Submission (Strikes)
MMAPlayground.com »
Community »
MMA Playground Game Talk »
Submission (Strikes)
POLL: How should Submission(strikes) be ruled?
| Tko |    |
77% | (34) |
| Submission |    |
23% | (10) |
Pookie
3/2/08 2:15:14AM
This is a crazy technicality, if the system is to be based on merit of ones knowledge, A Submission(Strikes) should be a tko: it was strikes that finished the match.
Can i get feedback from a mod on this please, could we do a petition on this in the MMALounge or something, a poll with all members asking how it should be scored, because in all honesty Submission(Strikes) and TKO(Chokeout) need to be reversed.
Can i get feedback from a mod on this please, could we do a petition on this in the MMALounge or something, a poll with all members asking how it should be scored, because in all honesty Submission(Strikes) and TKO(Chokeout) need to be reversed.
MikeBillotto
3/2/08 2:23:06AM
ufcboss
3/2/08 2:25:41AM
wolfman
3/2/08 2:33:12AM
I agree, I didn't pick Sanchez to win by TKO. Yet, I can see the complaint. In the past people have brought up this suggestion and I agree with you. I knew the only way Sanchez was going to beat David was by TKO or decision. Yet, I think the people who picked Sanchez to win by sub. did not envision him winning by submission due to strikes.
In all honesty, their ignorance was bliss for this pick imo.
I know anyone can get subbed no matter what their credentials are, see Forrest vs. Shogun. Yet, I assume most people on here knew that David was going to be tough to submit due to his impressive background in BJJ. Mind you he is the only member of BTT who is not Brazilian. So, if you picked Sanchez to win by sub., then good for you. Especially if you imagined David was going to tap due to strikes. 
It was a definite possibility as he does tend to turtle up when hit. However, I am sure that most people who picked Sanchez by submission figured he would win by an "actual" submission, for lack of better words. Anywho, that is my opinion and view on the subject. I just feel for the people who picked TKO and have been in a way "cheated" out of 7 or 11 points. Feel free to agree or disagree.
In all honesty, their ignorance was bliss for this pick imo.
I know anyone can get subbed no matter what their credentials are, see Forrest vs. Shogun. Yet, I assume most people on here knew that David was going to be tough to submit due to his impressive background in BJJ. Mind you he is the only member of BTT who is not Brazilian. So, if you picked Sanchez to win by sub., then good for you. Especially if you imagined David was going to tap due to strikes. It was a definite possibility as he does tend to turtle up when hit. However, I am sure that most people who picked Sanchez by submission figured he would win by an "actual" submission, for lack of better words. Anywho, that is my opinion and view on the subject. I just feel for the people who picked TKO and have been in a way "cheated" out of 7 or 11 points. Feel free to agree or disagree.
emfleek
3/2/08 2:42:41AM
If the guy physically or verbally taps, it should be ruled as a submission, in my opinion.
Am I missing a point here or something? Do you have an example?
Am I missing a point here or something? Do you have an example?
wolfman
3/2/08 2:48:07AM
Posted by emfleek
If the guy physically or verbally taps, it should be ruled as a submission, in my opinion.
Am I missing a point here or something? Do you have an example?
Everyone sees your point and officially the ruling is a submission, yet as Pookie mentioned it was the strikes that stopped the fight. Yes, David did "submit" due to strikes, yet you can't deny how this could be seen as a TKO. I respect your opinion though and see your point. I just think that Pookie brings up a good point.
jiujitsufreak74
3/2/08 2:56:51AM
i completely and utterly understand where you are coming from and it is certainly valid to think that way. however, i think that they should stay the way they are. technically a submission is not a lock, is as emfleek said when a fighter submits to his opponent and declares that he has lost. whether this be from a lock or punches it should still be a submission. they only thing that causes confusion is that over the years we have called locks and chokes "submissions" due to the fact that they normally lead to a tap out. but just because one is more common to cause a submission doesn't mean the other method isn't a submission. same goes for a choke out. the opponent did not submit and therefore the fight should not be ruled a submission. just because KO usually comes from a strike doesn't mean a KO from a choke is any less of a KO. the opponent is unconscious either way and should be ruled a KO. now, again i totally understand where you are coming from but imo they shouldn't change it. i know it gets frustrating fantasy wise but it is what it is and it is correct.
hyper22
3/2/08 3:01:06AM
A submission due to strikes is a SUBMISSION
therefore it was a submission that finihsed the fight, it doesnt matter if it was an RNC or strikes or an armbar.
