What's a "takedown" worth?

[iH8LnP 0]

seems like the judging gives a lot if credit for a takedown, even if it leads to nothing. imo, it shouldnt get any more credit than a jab.

[ParaffinAlien 0]

hmm......A fighter risks a lot by shooting in for a takedown, if successful he is also putting the fight where he wants it. Effective striking, grappling, aggression and Octagon control, A takedown covers 3 out of 4 of this criterea in one move.

[UFC_Fan_ 0]

hmm......A fighter risks a lot by shooting in for a takedown' date=' if successful he is also putting the fight where he wants it. Effective striking, grappling, aggression and Octagon control, A takedown covers 3 out of 4 of this criterea in one move.[/quote']

 

I agree it should be worth more than a jab, its more like a knockdown

[iH8LnP 0]

hmm......A fighter risks a lot by shooting in for a takedown' date=' if successful he is also putting the fight where he wants it. Effective striking, grappling, aggression and Octagon control, A takedown covers 3 out of 4 of this criterea in one move.[/quote']

 

they're not really "risking" anything if it's their primary weapon... its all they can really do. so you're going to reward a fighter for being 'risky' when its the best thing they've got in tbeir arsenal?

[Sir_Wesley_of_Wells 3,723]

I agree it should be worth more than a jab' date=' its more like a knockdown[/quote']

 

I was about to post this or something very similar. I think a takedown that doesn't lead to any damage is worth slightly less than a knockdown, but one that leads to damage on the ground is worth about the same as a knockdown.

[iH8LnP 0]

well, i guess it's because of fans like u guys that we'll continue to see fights like sonnen/bisping & rashad/davis.

[ParaffinAlien 0]

they're not really "risking" anything if it's their primary weapon... its all they can really do. so you're going to reward a fighter for being 'risky' when its the best thing they've got in tbeir arsenal?

 

No I am not going to reward them for being risky. Did you even read my post or just look for something you disagreed with and start righteously tap tap tapping away?

 

I explained quite clearly why they should be rewarded.

 

When a guy shoots in he is risking taking heavy shots on the way in and heavy shots if he fails. You never saw a wrestler getting KTFO on a takedown attempt?

[Muay_Thai_Leeds 0]

Too much I think. It only changes where the fight takes place, just like holding someone against a fence does. Should be scored as octagon control only IMO, can't see how or why the should be scored the same as a knock down

[JHenry 1]

Takedowns carry way to much value, espically when they do nothing with the takedown. While on the other hand stuffing a takedown is literally worthless.

 

For instance refer to Lil Nog vs Bader. Lil Nog dominates the stand-up, stuffs literally 20+ takedowns, bader lands two takedowns, one in the second and one in the third, does no damage and holds a closed guard for all of a minute and a half each. Bader ends up winning that fight, its ****ing ridiculous

[ParaffinAlien 0]

Too much I think. It only changes where the fight takes place' date=' just like holding someone against a fence does. Should be scored as octagon control only IMO, can't see how or why the should be scored the same as a take down[/quote']

 

Really? You don't think that a takedown is an effective grapple then?

 

grap?ple   [grap-uhl] Show IPA verb, -pled, -pling, noun

verb (used without object)

1.

to hold or make fast to something, as with a grapple.

2.

to use a grapple.

3.

to seize another, or each other, in a firm grip, as in wrestling; clinch.

4.

to engage in a struggle or close encounter

 

 

Nor do you think it's aggressive?

 

ag?gres?sion   [uh-gresh-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1.

the action of a state in violating by force the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive, attack, invasion, or the like: The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression.

2.

any offensive action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or encroachment: an aggression upon one's rights.

3.

the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.

 

Learning the English language might be helpful for you to make your future "opinions" a bit more valid.

[Duke101 0]

seems like the judging gives a lot if credit for a takedown' date=' even if it leads to nothing. imo, it shouldnt get any more credit than a jab.[/quote']

 

I agree. Not more than a jab, but much more than a wall n' stall

[BeanTownBorn 0]

A take down followed by a pummeling of the face > wall and stall every time.

