Strikeforce October 9th

[SPX]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

Achieving mount is considered effective grappling. If most of the round was on the floor, that's what is scored first. The unified rules are pretty specific about scoring.

I think Scientist is more talking about how he feels things should be rather than the way they are.

[zY|]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

If you get to mount, but don't hurt the guy or threaten a submission, why should that score?

My take on this, and I know I've said this before, is that the very nature of being on top of someone is more theatening than being on the bottom because the guy on top is in control. In a "real fight," the guy on top can choose to keep threatening with aggression or he can choose to get up and walk away. The guy on the bottom has no such choice. He at the mercy of his opponent.

He can just stand up from a closed guard and leave?

[zY|]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

Achieving mount is considered effective grappling. If most of the round was on the floor, that's what is scored first. The unified rules are pretty specific about scoring.

I think Scientist is more talking about how he feels things should be rather than the way they are.

I still think it works out. It's not like the other guy will have any effective offense if you have him mounted.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

If you get to mount, but don't hurt the guy or threaten a submission, why should that score?

My take on this, and I know I've said this before, is that the very nature of being on top of someone is more theatening than being on the bottom because the guy on top is in control. In a "real fight," the guy on top can choose to keep threatening with aggression or he can choose to get up and walk away. The guy on the bottom has no such choice. He at the mercy of his opponent.

I agree. I think it shows dominance and control to get all the way to mount. But if the guy escapes on his own before you do anything, I guess I can see why someone would say that shouldn't score. I personally believe in the bjj hierarchy of positions (kool-aid, yum). So to me, the only thing more dominant than mount is having the back with the bottom guy pancaked out. To a certain extent, MMA has just followed bjj scoring with blind faith, with a couple of exceptions. In bjj you don't score if you have the back unless you have hooks in, I believe that MMA judges view the turtle position as dominance for the guy on top. And then guard too, I think most judges favor the guy on top, even if he isn't doing anything.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

[quote=zY|]

Achieving mount is considered effective grappling. If most of the round was on the floor, that's what is scored first. The unified rules are pretty specific about scoring.

I think Scientist is more talking about how he feels things should be rather than the way they are.

I still think it works out. It's not like the other guy will have any effective offense if you have him mounted.[/quote:qv9nj3hu]

Yeah I agree... but I think the counterpoint is that if you don't do anything, who cares? Or if you get bucked off, and then it goes back to standing, how much weight should the fact that you achieved mount carry? As opposed to just a takedown? In my view, if you get a takedown, pass guard, and mount all in 30 seconds, that shows more dominance than landing rabbit punches form inside guard for 5 minutes.

[zY|]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

Yeah I agree... but I think the counterpoint is that if you don't do anything, who cares? Or if you get bucked off, and then it goes back to standing, how much weight should the fact that you achieved mount carry? As opposed to just a takedown? In my view, if you get a takedown, pass guard, and mount all in 30 seconds, that shows more dominance than landing rabbit punches form inside guard for 5 minutes.

Well it would obviously depends on what happens the rest of the round. But yes, achieving mount should be worth more than just a takedown, even if you don't hold it. Scoring a fight is just about who can implement their game on the other guy. Damage and close submissions attempts should obviously count the most, but in the absence of those, position absolutely scores. You just have to weigh it all out based on the criteria.

[Luke]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

Big time paydays here:

The full payouts included:

Nick Diaz: $50,000
def. K.J. Noons: $10,000

Josh Thomson: $50,000
def. Gesias Cavalcante: $40,000

Marloes Coenen: $3,000 (includes $1,000 win bonus)
def. Sarah Kaufman: $20,000

Tyron Woodley: $15,000 ($7,500 win bonus)
def. Andre Galvao: $10,000

James Terry: $3,000 ($1,500 win bonus)
David Marshall: $1,500

Josh McDonald: $3,000 ($1,500 win bonus)
def. Ron Keslar: $1,500

Jess Bouscal: $3,000 ($1,500 win bonus)
def. Luis Mendoza: $1,500

[SPX]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

Holy shit, why did Noons only get $10K? Shouldn't he be getting like $40K just to show at this point? And then he's fighting in a title match on top of that?

And Coenen got $3K to fight for the title? I don't believe that.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

^^ I totally believe it. Unless it is Cyborg or Carano, no one knows who these chicks are. I am probably as dedicated a fan as anyone, and I couldn't point out Coenen or Kaufman or any other female fighter in a lineup even now, after just having watched her fight. Aside from the public interest, there is no other league to leverage against SF for more money. I am sure she got some sponsorship money though.

[SPX]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

^^^ Well Bellator is building a pretty impressive women's roster, but it seems they're specifically targeting the weight classes (115 lbs, 125 lbs) that Strikeforce is staying away from. With Fujii, Frausto, Aguilar, Pene, Ward, etc. they have a lot of the very best talent in the lower women's weight classes.

In any case, Coenen is a veteran in the sport and it's just fucking stupid that she got $3K when Kaufman got $20K. I wonder how much Roxy got. I really hope she didn't fight for such a low amount of money.

[MMA_scientist]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

^^ yeah but Bellator doesn't pay much either. I agree they ought to get more, but women's MMA is still in the embryonic stages, and it will never be a major sport. It is like female boxing, there will be occasional interest in it, when Layla Ali is fighting, but other than that, no one will ever care very much, IMO. Same thing with MMA, after Cyborg loses, it will shrink away some I think. I don't think they are ever going to get big money.

[SPX]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

I don't think they are ever going to get big money.

At least Kaufman is getting $20K. I would think Coenen deserves at least half that--and I think that Strikeforce would just consider it good business sense to pay their female fighters at least $10K to fight for a championship, if for no other reason than to attract other top female fighters to their organization.

I wonder what would happen to women's MMA if the UFC went ahead and opened up a women's division (or two). It would have to have an effect.

[Luke]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

I wonder how much Roxy got. I really hope she didn't fight for such a low amount of money.

Probably the same ,3k or less

[SPX]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

Probably the same ,3k or less

When I talked to her, she actually told me that she doesn't make enough off of fighting to live on. She actually teaches English 30-35 hours a week to supplement her income.

I was shocked by this. I think it's bullshit.

[Luke]

Re: Strikeforce October 9th

At least Kaufman is getting $20K. I would think Coenen deserves at least half that--and I think that Strikeforce would just consider it good business sense to pay their female fighters at least $10K to fight for a championship, if for no other reason than to attract other top female fighters to their organization.

I wonder what would happen to women's MMA if the UFC went ahead and opened up a women's division (or two). It would have to have an effect.

When Carwin and Chael are getting 40k a piece to fight for titles as the main events of PPV's what more can you expect for two women fighters fighting on a television card, who are not main events ,on a card not alot of people watch?