How can it not be ruled a submission when the fighter SUBMITS?
therefore it was a submission that finihsed the fight, it doesnt matter if it was an RNC or strikes or an armbar.
How can it not be ruled a submission when the fighter SUBMITS?
wolfman
3/2/08 3:07:15AM
Posted by jiujitsufreak74
i completely and utterly understand where you are coming from and it is certainly valid to think that way. however, i think that they should stay the way they are. technically a submission is not a lock, is as emfleek said when a fighter submits to his opponent and declares that he has lost. whether this be from a lock or punches it should still be a submission. they only thing that causes confusion is that over the years we have called locks and chokes "submissions" due to the fact that they normally lead to a tap out. but just because one is more common to cause a submission doesn't mean the other method isn't a submission. same goes for a choke out. the opponent did not submit and therefore the fight should not be ruled a submission. just because KO usually comes from a strike doesn't mean a KO from a choke is any less of a KO. the opponent is unconscious either way and should be ruled a KO. now, again i totally understand where you are coming from but imo they shouldn't change it. i know it gets frustrating fantasy wise but it is what it is and it is correct.
Very true and I agree overall. It's hard because I see how both sides are "correct", as do you. I just feel that this site should have a vote on the matter of the ruling. Unfortunately, not everyone would vote and probably would not get an overwhelming majority to overturn the current point system. So, the official ruling will be this sites ruling as well. Which is fine, I just think the suggestion is reasonable and worthy of debate.
Pookie
3/2/08 3:16:25AM
I understand your arguements, BUT IMO the way points should be given out is in a manner reflective of knowledge in the sport.
No one who had submission picked thought that it was because he was going to give up when he got punched. 99% of people at the very least thought it was going to be by a grappling manuever causing the tapout.
It's rewarding luck over skill in this case (and most cases that this occurs) and i feel strongly that there should be a pinned poll in the Main threads about it done by the mods.
Please, let us vote on this matter.
No one who had submission picked thought that it was because he was going to give up when he got punched. 99% of people at the very least thought it was going to be by a grappling manuever causing the tapout.
It's rewarding luck over skill in this case (and most cases that this occurs) and i feel strongly that there should be a pinned poll in the Main threads about it done by the mods.
Please, let us vote on this matter.
hyper22
3/2/08 3:23:14AM
Posted by Pookie
No one who had submission picked thought that it was because he was going to give up when he got punched. 99% of people at the very least thought it was going to be by a grappling manuever causing the tapout.
How can you possibly act as if you know the motives behind peoples picks?
I picked Diego by sub, it doesnt matter if I thought Diego was going to RNC him or Armbar him or pound him out until Bielkheden tapped. The point is Bielkheden SUBMITED.
He didnt want anymore of the fight and tapped, how this is even an issue is beyond me, the man submited.
wolfman
3/2/08 3:26:00AM
I understand your arguements, BUT IMO the way points should be given out is in a manner reflective of knowledge in the sport. No one who had submission picked thought that it was because he was going to give up when he got punched. 99% of people at the very least thought it was going to be by a grappling manuever causing the tapout.
It's rewarding luck over skill in this case (and most cases that this occurs) and i feel strongly that there should be a pinned poll in the Main threads about it done by the mods.
Please, let us vote on this matter.
That is what I was trying to get at with my original post. You were just more blunt about it.
wolfman
3/2/08 3:37:13AM
Posted by hyper22
Posted by Pookie
No one who had submission picked thought that it was because he was going to give up when he got punched. 99% of people at the very least thought it was going to be by a grappling manuever causing the tapout.
How can you possibly act as if you know the motives behind peoples picks?
I picked Diego by sub, it doesnt matter if I thought Diego was going to RNC him or Armbar him or pound him out until Bielkheden tapped. The point is Bielkheden SUBMITED.
He didnt want anymore of the fight and tapped, how this is even an issue is beyond me, the man submited.
Let's logically try and think outside the box. We see your point, can't you at least see our point(s)? Of course he can't obviously know the motives behind everyones' picks, you and I both know this. Yet let's think about this. When most people select a fighter to win by submission I would imagine they select him to win by an "actual" submission. For instance, a RNC or armbar as you mentioned.
Yes, submission due to strikes in not uncommon, but in all honesty most of us do not usually select submission to reflect "due to strikes". I know I am making an assumption here as well, yet I have to agree with Pookie that most due not pick submission for that exact reasoning. Of course, there are always exceptions where someone may have picked for that reason. I just think you need to stop looking at this as black and white and try and see what we arguing.
