But your welcome to your own perspective.
But your welcome to your own perspective.
Effective striking should go to the opponent who landed more strikes, percentage of shots landed vs shots thrown should not hold any influence. Just like takedown vs takedown attempts. You dont get points for attempts, you dknt ge5 points for stuffs, you dont get points for blocking punches, and you certainly dont get points for whiffs. Wasted aggression is wasted aggression, defense does not score points, they are both neutralizing actions.
I don't think stuffing takedowns is as simple as making someone miss with a punch.
Stuffing a takedown is CLEARLY a form of control that shows the combatant is dictating where the fight goes.
I don't know the proper answer to the issue. I just know that takedowns are overvalued in mma currently and that there is little to no emphasis put on the fact that some guys like Machida and BJ Penn deserve some credit from judges for simply stuffing anything the competitor does.
I'd liken it to a sack or interception in football. It doesn't go on the scoreboard but it certainly changes the look of the fight and keeps the offense on the field.
When it comes to the scoring the judges are told to use, takedowns show effective grappling, agression and octagon control. 3 of the major aspects in MMA scoring, so of course they are going to hold a lot of weight when it comes to a fight as they should.
Answered as a wrestler would.
A clear knockdown from a standing strike should score higher than a takedown, as the fight is closer to being finished.
Takedowns should be valued on what the fighter does with them--ie, if they're just advancing position to position [sherk, guida] they shouldn't be weighed as heavily as a fighter who is actively trying to finish the fight with ground and pound--similar to individual strikes shouldn't be weighed as heavily as an effective combination.
Failed takedowns should not count for the initiator, and should potentially count against them if they don't do anything else that round.
percentage of striking is a great indicator of effective striking when the scores of total strikes and significant strikes are so close. in the case of Machida/Davis, where Davis had a slight edge in total strikes but Machida had a more discernable edge in significant strikes, I'd minimally use it to break any perception of a "tie" as far as striking goes.
That's just my opinion. Who's the real authority/expert when it comes to the unified rules, Big John? I'd like to hear his opinion at least.
Another thing to consider - and I have only watched the fight once in bad quality - is the WAY Machida was stuffing some of those takedowns.
He wasn't just escaping them desperately and still being placed in a bad situation, like up against the cage.
He timed some of Davis' attempts so well that Davis looked like he tried to take down a brick wall. Several other times Machida stopped him in his tracks with knees. In those cases I definitely see the stuffed takedown as being offensive.
The problem with fightmetric, and much of this conversation is that it's ignoring the nuances and small details that mean everything (at least to me). I feel like you can't score takedowns like you do field goal attempts in basketball, it's way more subjective than that*.
Unfortunately, that also means it's more ambiguous, and leaves room for intepretation, which is a bad thing when the judges aren't always competent.
*Edit: To try and show that I'm not completely biased against Davis, it can work both ways. I think on his very first TD attempt in the first round, he got completely stuffed, but then used that scramble to land an uppercut. In THAT case I would score the exchange for Davis, despite getting stuffed on the TD.
I think you have to play it case by case...I'm not asking for a blanket "higher percentage equates to more effective" policy or anything. I think in your example, you'd have to look at how the leg kicks impact the fight. If it takes away a fighters lead leg, makes them unable to shoot or to plant for hard strikes, those are great strikes. If they're just pitter patter shots, amid a lot of whiffs, they're not as big of a deal. I felt throughout this fight in particular, Machida was landing more often with bigger shots, when he wanted them, and was doing a great job of controlling the pace and the octagon. I'm not a mark for Lyoto--I felt his win over Henderson was a draw--but I feel he won a close fight pretty decisively against Davis.