[Muay_Thai_Leeds 0]

Really? You don't think that a takedown is an effective grapple lts or attacks; offensive action in general.

 

Learning the English language might be helpful for you to make your future "opinions" a bit more valid.

 

So is holding someone against the fence and a bit of dirty boxing but that doesnt get scored that highly. Also a GSP double , more like a tackle i suppose for example is quite aggressive, some aren't at all. How dareI have a different perspective on things than you... My apologies

[carnages 62,427]

A takedown shouldn't be worth **** imo

[TwennyFo 5,596]

Takedowns carry way to much value' date=' espically when they do nothing with the takedown. While on the other hand stuffing a takedown is literally worthless.

 

For instance refer to Lil Nog vs Bader. Lil Nog dominates the stand-up, stuffs literally 20+ takedowns, bader lands two takedowns, one in the second and one in the third, does no damage and holds a closed guard for all of a minute and a half each. Bader ends up winning that fight, its ****ing ridiculous[/quote']

 

Very good post mate.

 

A takedown should be worth exactly the same as stuffing a takedown and/or an immediate return to the feet.

A fighter, knowing that a failed takedown attempt could possibly be gifting points to his opponent might actually think twice about the move, hence removing what is usually, just a cheap attempt at point scoring.

At the very least , it would balance out the points scoring system, whilst becoming fairer to BOTH fighters in the process.

[JHenry 1]

Very good post mate.

 

A takedown should be worth exactly the same as stuffing a takedown and/or an immediate return to the feet.

A fighter' date=' knowing that a failed takedown attempt could possibly be gifting points to his opponent might actually think twice about the move, hence removing what is usually, just a cheap attempt at point scoring.

At the very least , it would balance out the points scoring system, whilst becoming fairer to BOTH fighters in the process.[/quote']

 

it should be closer to a real wrestling match in terms of grappling where a takedown = 2 points, reversal = 2 points, and an escape = 1 point. A takedown should not win a round EVER.

[KTFOOO 2]

Heres a thought, If the Ref stands the fighters up should that takedown be counted or given less points due to the lack of advancement on the ground

[WarWest® 78,550]

A takedown shouldn't be worth **** imo

 

This ^^^ 100%

[classicboxer 15,038]

hmm......A fighter risks a lot by shooting in for a takedown' date=' if successful he is also putting the fight where he wants it. Effective striking, grappling, aggression and Octagon control, A takedown covers 3 out of 4 of this criterea in one move.[/quote']

 

It fits into the guidelines they have set down, but they shouldn't even include grappling. I get tired of the "takedown in the last minute of the round" just to get points and steal the round. They are STEALING the round, because those takedowns are useless. I would change the guidelines to effective striking and submission attempts, and nothing else.

[Pengu 0]

If I had a choice I would rather take downs worth half of what they are worth.

Especially when nothing has been done AFTER the take down.

The people who say the take down are worth a lot are 90% GSP fans

[Benesmash 0]

If takedowns are awarded so many points, I think takedowns defended should be worth just as much maybe a little lower. so they have to pick their takedowns more carefully

[TheOvereem 20]

A take down followed by a pummeling of the face > wall and stall every time.

 

Chael hardly pummeled Bisping's face which I assume your referring to after reading your thread

 

it should be closer to a real wrestling match in terms of grappling where a takedown = 2 points' date=' reversal = 2 points, and an escape = 1 point. A takedown should not win a round EVER.[/quote']

 

Agreed pal

[iH8LnP 0]

lots of good replies..

 

a takedown is worthless unless it causes some damage imo. ppl that talk abt gsps "double leg" are complete morons.. how much skill is required for a takedown? especially for someone who is looking to do nothing else but lay on his opponent

[Muay_Thai_Leeds 0]

lots of good replies..