Kpro
3/2/08 3:43:40AM
I disagree with the premise of the question as I've given it quite a bit of thought, and used to feel that way. The remedy is not to rule a Submission (Strikes) as a TKO and a TKO (Rear Naked Choke) as a Sub, as that is truly not the case by technicality.
The only proper remedy would be to choose Strikes or Hold as the finishing maneuver as that clearly differentiates the finish, whether they tap from Strikes or pass out from a Sub or not.
The only proper remedy would be to choose Strikes or Hold as the finishing maneuver as that clearly differentiates the finish, whether they tap from Strikes or pass out from a Sub or not.
Pookie
3/2/08 3:45:47AM
Posted by Kpro
I disagree with the premise of the question as I've given it quite a bit of thought, and used to feel that way. The remedy is not to rule a Submission (Strikes) as a TKO and a TKO (Rear Naked Choke) as a Sub, as that is truly not the case by technicality.
The only proper remedy would be to choose Strikes or Hold as the finishing maneuver as that clearly differentiates the finish, whether they tap from Strikes or pass out from a Sub or not.
I understand, but why do we have to stick by it because its a technicality?
Kpro
3/2/08 3:47:55AM
Posted by Pookie
Posted by Kpro
I disagree with the premise of the question as I've given it quite a bit of thought, and used to feel that way. The remedy is not to rule a Submission (Strikes) as a TKO and a TKO (Rear Naked Choke) as a Sub, as that is truly not the case by technicality.
The only proper remedy would be to choose Strikes or Hold as the finishing maneuver as that clearly differentiates the finish, whether they tap from Strikes or pass out from a Sub or not.
I understand, but why do we have to stick by it because its a technicality?
Technicality = Fact
Maybe I used the wrong wording.
jiujitsufreak74
3/2/08 3:51:57AM
Posted by Pookie
Posted by Kpro
I disagree with the premise of the question as I've given it quite a bit of thought, and used to feel that way. The remedy is not to rule a Submission (Strikes) as a TKO and a TKO (Rear Naked Choke) as a Sub, as that is truly not the case by technicality.
The only proper remedy would be to choose Strikes or Hold as the finishing maneuver as that clearly differentiates the finish, whether they tap from Strikes or pass out from a Sub or not.
I understand, but why do we have to stick by it because its a technicality?
well to put it simply...because it would just be flat out incorrect. the only way to solve this problem is to do what Kpro said and make the ending method (strikes, choke, etc...) although i wouldn't want that either. i am fine the way it is and i understand why you think what you think. but the fact remains is that it is still a submission and should still count as a submission. i realize that that is unpredictable in a fight whether the strikes will be a KO or a submission but you shouldn't classify it as something it isn't.
Pookie
3/2/08 3:53:31AM
Posted by Kpro
Posted by Pookie
Posted by Kpro
I disagree with the premise of the question as I've given it quite a bit of thought, and used to feel that way. The remedy is not to rule a Submission (Strikes) as a TKO and a TKO (Rear Naked Choke) as a Sub, as that is truly not the case by technicality.
The only proper remedy would be to choose Strikes or Hold as the finishing maneuver as that clearly differentiates the finish, whether they tap from Strikes or pass out from a Sub or not.
I understand, but why do we have to stick by it because its a technicality?
Technicality = Fact
Maybe I used the wrong wording.
I disagree with you on the importance of a technicality, and would rather reward knowledge than luck regardless if it is not the actual term used because of a technicality(fact). I guess this is where we disagree, this is why a vote should be in place, since many people differ in opinions.
Svartorm
3/2/08 4:32:33AM
We've had this come up before, but here goes.
First off, some clarification. If a fighter goes unconcious, or has a limb break from a submission hold, it isn't a TKO, its a Technical Submission.
As for the argument of striking submissions, if this game was running around the first few UFCs, we'd have to have a rule on it as people used to tap from strikes all the time. Nowadays with the fighters being that much more hungry and getting used to getting hit in training, there is usually only two or three striking submissions a year in the top levels. If we switched it to a TKO, that opens a can of worms.
In Silva vs. Lutter, where he was in a triangle getting elbowed. Did he tap from the Triangle, or from the elbows? The way we have it, it doesn't matter because he tapped out, plain and simple.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what way we do it, someone is going to be unhappy.
First off, some clarification. If a fighter goes unconcious, or has a limb break from a submission hold, it isn't a TKO, its a Technical Submission.
