Gamrot/Colby/Merab fighting style doesn’t make sense in the modern MMA Scoring Criteria

Which of colbys or merabs wins would you change based on the new scoring ?
 
Safton said:
The Cumulative vs. Immediate Impact is referring to all possible attacks: strikes, submission attempts, etc. It is a standardized benchmark to look at when scoring a round and evaluating offense. Yet with takedowns, they felt it necessary to narrow their gaze and qualify that the only thing which counts as a "successful" takedown is something which acts as a launchpad for a subsequent attack. That is very telling to me.
Click to expand...
The way it's written it's not literally just talking about strikes though it means impact as in impact on the fight not just physical impacts. So like if one fighter is losing on the feet and takes someone down that's an immediate impact on the fight because now they're scoring more points than their opponent.

Cumulative impact could mean light strikes and it could also just mean tiring someone out. I've heard Big John McCarthy explain this part of the rules and impact doesn't mean just strikes it also means impact on the fight.

I think the idea with what you're talking about is to not score takedowns where someone gets taken down and then the opponent immediately pops up.
 
Last edited:
NoBiasJustMMA said:
The way it's written it's not literally just talking about strikes though it means impact as in impact on the fight not just physical impacts. So like if one fighter is losing on the feet and takes someone down that's an intermediate impact on the fight because now they're scoring more points than their opponent.

Cumulative impact could mean light strikes and it could also just mean tiring someone out. I've heard Big John McCarthy explain this part of the rules and impact doesn't mean just strikes it also means impact on the fight.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was only talking about strikes, I said it was referring to all possible attacks including strikes. And sort of -- Impact is referring to impact on the fight with an aim toward finishing the fight. Cumulative attacks have a smaller chance to finish the fight in any imminent sense, whereas Immediately Impactful attacks are far more likely to contribute to the end of the match right this instant.

I don't take McCarthy's word as gospel these days. He also says things like "Impact is synonymous with damage" but that would mean tiring someone out wouldn't count at all -- which isn't the case.

I think the idea with what you're talking about is to not score takedowns where someone gets taken down and then the opponent immediately pops up.
Click to expand...

Sure, that's one, but honestly even if one fighter takes the other down and holds them in place without doing anything from a position that isn't "advantageous" I'm not going to score that as Effective Grappling and I think the Rules support that, especially in 2019.
 
Safton said:
I didn't say it was only talking about strikes, I said it was referring to all possible attacks including strikes. And sort of -- Impact is referring to impact on the fight with an aim toward finishing the fight. Cumulative attacks have a smaller chance to finish the fight in any imminent sense, whereas Immediately Impactful attacks are far more likely to contribute to the end of the match right this instant.

I don't take McCarthy's word as gospel these days. He also says things like "Impact is synonymous with damage" but that would mean tiring someone out wouldn't count at all -- which isn't the case.



Sure, that's one, but honestly even if one fighter takes the other down and holds them in place without doing anything from a position that isn't "advantageous" I'm not going to score that as Effective Grappling and I think the Rules support that, especially in 2019.
Click to expand...
The holding them down isn't advantageous, the taking them down is. Maintaining position is scored as octagon control, anytime someone puts their opponents in a disadvantage position it's effective grappling. I think we're on the same page. I don't take everything BJM says as gospel cause he can get tunnel vision and forget that impact isn't just limited to strikes. I'm just saying I've heard him say that impact also means grappling but I know what you mean about him sometimes focusing on only one thing.
 
2010 didn't have that much LnPers. GSP and Fitch were just doing it at WW a lot
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
The holding them down isn't advantageous, the taking them down is. Maintaining position is scored as octagon control, anytime someone puts their opponents in a disadvantage opponents it's effective grappling. I think we're on the same page. I don't take everything BJM says as gospel cause he can get tunnel vision and forget that impact isn't just limited to strikes. I'm just saying I've heard him say that impact also means grappling but I know what you mean about him sometimes focusing on only one thing.
Click to expand...

I think a takedown can be advantageous, but I don't know that every takedown alone inherently qualifies as the "achievement of an advantageous position", especially in the 2019 ruleset. After all, the Rules are clear to state that fighters on top and bottom are ultimately judged by what they do with their positions -- not the positions themselves. To me, a fighter scoring low-amplitude takedowns and not doing anything with them -- much less if they are immediately put on the defensive by a fighter with an active guard -- is more along the lines of the takedown-er "dictating the pace, place and position of the match" rather than true Effective Grappling... insofar as my interpretation of the spirit and letter of the Unified Rules goes, at any rate.

That said, I agree that we're not really that far off from one another in terms of consensus. And furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly that fans and even the media sometimes don't seem to understand that Impact extends to grappling. They seem happy to dismiss a body-triangle with the imminent threat of an RNC as "control time" and often seem reluctant to award a 10-8 for grappling-heavy rounds unless it involves one guy pounding another's head through the canvas for 4 minutes. Honestly, despite my rhetoric here I am usually one who finds myself in the position of the "grappling apologist" on Sherdog and elsewhere trying to point out that, yes, what Fighter XYZ was doing was indeed highly scoreable and should be rewarded as such even if it didn't involve throwing bombs on the feet.
 