 

a takedown is worthless unless it causes some damage imo. ppl that talk abt gsps "double leg" are complete morons.. how much skill is required for a takedown? especially for someone who is looking to do nothing else but lay on his opponent

 

I was just stating gsp style takedown has impact and are aggressive, and therefore should score, not highly but should score

[iH8LnP 0]

I was just stating gsp style takedown has impact and are aggressive' date=' and therefore should score, not highly but should score[/quote']

 

i love how the only things gsp is known for is his double leg, jab and cardio. none of which could ever be used to end a fight lmao.

[Muay_Thai_Leeds 0]

i love how the only things gsp is known for is his double leg' date=' jab and cardio. none of which could ever be used to end a fight lmao.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately that's what he's become - a decision fighter, he looked awesome in his early career.

[iH8LnP 0]

Unfortunately that's what he's become - a decision fighter' date=' he looked awesome in his early career.[/quote']

 

you mean when the competition was slim and he fought lightweights?

[TwennyFo 5,596]

i love how the only things gsp is known for is his double leg' date=' jab and cardio. none of which could ever be used to end a fight lmao.[/quote']

 

Lol, this

 

Unfortunately that's what he's become - a decision fighter' date=' he looked awesome in his early career.[/quote']

 

And this

[Duke101 0]

If takedowns are awarded so many points' date=' I think takedowns defended should be worth just as much maybe a little lower. so they have to pick their takedowns more carefully[/quote']

 

This

 

takedowns are indeed significant, but so are takedowns defended.

[TROLOLOL 0]

I didn't know UFC WAS TURNING INTO WRESTLING ? ? ?

 

GEEZ !

[grappleDMK 0]

how much skill is required for a takedown?[/size][/b]

 

 

I'm not a fan of "lay and pray" by any means, I think someone should always be trying to advance their position on the ground. However, I am almost offended by the above statement. I'm almost equally offended that no one else in this thread has been offended. There is a ton of skill involved in takedowns, hip placement, drive, speed...etc. Have you ever actually attempted a solid takedown before? Ever?

[JHenry 1]

how much skill is required for a takedown?[/size][/b]

 

 

I'm not a fan of "lay and pray" by any means' date=' I think someone should always be trying to advance their position on the ground. However, I am almost offended by the above statement. I'm almost equally offended that no one else in this thread has been offended. There is a ton of skill involved in takedowns, hip placement, drive, speed...etc. Have you ever actually attempted a solid takedown before? Ever?[/quote']

 

Most takedowns in mma result in grabing a single from the clinch or cage-clinch, lifting up and tripping. Thats a farcry from what it takes to execute a successful double leg in actual wrestling.

 

Anyways, you cannot justify someone winning because they scored a takedown, espically when they shoot 5,10, 20 times before actually completing one.

[carnages 62,427]

how much skill is required for a takedown?[/size][/b]

 

 

I'm not a fan of "lay and pray" by any means' date=' I think someone should always be trying to advance their position on the ground. However, I am almost offended by the above statement. I'm almost equally offended that no one else in this thread has been offended. There is a ton of skill involved in takedowns, hip placement, drive, speed...etc. Have you ever actually attempted a solid takedown before? Ever?[/quote']

 

Its not that there takes no skill for a TD, its just that there is no penalty for shooting non stop, if you get 1/50 takedowns you shouldn't get points for that.

[grappleDMK 0]

I agree with both of the posts following me, I just disagreed with the "takedowns require no skills" comment

[Drokilla 0]

how much skill is required for a takedown?[/size][/b]

 

 

I'm not a fan of "lay and pray" by any means' date=' I think someone should always be trying to advance their position on the ground. However, I am almost offended by the above statement. I'm almost equally offended that no one else in this thread has been offended. There is a ton of skill involved in takedowns, hip placement, drive, speed...etc. Have you ever actually attempted a solid takedown before? Ever?[/quote']

 

I have to agree. Obviously most of the people here don't train MMA or Wrestling. It takes a good bit of skill to take someone down, and if you don't have great technique then it takes a lot of energy too.

