General Discussion: UFC // MMA thread


Show original post
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

7 Feb 2012 20:46
Haha you cant take the opinions of the idiots and attribute them to the mma educated. Are joe rogan and ariel helwani moronic because they scored the fight to diaz? And what about the "moronic" fighters? Im sure they know more about mma than me and you.

Maybe dumb people think diaz should have won because he just kept moving forward but mma is scored on octagon control and aggression as well as strikes landed. With condit landing maybe 6 more strikes in a round but nick displaying octagon control, i.e taking the centre and forcing carlos to move around where he was dictating.who wins the round.

Maybe theres a reason why the pro fighters and experts are taking a different view to you.
phelen
phelen avatar

6692 posts since 16/8/06

7 Feb 2012 20:50
Commander_Venus wrote: Maybe theres a reason why the pro fighters and experts are taking a different view to you.

Or because they want that GSP match so bad.
morning mist
morning mist avatar

3511 posts since 29/5/05

7 Feb 2012 22:36
Commander_Venus wrote: Haha you cant take the opinions of the idiots and attribute them to the mma educated. Are joe rogan and ariel helwani moronic because they scored the fight to diaz? And what about the "moronic" fighters? Im sure they know more about mma than me and you.

Maybe dumb people think diaz should have won because he just kept moving forward but mma is scored on octagon control and aggression as well as strikes landed. With condit landing maybe 6 more strikes in a round but nick displaying octagon control, i.e taking the centre and forcing carlos to move around where he was dictating.who wins the round.

Maybe theres a reason why the pro fighters and experts are taking a different view to you.

imo octagon control is a bs rule anyway that only rewards a certain type of fighter.

same with how they score wrestling takedowns vs bjj pulling guard

wrestling - takedown that lead to nothing = point
bjj - pulling guard and controlling = you better get the submission within seconds or the person in the guard is judged as being on top and in control Evil

as long as people like cecil peoples are allowed to judge fights we are all screwed Sad
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

7 Feb 2012 22:58
I agree, but while its still a judging criteria fighters should be rewarded for displaying it. As for people pullingguard, you often see the bottom guy landing more elbows and strikes but you know ghe guy in top position will be scored just for being on top. Its bs.

I disagree with takedowns that lead to nothing though; the other didnt want to be taken down andcouldnt prevent it, which means the guy perforning the takedown imposed his will and momentarilly controlled the fight. Its almost like saying failed sub attempts shouldnt score
This is why, imo, nick def won round 5, the striking was marginally in the favour of condit, yet nick got a takedown whicb is high scoring. He took his back which also scores, and he attempted an RNC, which should also score because it forced condit to defend against it.
MuayThaiPimp
MuayThaiPimp avatar

7925 posts since 10/8/11

7 Feb 2012 23:01
Commander_Venus wrote: Rewatched the fight and still cant see how nick didnt win 1,2 and 5.

Condit clearly won it, nick just walked forward like a zombie, nick defo won 2, but 3 and 4 were so clear for condit, legkicks, punches, attempting elbows, a few headkicks, never got caught on cage circled out everytime, good movement, not running, if that was a straight k-1 for example it would be no question, I realise it was mma but, the fight was nearly all stand up, apart really from the takedown last round, I was sparring someone other night in a similar style had 20 kg on me, heavy puncher, although I was in a ring, I employed same tactics, someone might be the aggressor, but if you can control them basically counter and take little damge, you've got the control in the fight

The pro fighters think he won, they know more than you is a shit argument, people have rivalries, their fav fighters, and ufc has a stand and bang philosophy, coming from it's background. So they don't understand the finer points of striking, not they don't have great strikers like, but you get me…
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

7 Feb 2012 23:02
phelen wrote:
Commander_Venus wrote: Maybe theres a reason why the pro fighters and experts are taking a different view to you.

Or because they want that GSP match so bad.

Maybe the public, but its a stretch to say professionals are all doing that.