Safton said:
I think a takedown can be advantageous, but I don't know that every takedown alone inherently qualifies as the "achievement of an advantageous position", especially in the 2019 ruleset. After all, the Rules are clear to state that fighters on top and bottom are ultimately judged by what they do with their positions -- not the positions themselves. To me, a fighter scoring low-amplitude takedowns and not doing anything with them or even being put on the defensive by a fighter with an active guard is more him/her "dictating the pace, place and position of the match" rather than true Effective Grappling insofar as my interpretation of the spirit and letter of the Unified Rules goes.

That said, I agree that we're not really that far off from one another in terms of consensus. And furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly that fans and even the media sometimes don't seem to understand that Impact extends to grappling. They seem happy to dismiss a body-triangle with the imminent threat of an RNC as "control time" and often seem reluctant to award a 10-8 for grappling-heavy rounds unless it involves one guy pounding another's head through the canvas for 4 minutes. Honestly, despite my rhetoric here I am usually one who finds myself in the position of the "grappling apologist" on Sherdog and elsewhere trying to point out that, yes, what Fighter XYZ was doing was indeed highly scoreable and should be rewarded as such even if it didn't involve throwing bombs on the feet.
Click to expand...
I can't see how getting taken down is neutral. Even in BJJ where they consider full guard neutral they score takedowns. Plus with striking involved being on top is better cause it's easier to strike the guy on the bottom and do damage than the opposite.

Having said that you should be able to win fights off your back with strikes/sub attempts, like the Torres fight versus Mighty Mouse, Torres should have won that fight. Same for Primus vs Mamedov.
 
Last edited:
Colby fights at a crackhead pace. He isn'tt a lay and pray guy.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
I can't see how getting taken down is neutral. Even in BJJ where they consider full guard neutral they score takedowns. Plus with striking involved being on top is better cause it's easier to strike the guy on the bottom and do damage than the opposite.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the 2019 ruleset -- which may or may not be still relevant -- is that it was only "neutral" insofar as the primary scoring criteria of Effective Striking/Grappling. In a theoretical round where nothing happened for five minutes except for Fighter A repeatedly taking down Fighter B and neither guy ever threw any strikes, attempted any subs, or advanced position and the ref never got involved, Fighter A would still win based on Fighting Area Control if nothing else.

It's the age-old debate that started with Rutten vs. Randleman and has continued into the modern day with Condit vs. Brown and Nascimento vs. Ulanbekov. Yeah practically speaking it's better to be the guy on top (as any coach or commentator will tell you) because you can generate leverage for strikes, but the rulesmakers wanted to actually incentivize dudes to do so rather than "stalling"... while also leaving an avenue for a fighter on bottom to feasibly win a round with an active guard, strikes off their back, etc. It's all an extension of "whatever contributes to the end of the match most directly" philosophy. That's how I see it, at any rate.
 
Safton said:
My understanding of the 2019 ruleset -- which may or may not be still relevant -- is that it was only "neutral" insofar as the primary scoring criteria of Effective Striking/Grappling. In a theoretical round where nothing happened for five minutes except for Fighter A repeatedly taking down Fighter B and neither guy ever threw any strikes, attempted any subs, or advanced position and the ref never got involved, Fighter A would still win based on Fighting Area Control if nothing else.

It's the age-old debate that started with Rutten vs. Randleman and has continued into the modern day with Condit vs. Brown and Nascimento vs. Ulanbekov. Yeah practically speaking it's better to be the guy on top (as any coach or commentator will tell you) because you can generate leverage for strikes, but the rulesmakers wanted to actually incentivize dudes to do so rather than "stalling"... while also leaving an avenue for a fighter on bottom to feasibly win a round with an active guard, strikes off their back, etc. It's all an extension of "whatever contributes to the end of the match most directly" philosophy. That's how I see it, at any rate.
Click to expand...

My understanding of that situation would be that fighter A would win via effective grappling from the takedowns and not just the control and yeah, they have changed the rules to incentivized action and reduce stalling/maintaining position without offense.
 
I just want to see Carrot top fight some big, greasy, heavy weight and get his ass kicked.
 
NoBiasJustMMA said:
My understanding of that situation would be that fighter A would win via effective grappling from the takedowns and not just the control and yeah, they have changed the rules to incentivized action and reduce stalling/maintaining position without offense.
Click to expand...

I guess at that point it would really be semantics and nuances of how you interpret it, but yeah. I think either way we don't really disagree all that much. Not all takedowns and advantageous positions are made equal just as not all strikes or sub attempts are made equal -- and as always it depends what else is going on in the round. It's all relative.
 
Last edited:
gamrot is a more aggressive and fun grappler than colby and especially merab
 
Even if they don't do much damage, they neutralize their opponents and regularly are able to have even less damage done to them. Like Merab with Yan. So that's that.
 
Colby lands an absurd amount of strikes per fight
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,186
Messages
55,474,687
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top