Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

[LittleEvil]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

So, since nothing LittleEvil was doing was potentially contributing to the end of the match it was scored correctly.

So acquiring and maintaining one of the most dominant grappling positions for 80% of a round is less threatening than being underneath it eating short shots? And you guys need to put your “just bleed” attitudes in check. You said yourself you’re PERSONALLY glad I didn’t Win the round. But I’m not interested in the game judging reflecting your opinion. Im interested in it reflecting true to life scoring

[fballturkey]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

So acquiring and maintaining one of the most dominant grappling positions for 80% of a round is less threatening than being underneath it eating short shots? And you guys need to put your “just bleed” attitudes in check. You said yourself you’re PERSONALLY glad I didn’t Win the round. But I’m not interested in the game judging reflecting your opinion. Im interested in it reflecting true to life scoring

According to the rules document posted above merely being on top of the other fighter does not mean you are effectively grappling, so since his striking was better you should have lost the round.

[LittleEvil]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

According to the rules document posted above merely being on top of the other fighter does not mean you are effectively grappling, so since his striking was better you should have lost the round.

Those rules state "effective grappling". So I scored my takedown, and then effectively grappled my way to one of the most dominant positions. Through effective grappling, I maintained that position for 80% of the round. So how does the other 20% weigh more heavily than the 80%? Especially when we aren't talking about laying in guard, we are talking about controlling a full mount position....

[Serengeti1]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

What the rules say and what happens in reality has never been consistent.

The bottom line is that if the situation he laid out happened irl... It'd be scored for the guy who held mount 9.5 times out of 10. You can argue whether he's being truthful with the scenario he's laid out but yeah. You can even cite what the rules say.

Bottom line is... Irl... that round would have been scored for him. Not only was he holding one of the most dominant positions in MMA for 4 minutes... He was landing shots which do count as damaging. You just need a lot more to outweigh a decent standing strike.

I don't know how long Maia had control for but I don't think it was 4 minutes. He also didn't land many shots on the ground at all, yet still got the decision.

Judges have shown on a consistent basis that it isn't JUST about damage. If the damage is almost even but one guy had far more control in a round... they tend to give it to that guy on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone has an example of what OP described and the round being given to the guy who got controlled in that way for that amount of time. That should probably tell you enough.

Overall I'm all for damage meaning much more than control. I just think with this specific example he should have won the round.

[LittleEvil]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

What the rules say and what happens in reality has never been consistent.

The bottom line is that if the situation he laid out happened irl... It'd be scored for the guy who held mount 9.5 times out of 10. You can argue whether he's being truthful with the scenario he's laid out but yeah. You can even cite what the rules say.

Bottom line is... Irl... that round would have been scored for him. Not only was he holding one of the most dominant positions in MMA for 4 minutes... He was landing shots which do count as damaging. You just need a lot more to outweigh a decent standing strike.

I don't know how long Maia had control for but I don't think it was 4 minutes. He also didn't land many shots on the ground at all, yet still got the decision.

Judges have shown on a consistent basis that it isn't JUST about damage. If the damage is almost even but one guy had far more control in a round... they tend to give it to that guy on a regular basis.

I don't think anyone has an example of what OP described and the round being given to the guy who got controlled in that way for that amount of time. That should probably tell you enough.

Overall I'm all for damage meaning much more than control. I just think with this specific example he should have won the round.

For some reason I can't like posts from my work computer but thank you!! The most baffling part of all of this has been the amount of people, including GPD!!!, who have disagreed with me. Almost felt like I was going crazy lol. I need to learn how to make and upload a vid, cause im hoping by the end of the week I can experiment and post proof on this where I let the cpu edge me in striking for one min than I hold mount for the next 4 and see if this repeats itself. GPD argued FOR the guy underneath me in mount winning the round which is kind of proof enough to me lol but yes id still like to do this for everyone to see

[killakrok]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

If you’re just maintaining mount and not posturing up for potentially fight ending GNP or going for subs then you’re doing nothing.

It’s like the lay and pray that was scored all over the place even before the new judging criteria devalued control.

In general if you achieve and maintain the most dominant position then I think that should count as a lot of "control" and win the round if you do it for almost the entire round. If you arn't doing anything in the position then you should be stood up, but no ref would do that because it should be something that is hard to get and is a really dominant position.

I do see how in real life this can bee seen as pretty boring, ineffective, and in the game boring and overpowered especially with how much trouble people can have when trying to get out of mount even with someone actually punching, so I can see how devs wouldn't want to reward that playstyle with a win.

[fballturkey]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

Those rules state "effective grappling". So I scored my takedown, and then effectively grappled my way to one of the most dominant positions. Through effective grappling, I maintained that position for 80% of the round. So how does the other 20% weigh more heavily than the 80%? Especially when we aren't talking about laying in guard, we are talking about controlling a full mount position....

If your advancement of position did not contribute to (quoting here) immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the fight, then it wasn’t effective grappling.

And it’s even spelled out specifically: “It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown.”

You never established an attack. Being on top doesn’t score points. The round was, and I’m being completely serious and not person at all here, scores correctly according to the rules. I’m absolutely sure that if such a round happened in real life (unlikely since nobody just holds mount postured down without trying to advance, strike or perform a submission) whichever way the decision went would be super controversial.

[LittleEvil]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

If your advancement of position did not contribute to (quoting here) immediate or cumulative impact with the potential to contribute to the end of the fight, then it wasn’t effective grappling.

And it’s even spelled out specifically: “It shall be noted that a successful takedown is not merely a changing of position, but the establishment of an attack from the use of the takedown.”

You never established an attack. Being on top doesn’t score points. The round was, and I’m being completely serious and not person at all here, scores correctly according to the rules. I’m absolutely sure that if such a round happened in real life (unlikely since nobody just holds mount postured down without trying to advance, strike or perform a submission) whichever way the decision went would be super controversial.

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?

[fballturkey]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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]

Re: Maintining Mount = Doing Nothing.....

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.