As for the argument of striking submissions, if this game was running around the first few UFCs, we'd have to have a rule on it as people used to tap from strikes all the time. Nowadays with the fighters being that much more hungry and getting used to getting hit in training, there is usually only two or three striking submissions a year in the top levels. If we switched it to a TKO, that opens a can of worms.
In Silva vs. Lutter, where he was in a triangle getting elbowed. Did he tap from the Triangle, or from the elbows? The way we have it, it doesn't matter because he tapped out, plain and simple.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what way we do it, someone is going to be unhappy.
Pookie
3/2/08 4:45:53AM
Posted by Svartorm
We've had this come up before, but here goes.
First off, some clarification. If a fighter goes unconcious, or has a limb break from a submission hold, it isn't a TKO, its a Technical Submission.
As for the argument of striking submissions, if this game was running around the first few UFCs, we'd have to have a rule on it as people used to tap from strikes all the time. Nowadays with the fighters being that much more hungry and getting used to getting hit in training, there is usually only two or three striking submissions a year in the top levels. If we switched it to a TKO, that opens a can of worms.
In Silva vs. Lutter, where he was in a triangle getting elbowed. Did he tap from the Triangle, or from the elbows? The way we have it, it doesn't matter because he tapped out, plain and simple.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what way we do it, someone is going to be unhappy.
Thanks for the clarification on the Technical submission bit.
Silva vs. Lutter is a very good example, as Lutter said it was from the choke and its officially from strikes.
Wouldnt a poll be good to see how to make the least amount of people unhappy? It seems reasonable.
What is the can of worms, it seems like it would just be the opposite of what i had proposed. Again wouldnt a poll clarify which "can of worms" is bigger so to speak, the lesser of 2 evils.
Svartorm
3/2/08 6:07:54AM
But the way we do it now is the way its officially ruled, as per the Athletic Commisions that sanctioned the fight. On the official report, it will say:
"Diego Sanchez defeated David Biekenhenden via submission (strikes) at whatever time in Round 1."
If we change it, next time this happens, people will complain that the official ruling was for a striking submission, not a TKO. Either way, someone is unhappy, so we're leaving it the way it is.
The only thing that would make sense is the "Strike" and "Hold" finish that someone recommended, but then that leads to problems with injury and corner stoppage, which happen more than striking submissions by far.
This is the 1st striking submission of the year, and I can only think of three from last year, those being Overeem vs. Buentello, Espirianti vs. Osterbeck, and Cantrell vs. Slice, all of which were in the secondary league anyways, if featured at all. This is the first striking submission in the Primary League in 24 events (Emerson vs. Maynard would have been a Submission (slam), but it was ruled a NC), so I think its safe to say this is a non-issue.
"Diego Sanchez defeated David Biekenhenden via submission (strikes) at whatever time in Round 1."
If we change it, next time this happens, people will complain that the official ruling was for a striking submission, not a TKO. Either way, someone is unhappy, so we're leaving it the way it is.
The only thing that would make sense is the "Strike" and "Hold" finish that someone recommended, but then that leads to problems with injury and corner stoppage, which happen more than striking submissions by far.
This is the 1st striking submission of the year, and I can only think of three from last year, those being Overeem vs. Buentello, Espirianti vs. Osterbeck, and Cantrell vs. Slice, all of which were in the secondary league anyways, if featured at all. This is the first striking submission in the Primary League in 24 events (Emerson vs. Maynard would have been a Submission (slam), but it was ruled a NC), so I think its safe to say this is a non-issue.
SmileR
3/2/08 8:21:30AM
Posted by MikeBillotto
But only because i lost points for that fight because of it.
I'm pretty sure i'm not to bothered!
wolfman
3/2/08 9:50:37AM
Thanks for clearing things up Svartorm. Yes, it is correct and best to go by the official decision. I agree with you and the current system is fine, I just see both sides as correct in their own right. Good to see that this stayed civil.
Whispering_Death
3/2/08 2:53:00PM
Submission(Strikes) should be a TKO(Tapout).
Submission should be a choke/joint lock. TKO should be anything to do with strikes.
Submission should be a choke/joint lock. TKO should be anything to do with strikes.
Whispering_Death
3/2/08 2:55:36PM
Posted by Svartorm
But the way we do it now is the way its officially ruled, as per the Athletic Commisions that sanctioned the fight. On the official report, it will say:
"Diego Sanchez defeated David Biekenhenden via submission (strikes) at whatever time in Round 1."
If we change it, next time this happens, people will complain that the official ruling was for a striking submission, not a TKO. Either way, someone is unhappy, so we're leaving it the way it is.
