- Aug 25, 2005
- 5,974
- 352
i know it sounds crazy, but can't damage be a subjective criteria? Some fighters (Marcus Davis for example) cut easier than others. This may be due to the accumulation of prior scar tissue, or their skin just breaks easy. While their face may be a bloody mess they may not have inflicted much damage/pain.
I do agree with your valuation on "rocking" someone. I believe the current criteria gives credit for efficiency and the total number of strikes landed, but it does not necesarily account for power. This is why fighters like Cruz are able to outpoint their way to victory. While it may not be fair for pillow fisted fighters like Bisping, I think that landing a powerful clean strike > a softer clean strike.
the overvaluation of takedowns is what is killing the sport (IMO). Its no secret that MMA is being overrun by high level wrestlers who are able to dump their opponents on the floor and maintain top position. Untill they change the judging criteria to lessen the emphasis on takedowns, I dont see this changing. I agree with your position on takedowns that dont amount to anything. If you take an opponent down but he can work back to his feet and take little to no damage on the ground, that takedown shouldnt count for much. If you can take a guy down and maintain top position while landing some effective strikes, that obviosuly should count. I also think that you if you can sweep from the bottom, that should be equivalent (in points) to a clean takedown.
What are your thoughts on points for defense? Or in a more broader sense, awarding points for advancing your position? I'm assuming you get points for passing, but do you think that some points should be awarded on the other end? For example, if Fighter A is mounted and manages to get back to full guard, should he be awarded (and conversly Fighter B deducted) for getting out of a bad position?
I do agree with your valuation on "rocking" someone. I believe the current criteria gives credit for efficiency and the total number of strikes landed, but it does not necesarily account for power. This is why fighters like Cruz are able to outpoint their way to victory. While it may not be fair for pillow fisted fighters like Bisping, I think that landing a powerful clean strike > a softer clean strike.
the overvaluation of takedowns is what is killing the sport (IMO). Its no secret that MMA is being overrun by high level wrestlers who are able to dump their opponents on the floor and maintain top position. Untill they change the judging criteria to lessen the emphasis on takedowns, I dont see this changing. I agree with your position on takedowns that dont amount to anything. If you take an opponent down but he can work back to his feet and take little to no damage on the ground, that takedown shouldnt count for much. If you can take a guy down and maintain top position while landing some effective strikes, that obviosuly should count. I also think that you if you can sweep from the bottom, that should be equivalent (in points) to a clean takedown.
What are your thoughts on points for defense? Or in a more broader sense, awarding points for advancing your position? I'm assuming you get points for passing, but do you think that some points should be awarded on the other end? For example, if Fighter A is mounted and manages to get back to full guard, should he be awarded (and conversly Fighter B deducted) for getting out of a bad position?
