Take downs how much points should be given

How much points should be given off just a take down. We are having more and more fights won off just take downs. You have a close fight and then one or two take downs is what wins the fight. Exam BJ vs GSP, Franklin vs Hendo and I am a huge Chuck fan but the fight with him and Wandy was close but Chuck got the two take downs. My point is if you don't do any thing with it you should get no points. I train MMA I know its easier to get a take down than it is to get up from one. So if you take someone down and they get right up no points.

I agree that a bit too much emphasis is placed on takedowns. It's a huge thing, but if you do nothing with it then why count it? I think sub attempts from the bottom should be scored WAYYYY higher, too. Especially since a very good portion of submission finishes come from submissions from the bottom.

They should be scored for sure, I mean, its harder to take somebody down and to land a punch or kick. But I don't think it should matter how long you hold your opponent down, additional points should only be awarded for advancing position, submission attempts and strikes. This kind of system would totally eliminate lay and pray, becouse if you the guy on the bottom once you've landed some strikes from the bottom or attempted a sub, the takedown doesnt mean anything and the guy on top is going to have to get active.

Me and my friends were discussing this the other day. My question is, if you score points just for the take down, how many points do you get for TD defense/sprawl?

Its a dilemma thats still getting sorted out in mma.

I agree a guy getting right back up from a takedown should get much more credit than the guy who took him down but I think the judges take that into account.

I think the problem is the 10 point must system more than the weighting of takedowns.

I disagree with your examples though, I think both were perfectly scored but are great examples of why the 10 point must system is flawed.

Penn did more damage in the one round he won than St. Pierre did in the 2 he lost but because of the 10 point must system its a Dec for St Pierre.

Scoring MMA in general is just a hard thing to do. You have to look at sub attempts TD's, activeness, aggression, striking etc. The takedown is scored way too high right now and has became the difference maker in so many close fights. If somebody is not active after they take somebody down and that they get reversed or the person gets up from the takedown the judge should score that even. This sport is only about 10 years old so eventually they will adopt a new system that scores better and more informed judges that know how to score an MMA match. GSP vs Penn maybe another match that has a huge factor because of the takedowns.

If you take a guy down it's control. simple. If you take a guy down and get side control with little to no damage. it's control. But you shooting getting someone down and being stuck in a guard doing nothing scores verylittle.

The scoring is appropriate for the most part. Their offensive wrestling is counted, and if you're able to resurface with little damage or control on you then you basicly get your points back.

There are very few situations where the rules allow crap or trully subjective decisions.

One being a guy in his guard active and attempting subs, but if top guy is controlling and escaping those subs doesn't it counter all the bottom guy's attempts and movement?

Anyone can move a lot and shrimp on bottom so should it count?

Another thing is fighting in spots, that's what BJ did. Not saying he lost, but he wasn't able to dictate anything. Anyone can go out Chris Leben style and do some big damage, then get taken down and hold on so as not to take damage.

If you beat the hell out of your opponent and he did zero damage to you, but you only were able to damage him 3 of the 15 minutes and he controlled you for the remaining 12 minutes does that mean you won?

So I wouldn't complain a whole lot about it.

---

Posted by FlashyG

I agree a guy getting right back up from a takedown should get much more credit than the guy who took him down but I think the judges take that into account.

I think the problem is the 10 point must system more than the weighting of takedowns.

I disagree with your examples though, I think both were perfectly scored but are great examples of why the 10 point must system is flawed.

Penn did more damage in the one round he won than St. Pierre did in the 2 he lost but because of the 10 point must system its a Dec for St Pierre.

---

Exactly my thoughts.

I dont think takedowns should get anything, this isnt football where tackling counts.

To me a takedown is just a way to change levels (Standing to ground) but if you dont DO anything on that level then why get points for a takedown?

Thats like a quarterback getting more points for passing (standing) the ball for a TD over running (Ground) the ball in for a TD.

Its just your choice of levels, and if a ground guy takes a guy down but sucks and does nothing after, its moot.

To be upfront, I am a wrestler, so that is the view point I am coming from.

I disagree with the notion that it is easier to take a guy down then to get up. In almost all levels of folkstyle wrestling, it is the wrestler who can keep his opponent down, after a take down, that wins.

There are many variables involved.

-top guy is LnP
-bottom guy is completely defensive, holding his opponent down
-top guy is wary of opponent subs, is outclassed and only wants sure things
-bottom guy doesn't to try an escape at risk of getting GnP
-opponents neutralize themselves, imagine that!

I also disagree that sub "attempts" deserve more credit. Usually they result in a small time periods of control and little to no damage. These time periods are usually less than the "worthless" take downs we often see, like against Chuck. His ass hits the mat and then he is back up. Now, if the sub attempt results in an escape, improvement of position, or better yet, damage, then yes, points baby.

This really is a complex issue. I don't think one could quantify it, but would rather have to give it the eye test. One can't simply use check marks on a paper and say Fighter A won because of this, this, and that.

Back to the whole notion that if there is a take down and then nothing is done with it, it should magically not count. One has to consider the control factor. It should be weighed similarly to that of aggression or cage control, but to a slightly higher degree.

Aghh, we could go on forever dissecting this. Just give it the eye test!

"Octagon control" Yes it counts for something. The fighter getting takedowns is controlling where the fight goes and putting the other on defense. Damage should always be judged first. Next would how close someone came to finishing the fight (submissions). Takedowns being one of the last "points" but they absolutely should count.