The only thing that would make sense is the "Strike" and "Hold" finish that someone recommended, but then that leads to problems with injury and corner stoppage, which happen more than striking submissions by far.
This is the 1st striking submission of the year, and I can only think of three from last year, those being Overeem vs. Buentello, Espirianti vs. Osterbeck, and Cantrell vs. Slice, all of which were in the secondary league anyways, if featured at all. This is the first striking submission in the Primary League in 24 events (Emerson vs. Maynard would have been a Submission (slam), but it was ruled a NC), so I think its safe to say this is a non-issue.
I understand why you do it and that's cool. However, take a stand and do what is right, not just what the Athletic Comission says. MMAPlayground is a site made by MMA fans for MMA fans. I would love to see you guys make it so that the submission(strikes) technicality is where it should be, in the TKO box.
Svartorm
3/3/08 3:19:11AM
We're taking a stand for the thing that makes the most sense, which is leaving it the way it is. If something only comes up once every 250 fights, its not worth changing the rules on.
LightsOut33093
3/3/08 5:17:40PM
i like the way now, just follow the official ruling
submission (strikes) is submission
tko (chokeout) is tko
submission (strikes) is submission
tko (chokeout) is tko
CornishMMA
3/13/08 11:57:25AM
Only just saw this thread and its similar to one i just bumped, i agree with the conclusion but i do still believe it shows a bias to picking submission, and i will definately do that if i think a fighter will win by GnP, cos the chance of the guy tapping or giving up a sub (as often happens) is most likely to get points on here
LOL dudes that NOT the way they do it, those are the 2 opposing outcomes if you think about it, and unfairly they are both ruled as submission, strikes should replace ko/tko and submissons be specified as sub holds!
Im sure submission from Injury while standing is still given on here as KO! Has that happened recently? TUF4 finale just before we started here. Would Spratt over Lawler been scored as submission then?
I actually picked Diego by decision but was funnily enough going to pick him by KO cos i thought he would GnP him, his record is mostly those finishes with only 1 ufc proper sub i think, and forgetting all of this i would have missed out, in that type of fight picking submission is so much more likely to get the points, 3 ways to win
Changing it would make it more accurate, people would be unhappy but once it was corrected and everyone knew it would make for a better game imo but oh well, the points scoring for faves/dogs is much more important i think so check that thread out!
Posted by LightsOut33093
i like the way now, just follow the official ruling
submission (strikes) is submission
tko (chokeout) is tko
LOL dudes that NOT the way they do it, those are the 2 opposing outcomes if you think about it, and unfairly they are both ruled as submission, strikes should replace ko/tko and submissons be specified as sub holds!
Im sure submission from Injury while standing is still given on here as KO! Has that happened recently? TUF4 finale just before we started here. Would Spratt over Lawler been scored as submission then?
I actually picked Diego by decision but was funnily enough going to pick him by KO cos i thought he would GnP him, his record is mostly those finishes with only 1 ufc proper sub i think, and forgetting all of this i would have missed out, in that type of fight picking submission is so much more likely to get the points, 3 ways to win
Changing it would make it more accurate, people would be unhappy but once it was corrected and everyone knew it would make for a better game imo but oh well, the points scoring for faves/dogs is much more important i think so check that thread out!
wolfman
3/13/08 10:09:27PM
Posted by CornishMMA
Only just saw this thread and its similar to one i just bumped, i agree with the conclusion but i do still believe it shows a bias to picking submission, and i will definately do that if i think a fighter will win by GnP, cos the chance of the guy tapping or giving up a sub (as often happens) is most likely to get points on here
Posted by LightsOut33093
i like the way now, just follow the official ruling
submission (strikes) is submission
tko (chokeout) is tko
LOL dudes that NOT the way they do it, those are the 2 opposing outcomes if you think about it, and unfairly they are both ruled as submission, strikes should replace ko/tko and submissons be specified as sub holds!
Im sure submission from Injury while standing is still given on here as KO! Has that happened recently? TUF4 finale just before we started here. Would Spratt over Lawler been scored as submission then?
I actually picked Diego by decision but was funnily enough going to pick him by KO cos i thought he would GnP him, his record is mostly those finishes with only 1 ufc proper sub i think, and forgetting all of this i would have missed out, in that type of fight picking submission is so much more likely to get the points, 3 ways to win
Changing it would make it more accurate, people would be unhappy but once it was corrected and everyone knew it would make for a better game imo but oh well, the points scoring for faves/dogs is much more important i think so check that thread out!
Well said.