Hypotheticallyits late in the 3rd round. Its a close fight with each fighter winning 1 round a piece and could be anybody's fight should they do something significant. Its a even 3rd round until Fighter A completes a takedown with ten seconds left and fighter B rises back to his feet right before the bell sounds the end of the round and the end of the fight. Its off to the judges score cards and all three judges score the fight 29-28 for Fighter A.
As soon as the scorecards were read and the winner was announced (maybe even before that) most fight fans would assume it was because of the takedown late in round 3 that won him the fight and in most cases they would be correct. But why? Was that takedown damaging? Did he do anything with the takedown besides ride out the round?
Here's my dilemma. If Fighter A takes down Fighter B he earns himself points towards winning the round even if he does nothing with it (improve his position, look for submissions or try and inflict damage) and if Fighter B stands up a couple seconds after the takedown and or was completed shouldn't he get just as much credit for it as the takedown?
One of the more recent fights that got me thinking about this was the Johny Hendricks - Robbie Lawler fight at UFC 171. The way I seen the fight was "Big Rig" winning rounds 1&2 and with "Ruthless" winning 3&4. In my opinion I believe Johny was winning round 5 even before the takedown but as soon as he got the double leg everybody (including myself and Robbie Lawler) knew that Jonny won the fight. We know how much takedowns mean in a fight. I considered the fight over even before seeing if Robbie would amount some kind of offence (which he did not). But what if for arguments sake if he did get up soon after the takedown. Would it still be Hendricks getting the nod from the judges? I think so just because he was winning before that but that's not my point. If The last round was a close round with the only exception being the takedown in the same fashion (Hendricks being a human blanket waiting for the end of the round) and the exception being Lawler getting up before the end of the round, would we have seen a different outcome? Probably not and the reason why is what bothers me.
Considering a lot of current or recent champions come from a wrestling background and fights going the distance more frequently, takedowns are scored highly and getting up from one is not. I'm not saying they should be equal in every instance but in the case when the fighter who does nothing with his takedown and the other fighter gets up from it it should be that the fighter doing the take down is lacking technique at that point in time (being tired or such)or the fighter being taken down is good at getting up and or the other way around. It should be that they both get points for the techniques or they both negate each other.
Another instance of this that can be looked at in a different way is when you have Fighter A coming forward throwing punches in bunches but not really connecting with anything or not connecting flush and Fighter B is only throwing a few counters here and there. Who wins the round? Most of the time Fighter A will win the round because he's coming forward, being aggressive and being more offensive. But should that be reason to win rounds and fights? shouldn't the guy who is inflicting more damage on his opponent be winning the fight and the rounds?
All I am trying to say is that something needs to be fixed or at least looked at. The sport is evolving and so should the way we view it. I wish I had all the answers or even just one good idea on how to improve it. All I can do is offer my opinion. This was just but one mans take on the MMAs scoring system.