Paid Members Dead Mike Posted December 5, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 5, 2013 Surely that's because a takedown is a clear indicator of 'Effective grappling', 'agression' & 'Octagon control'? 3 boxes ticked against the judging criteria in one fell swoop. Whether that should be the judging criteria is another question but thems the rules to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 Surely that's because a takedown is a clear indicator of 'Effective grappling', 'agression' & 'Octagon control'? 3 boxes ticked against the judging criteria in one fell swoop. Whether that should be the judging criteria is another question but thems the rules to the game. In that case, shouldn't a fighter who get's taken down but immediately manages to wrestle his way back to his feet due some credit as well? Â The whole system is fucked, and that's the reason we're seeing "boring" fighters emerge more & more now. The system is flawed, and people are coming up with gameplans to take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted December 5, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 5, 2013 Yeah, I always (maybe wrongly?) assumed that if a takedown occured & the guy manages to stand straight back up, thus nullifying any advantage through position then it doesn't count the same. Â The whole system is fucked, and that's the reason we're seeing "boring" fighters emerge more & more now. The system is flawed, and people are coming up with gameplans to take advantage of it. Â Pick a sport, any sport. You'll find fans complaining about how a certain rule(s) favours one style of play/tactic/ approach. As MMA continues to evolve and we get the next generation of complete MMA athletes as opposed to wrestlers/strikers moving into MMA I see the future of the sport being determined by gameplans as opposed to the old (or sometimes current) 'Striker vs Wrestler' matchups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The problem as I see it, is that no matter how much MMA evolves we'll never move forward if we have middle-aged boxing judges working MMA fights. This has to end before we can really move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Dead Mike Posted December 5, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 5, 2013 Agreed. tbh as long as it stays a 'fringe' sport I doubt this'll change any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane O' Mac Version 2 Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The problem as I see it, is that no matter how much MMA evolves we'll never move forward if we have middle-aged boxing judges working MMA fights. This has to end before we can really move on. Hey, those middle aged boxing judges can't live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The problem as I see it, is that no matter how much MMA evolves we'll never move forward if we have middle-aged boxing judges working MMA fights. This has to end before we can really move on. Hey, those middle aged boxing judges can't live forever. They were middle-aged when they judged the Ali vs Frazier series, so they appear ageless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members wandshogun09 Posted December 5, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted December 5, 2013 The big issue for me is that even just a takedown is enough to get you points, regardless of what you do afterwards. How many fighters do you see charge in looking for one in the dying seconds of a round? Â Sam Stout always did/does this. And I think he's won a few decisions he shouldn't have as a direct result. Not massive robberies or anything but I thought the Paul Taylor and the third Spencer Fisher fight were what I'd class as bad decisions. Â I understand it from the fighters POV, if he thinks the striking was even he probably figures that takedown will tip the balance in his favour. But the judges are so shite half the time that there'll be a round where it's all standup for 4 1/2 minutes and one guy is getting lit up like a Christmas tree. Maybe not rocked but he gets clearly beat to the punch for the whole round. He scores a desperation takedown in the last 30 seconds and the judges somehow develop amnesia regarding the first 4 1/2 minutes and deem that sole takedown to outweigh the rest of the round. Drives me nuts. Stout vs Fisher 3 in particular was an example of this. I remember Fisher outstriking Stout all night, did most of the damage, yet Stout walked away with the verdict because he got a couple of late takedowns which led to nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey_Piste Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 The one thing I hate is when you have someone who is constantly going for takedowns, but never manages to complete one. The aggressor is the one who gets 10 points even though they've not even done anything, it's very difficult to stuff a takedown. Jones Gustaffson is a good example of this where Gusty stuffed a load of Jones' takedowns, but Jones won the round, stuffing takedowns should count as octagon control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.