stlarch21

watched the Rashad Silva fight and like many others i was left wondering over the value of a takedown. i'm not a rashad fan but he controlled the first 2 rounds for sure with this wrestling although landed nothing after the takedowns... the most significant damage was done in the 3rd by silva (a la vera vs. couture). so my question is why are takedowns valued so highly if there are no shots landed after?

AceCombat

Mainly octagon control, I suppose; if a fighter is able to dictate where the fight takes place on a consistent bases, then that is worth gravy in the judges eyes. And while I agree that Thiago did the most damage in the third round, the MMA aspect of Rashad outgrappling Thiago the entire fight (to which I was surprised, Rashads wrestling looked great) is also worthy of some clout.

I will say that If Rashad fought Rampage with that same gameplan (though he probably wouldn't) he would have completely gassed by the third round if he wasn't already KO'd by then.

__________________
"...I don't care whether you're happy, sad, scared or indifferent ...When my music hits those speakers, I will make that walk - and I will make it EVERY SINGLE TIME"

AceFranklin88

As AceCombat said, it's control. Rashad had a better position and is offering at least some offense. When Thiago was on his back, what the hell was he doing? He was standing up and that's it. And obviously Thiago did more damage, but that's NOT how UFC fights are scored. They're scored on a round-to-round basis and Rashad controlled rounds 1 and 2 while Thiago did nothing. It's not so much that takedowns are over-valued, it's the control aspect that many feel can be over-valued. The scoring system in general is very flawed.

Toroian

I dont think a take down should be worth anything if the guy can get back up fast like thiago did!

In fact i see it as thiago having the octogan contorl

Hawndo

I know it isn't scored like this, but it should be or at least getting straight back up is just as valuable as getting a take down.

N1™

even bas rutten agrees with this. rashad won r 1 and 2 no doubt but i felt sorry for thiago cuz rashad did nothing but taking him down and imo avoiding the fight

__________________

fightpragmatist

He fought just like GSP.

BobbyCooper

Thats right! But Rashad is a Wrestler thats his best weapon, I am so glad that he finally realised that his striking isn't at the top. He won 1, 2 easily and did it on a very smart way, not very entertaining for us but productive for him.

Toroian

clap clap xD yus !! tho GSP can hold guys down the whole fight :x i hope he can finish a fight soon not done it in a while...

Inkdot

Rounds 1 and 2 were correctly scored 10-9 for Rashad, he controlled the fight with takedowns and wrestling but failed to do any damage. However judging in my opinion needs more nuance then the almost standard 10-9 result. You could make the argument that round 3 could have gone 10-8 for Silva since he clearly had Rashad hurt with rashad failing to do anything significant in return wich would make the fight a draw.

Im not saying thats how the fight should have been judged, in this case I would be equally content with 29-28 as with 28-28 decision, I see arguments for judges going both ways, however id like 10-8 to be a much more common result in judging. That would allow more fair scoring when a fight has two close rounds for fighter A follow by a dominant round for fighter B for example.