- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 15,804
- Reaction score
- 26,740
If a wrestler takes down a fighter and controls them, do you consider that to be offensive or defensive tactics? Some may argue it is a defensive tactic because you defending by mitigating your opponent’s offense. Some could argue that it is offensive because the wrestler is imposing his will and shutting down his opponent.
Do you consider the fighter that initiated the takedown and keeping the other fighter down while not inflicting any major damaging to still be winning the fight? Or is that an even scenario? Should a fighter be rewarded for keeping his opponent on the ground or do you consider that to be neutral?
Personally, I’d say a fighter is imposing his will and gameplan if he’s able to keep the opponent on the mat, even if he’s not inflicting much damage and should be rewarded. While it may not be the most exciting thing to watch, I think it is legitimate tactics and a fighter that is able to do this is winning the fight.
Do you consider the fighter that initiated the takedown and keeping the other fighter down while not inflicting any major damaging to still be winning the fight? Or is that an even scenario? Should a fighter be rewarded for keeping his opponent on the ground or do you consider that to be neutral?
Personally, I’d say a fighter is imposing his will and gameplan if he’s able to keep the opponent on the mat, even if he’s not inflicting much damage and should be rewarded. While it may not be the most exciting thing to watch, I think it is legitimate tactics and a fighter that is able to do this is winning the fight.