Stuffed takedown should give you points on the scorecard imo.

Controlling a guy and taking him down imposes your will, since you both start from a neutral position and you are putting him somewhere against his resistance.

If the guy pulled guard you shouldn't score for ending up in top position because he wanted to be there. Now, if you GnP from there or advance position, you obviously score.

IMO if literally all that happened in a round was one guy stuffed another guy's takedowns the round should be scored 10-10.

Taking someone down does no damage neither does contorlling the guy on the gorund without hitting. In fact it can cost you more energy to take someone down and hold him there than to get taken down. Look at Crocop vs Gonzaga 2. it has nothing to do with dominance if it does have though then defending a TD also means you impose your will, you exhaust the guy who just failed the TD and you dteermine where the fight take splace.

it should absolutely score in the current ruleset
 
No, defense is its own reward.

It would also lead to boring fights where no one wants to shoot for takedowns.
 
Defending a takedown is a hard skill, why shouldn't you get points for defending numerous takedowns?

Thoughts?

sure, because you decided where you wanted the fight to take place. your oponent wanted to go on the ground, and you negated him.
just another rule that favors wrestler, who are generally the ones trying takedowns, and who are rewarded when they succeed but not their oponent when he succeds in negatin them.
 
It depends. If you are sprawling and punching your opponent in the face, yes. If you just are backing/circling away and simply avoiding the opponent, then no.

You always get points for punches, even if it's during a sprawl.
 
I agree, but I think the only way the judges give points for defending takedowns is if the fighter gets a few strikes in before he/she disengages.
 
Taking someone down does no damage neither does contorlling the guy on the gorund without hitting. In fact it can cost you more energy to take someone down and hold him there than to get taken down. Look at Crocop vs Gonzaga 2. it has nothing to do with dominance if it does have though then defending a TD also means you impose your will, you exhaust the guy who just failed the TD and you dteermine where the fight take splace.

it should absolutely score in the current ruleset
It may not do damage but Octagon Control is a criteria used to determine who wins a round in the current ruleset.

Even if no strikes were thrown in a round (theoretically) the guy pressing the action and moving forward would win over the guy giving ground.
 
It's a difficult one because it relies on what is meant by effective octagon control. On one hand, the guy defending the takedowns has octagon control because the other guy clearly wants it on the ground and can't get it there. On the other, nobody wants to be playing defense and the guy trying to take you down is being the aggressor. However, he isn't being effective because he wants to get it to the mat but can't get it there. Even then though, you could argue it is effective because he's stifling the other guy's game.

Like I said, tough one.
 
It may not do damage but Octagon Control is a criteria used to determine who wins a round in the current ruleset.

Even if no strikes were thrown in a round (theoretically) the guy pressing the action and moving forward would win over the guy giving ground.

Preventing a TD is also octagon control in it's purest form you literally control where in the octagon the fight takes place and you assert your control tactically. There is no justification to not score it if you score TDs
 
Back
Top