet (even if they're blocked) is scored to be winning.
Why is it different with subs?
Diego/Kampmann.....
DJLastCall - "NOT finishing a sub is like NOT landing a punch."You are 100% correct.
I've heard this before and think it's a load of crap.
Does anyone really think like this outside licensed judges?
You can miss punches from all the way across the cage, but you can't even attempt a submission without a fair amount of opponent control. For a fighter to have to defend a sub attempt, that means he was in, or was put in, a vulnerable position in the first place.
failed subs > missed punches IMO
Thoughts.....?
When you can vault out of your corner and throw a omaplata, armbar, and triangle combination that has the same chance of landing as a few punches, then maybe they'd be the same.
ahem...excuse, please...not ALL judges!