[AUSMMA 0]

Defending a TD, shouldn't be worth as much as a TD, simply because you are defending. If a fighter takes you down, he is agressively trying to win the fight, whereas a defended TD, you are just trying to stay up

[JHenry 1]

Defending a TD' date=' shouldn't be worth as much as a TD, simply because you are defending. [b']If a fighter takes you down, he is agressively trying to win the fight[/b], whereas a defended TD, you are just trying to stay up

 

Someone hasnt been paying much attention lately lol:rolleyes:

 

 

Anyhows the problem is that they put too much emphasis on the takedown. In wrestling, the way you win with points is a takedown= 2 points, a reversal= 2 points and an escape = 1(the back points are irrelevant for mma). Anyways, the judges never seem to take into account the other aspects of wrestling, much less the other aspects of mma.

[Pengu 0]

I think it depends what it is compared to.

If a fighter gets dropped and there was a decent chance of them getting finished, I say that should be it right there, doesn't matter how many take downs the person gets, the fight was almost finished right there.

 

But if the fighter that got dropped, takes their opponent down and does enough damage ie Brock vs Mir 2 round 1.

Then I say it is equal. Because you have aggression, effective grappling and octagon control right there.

 

So it really comes down to the judge making a wise decision.

 

I do not think Bisping won round 1, because pushing your opponent up against the fence and doing minor damage and also RECEIVING damage as well ( Chael was throwing back in the clinch) and Bisping got taken down if I remember correctly two times.

 

29-28 Sonnen

[Hate_Trolls 3]

hmm......A fighter risks a lot by shooting in for a takedown' date=' if successful he is also putting the fight where he wants it. Effective striking, grappling, aggression and Octagon control, A takedown covers 3 out of 4 of this criterea in one move.[/quote']

 

Stuffing a Takedown covers the exact same criteria why arnt stuffed take downs scored.

[JHenry 1]

Stuffing a Takedown covers the exact same criteria why arnt stuffed take downs scored.

 

It most definitly covers octagon control and effeective grappling. A takedown should be worth more than a sprawl but not to the point where 1 completed is = 5 failed.

[Hate_Trolls 3]

It most definitly covers octagon control and effeective grappling. A takedown should be worth more than a sprawl but not to the point where 1 completed is = 5 failed.

 

Scoring in general is all BS. People say a fighter walking forward is being aggressive so they should get points, but thats biased to counter fighters. People say takedowns mean you control grappling but if a guy stuffs 5 take downs then gets takendown once he loses points even though he controlled the grappling more. If a guy sits in guard the whole round people say he controlled the whole round when if he was actually in control he wouldnt be stuck in one position. Grappling scoring in MMA fails altogether

[Hate_Trolls 3]

It most definitly covers octagon control and effeective grappling. A takedown should be worth more than a sprawl but not to the point where 1 completed is = 5 failed.

 

Scoring in general is all BS. People say a fighter walking forward is being aggressive so they should get points, but thats biased to counter fighters. People say takedowns mean you control grappling but if a guy stuffs 5 take downs then gets takendown once he loses points even though he controlled the grappling more. If a guy sits in guard the whole round people say he controlled the whole round when if he was actually in control he wouldnt be stuck in one position. Grappling scoring in MMA fails altogether

[lulwut 0]

A takedown should be worth a lot, however, sweeps and submission attempts should be worth just as much.

 

Saying a takedown should be worth nothing is troll talk and should be ignored completely. It's not easy to get a takedown and it should be rewarded, what shouldn't be rewarded is stalling in the guard, which would be negated if your opponent has an active guard.

 

In a perfect scoring system a well rounded fighter would beat a style centric fighter every time bar a knock out or tko. The onus should be on fighters to be well rounded in all areas and not on one style.

