Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

[fballturkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by LittleEvil

Oh my goodness. You are arguing maintaining the mount position isn't effective grappling. Let me take a breather before I get rude lol. The short shots attribute to cumulative impact. The man on bottom being forced to exhaust himself to try to escape one of the most dominant positions in ground fighting is part of cumulative impact from effective grappling. Ive established an attack by passing the guard into a position with no neutrality. I don't have to attack with just fists on the ground, attacking with positional dominance is highly effective when you get the mount or back. And again, what exactly is the guy on bottom doing to attribute to all of these things? Even if for the sake of argument I agree I'm not, what exactly is he doing? One min of landing 5 more strikes than me is more "effective" than getting stuck in one of the 2 most dominant ground positions and getting peppered with elbows with 4 min? You have watched MMA before and know its not all about "just bleed" fights, right?

I’ve watched a lot of MMA and can appreciate grappling. I was in attendance when Lauzon and Varner put on the fight of the year in 2012 and it was an amazing grapple fest. For real, if you didn’t see it go look it up. Amazing fight.

Anyway, my opinion is that if you are not performing actions that are putting your opponent in danger of being finished, either submissions or effective ground striking (which being in down posture is not, more on that in a sec) you’ve effectively done nothing. Your opponent won 20% of the round and the other 80% nothing of consequence happened.

Regarding down postured punches, this is a huge beef I have with the game and it’s been a problem since UFC 1. In MMA any standing strike, and any “power strike” on the ground or in clinch is considered ‘significant.’ In the game they use a different definition which I absolutely hate. But since the real definition of a significant strike is so broad, something that doesn’t even satisfy that doesn’t seem to me like it ought to factor into judging at all. Those strikes are usually used in real life to force the opponent to cover up and make them more susceptible to getting submitted or being able to advance position. If you don’t use them to do either of those things there is no point to them. I’m sure they don’t feel good, but neither their immediate or cumulative impact is pushing the fight any closer to the end.

[Blackman316]

Of course I don't share this point. Now, in this game, it's basically doing nothing as you get drained a lot by simple strikes from mount. Eventually you'd have to sit on top of them more often. I get that it's an effort to make it more balanced in PvP matches, but at least the judges should score it as it is. Ending the round on top should score you a significant bonus. If you got rocked or something during that minute of striking I'd argue that might swing the votes your opponent's way.

[LittleEvil]

Quote: Originally Posted by fballturkey

I’ve watched a lot of MMA and can appreciate grappling. I was in attendance when Lauzon and Varner put on the fight of the year in 2012 and it was an amazing grapple fest. For real, if you didn’t see it go look it up. Amazing fight. Anyway, my opinion is that if you are not performing actions that are putting your opponent in danger of being finished, either submissions or effective ground striking (which being in down posture is not, more on that in a sec) you’ve effectively done nothing. Your opponent won 20% of the round and the other 80% nothing of consequence happened. Regarding down postured punches, this is a huge beef I have with the game and it’s been a problem since UFC 1. In MMA any standing strike, and any “power strike” on the ground or in clinch is considered ‘significant.’ In the game they use a different definition which I absolutely hate. But since the real definition of a significant strike is so broad, something that doesn’t even satisfy that doesn’t seem to me like it ought to factor into judging at all. Those strikes are usually used in real life to force the opponent to cover up and make them more susceptible to getting submitted or being able to advance position. If you don’t use them to do either of those things there is no point to them. I’m sure they don’t feel good, but neither their immediate or cumulative impact is pushing the fight any closer to the end.

Acquiring and maintaining the mount is "doing nothing". See, I would just stop discussing this with you if it weren't for the scary fact GPD agrees with this horrible sentiment. I'm losing my patience with this nonsensical point of view after discussing it for quite awhile now, so I'm gonna bow out from responding for now in hopes someone else besides me and Sargenti can help you realize how ridiculous that is to say

[Serengeti1]

Quote: Originally Posted by fballturkey

Regarding down postured punches, this is a huge beef I have with the game and it’s been a problem since UFC 1. In MMA any standing strike, and any “power strike” on the ground or in clinch is considered ‘significant.’ In the game they use a different definition which I absolutely hate. But since the real definition of a significant strike is so broad, something that doesn’t even satisfy that doesn’t seem to me like it ought to factor into judging at all. Those strikes are usually used in real life to force the opponent to cover up and make them more susceptible to getting submitted or being able to advance position. If you don’t use them to do either of those things there is no point to them. I’m sure they don’t feel good, but neither their immediate or cumulative impact is pushing the fight any closer to the end.

Elbows that slice you up definitely score (postured up or not). The issue is it's currently way too easy to sit in full mount and land elbows while denying. If somebody sat in mount and landed like 100 elbows irl they'd def get the round tho lol

[fballturkey]

Quote: Originally Posted by LittleEvil

Acquiring and maintaining the mount is "doing nothing". See, I would just stop discussing this with you if it weren't for the scary fact GPD agrees with this horrible sentiment. I'm losing my patience with this nonsensical point of view after discussing it for quite awhile now, so I'm gonna bow out from responding for now in hopes someone else besides me and Sargenti can help you realize how ridiculous that is to say

It says in multiple places in the unified rules that holding a position isn’t enough.

“Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance. What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed.”

“Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position.”

Those are copy and pasted quotes from the unified rules. You can disagree with the rules but you can’t fault the game for following them.

[LittleEvil]

Quote: Originally Posted by fballturkey

It says in multiple places in the unified rules that holding a position isn’t enough. “Merely holding a dominant position(s) shall not be a primary factor in assessing dominance. What the fighter does with those positions is what must be assessed.” “Top and bottom position fighters are assessed more on the impactful/effective result of their actions, more so than their position.” Those are copy and pasted quotes from the unified rules. You can disagree with the rules but you can’t fault the game for following them.

First of all, its not a PRIMARY factor, but it is a factor. And this is the sort of instance where it will be more of a factor considering I was barely outstruck for one min than dominated the position for the remaining 4. Second, what I did with the position was pepper him w short strikes the whole time. He did NOTHING from bottom. I keep having to ask this, but what exactly is he doing to constitute an advantage in the criteria over me? If this was real life, would you really not expect any controversy from this situation and the guy mounted being given the round?

[fballturkey]

Like I said earlier if this happened in real life I would expect a ton of controversy and have no idea how the judges would score it because they’re terrible at following their own rules. I figure most panels of three judges would’ve split the round. It’s that weird of an edge case where one fighter clearly won the stand up portion of the round, but the majority of the round was spent on the ground where one fighter had a dominant position but did nothing with it. In real life any combination of scores wouldn’t surprise me. But according to how I would interpret the rules that I quoted above, you would lose the round because while it was for less of the round the opponent was more dominant (read: put you in more danger of being stopped) than you did for the four minutes you laid on top of him.

If this conversation is frustrating you we should just walk away. I just like discussing the nuances of sports rules and this is a great and weird edge case that would create a ton of controversy.

[Plebn]

Quote: Originally Posted by LittleEvil

Damn. I'm honestly shocked so many people don't realize maintaining a position as dominant as mount with peppering strikes for 4 mins is going to win you a round over barely being outstruck for a min. I will concede if everyone continues this line of thinking, but just damn......

I agree with you entirely. The guy on bottom would never win a round like this.