[casino16 4]

i say if the other fighter can get up from it in under 30 seconds the takedown should be cancelled out

[The_Mayor 0]

seems like the judging gives a lot if credit for a takedown' date=' even if it leads to nothing. imo, it shouldnt get any more credit than a jab.[/quote']

 

first let's see what a takedown is worth

 

fighter a takes down figher b in the middle of the octagon

 

during the takedown -

1.fighter a is aggressive

2.he has octagon control deciding where the td goes

3. he is effectively controlling fighter b during the takedown

 

end of takedown -

1. fighter a is in a more dominant position

2. he is controlling where the fight is (on the mat) and fighter b at the same time

 

for those who say

 

"takedowns shouldn't be worth anything if they don't do anything with it"

 

it sounds like complete nonsense to me

 

fighter b is being controlled, he got moved from standing up to the ground because of fighter a.. this not scoring any points is the same thing as let's take pat barry vs cro cop fight

 

pat barry knocked down cro cop but didn't move in.. he stood there waiting for cro cop to stand back up.. why doesn't anyone say that pat barry's knockdown shouldn't have scored any points? fact is, takedowns is an offensive move, this is mma.. grappling is just as important as damage, it's a sport.. not a "whoever bleeds the most loses" sorta thing

 

so in the end, this is how i score takedowns.. and i'm 100% sure judges do it the same way

 

knockdown (striking) > takedown > powershot

[wanderleisilva101 3,574]

Takedowns are scored to highly for sure it should go on what they do with it when they have them on the ground. Example; if the striking in the round is very close but one fighter gets a takedown with GnP or sub attempts then he would win the round however if he takes more damage from the guy on bottom and just holds position or is put in sub attempts then he should lose the round imo. Guida vs Pettis is a good example of a fighter on top taking more damage and winning just for being on top i think.

[nyran125 0]

there was about 3 minutes of wasted time on the ground that chael was doing nothing. That cost Bisping dearly.

[Mirko4life 0]

What's a takedown worth?

 

Short answer: A round.

 

Long answer: You win the stand up exchanges for 4 minutes, but it's nothing major you're just winning them. Your opponent takes you down at minute 4 and holds you down for a minute without doing damage. He won the round. Retarded judging but that's the way it's done.

 

Short answer again: It's worth way more than it should be.

 

My opinion: Takedowns shouldn't even be worth any points unless they're huge slams that hurt their opponents.

 

People talk about octagon control. But what about defending a takedown? If you defend 5 takedowns, you control the octagon. You say where the fight is taking place, standing. But do judges score TDD? Noooooo.

 

Takedowns shouldn't count for anything. All that matters is what you do after the takedown.

 

If you count takedowns, then you should count takedown defense too. And if you do, most wrestlers who just shoot like 5 times and only get the takedown on the 6th try with 30 seconds would cry.

[TechniqueSeeker 0]

Takedowns carry way to much value' date=' espically when they do nothing with the takedown. While on the other hand stuffing a takedown is literally worthless.

 

For instance refer to Lil Nog vs Bader. Lil Nog dominates the stand-up, stuffs literally 20+ takedowns, bader lands two takedowns, one in the second and one in the third, does no damage and holds a closed guard for all of a minute and a half each. Bader ends up winning that fight, its ****ing ridiculous[/quote']

 

What sport do you know of that the defense is what scores the points? A take down is an offensive move. Take down defense is a defensive move. It is the offensive moves that score the points. If someone throws an overhand right and lands, it is considered an effective strike even though it didn't knock out his opponent. No matter how we want to look at this, the bottom line is, a takedown is an offensive move to try to secure a dominant position to do damage to an opponent to get the win. There are a lot of times that their opponents defense on the ground is so good that they can't do anything with the take down, giving the illusion that they are not doing anything with it.

[iH8LnP 0]

What sport do you know of that the defense is what scores the points? A take down is an offensive move. Take down defense is a defensive move. It is the offensive moves that score the points. If someone throws an overhand right and lands' date=' it is considered an effective strike even though it didn't knock out his opponent. No matter how we want to look at this, the bottom line is, a takedown is an offensive move to try to secure a dominant position to do damage to an opponent to get the win. There are a lot of times that their opponents defense on the ground is so good that they can't do anything with the take down, giving the illusion that they are not doing anything with it.[/quote']

 

ever heard of football?