Even people who hate diaz called the fight in his favour; mayhem, diego sanchez, riggs.

What i will say is that i think the rounds carlos won he won more decisively than the rounds nick won (except rnd 5) but unless a round was a 10-8 thats irrelevant as i still think nick won 3 rounds.
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

7 Feb 2012 23:11
MuayThaiPimp wrote:
Commander_Venus wrote: Rewatched the fight and still cant see how nick didnt win 1,2 and 5.

Condit clearly won it, nick just walked forward like a zombie, nick defo won 2, but 3 and 4 were so clear for condit, legkicks, punches, attempting elbows, a few headkicks, never got caught on cage circled out everytime, good movement, not running, if that was a straight k-1 for example it would be no question, I realise it was mma but, the fight was nearly all stand up, apart really from the takedown last round, I was sparring someone other night in a similar style had 20 kg on me, heavy puncher, although I was in a ring, I employed same tactics, someone might be the aggressor, but if you can control them basically counter and take little damge, you've got the control in the fight

The pro fighters think he won, they know more than you is a shit argument, people have rivalries, their fav fighters, and ufc has a stand and bang philosophy, coming from it's background. So they don't understand the finer points of striking, not they don't have great strikers like, but you get me…

Why have you only convenientlymentioned rounds 2,3 and 4? Nick clearly won round 1, the striking was almost equal but nick wins it onagression and octagon control. Without the hindsight of condits gameplan if you watch round 1 he almost looksscared to fight, only later it became apparent to be a gameplan. Since when do attempted elbows score.

And taking professional opinion is a shit argument, what? Who knows better, you? People who dont like diaz gave it to him like i said above, i forgot to mention probablyincludes helwani and most of the mma press.


What do you mean the ufc has a stand and bang philosophy? I dont know what you mean?
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

7 Feb 2012 23:20
I had originally diaz 1,2, and 5. After hearing all 3 judges scored round 1 for condit I rewatched round 1 and wasn't so clear. Diaz was the aggressor, constantly pushing forward but condit landed more accurate strikes, albeit they were mainly weak leg kicks while he was backing away.
morning mist
morning mist avatar

3511 posts since 29/5/05

7 Feb 2012 23:23
Commander_Venus wrote: I disagree with takedowns that lead to nothing though; the other didnt want to be taken down andcouldnt prevent it, which means the guy perforning the takedown imposed his will and momentarilly controlled the fight.

the problem for me is that most bjj/grapplers welcome the takedown, so they are actually not being controlled by the takedown Cool

the main problem with alot of the judges is that they all think that

being on top = advantage
being on the back = disadvantage

imo the actual takedown should not be scored as high if the fighter doesn't end up in a dominant position or/and continue to work for a better position/end the fight as soon as the fight hit the ground.

they rate strikes by how effective they are so why not do the same with takedowns? Sad
morning mist
morning mist avatar

3511 posts since 29/5/05

7 Feb 2012 23:33
bas vs randleman - bas constantly being taken down but punishing randlemen with elbows and winning Cool

if that had been judged with a 10 point/round system then bas would never have been the hw champ
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

8 Feb 2012 02:41
Some interesting comments in this vid. (Not a lame attempt to add weight to my opinions)
/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkgFrgl3uHs
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

8 Feb 2012 02:43
One final thing for what its worth, even carlos gave nick round 5.
phelen
phelen avatar

6692 posts since 16/8/06

8 Feb 2012 13:05
Commander_Venus wrote: Maybe dumb people think diaz should have won because he just kept moving forward but mma is scored on octagon control and aggression as well as strikes landed. With condit landing maybe 6 more strikes in a round but nick displaying octagon control, i.e taking the centre and forcing carlos to move around where he was dictating.who wins the round.

So basically any pressure fighter should be awarded points? Diaz did nothing with his "octagon control", he chased Condit around and got hit more than he hit Condit. Both men were fully in control of their movement, whether it be lateral or just coming straight forward, both had control. Condit landed more strikes.

If aggression is fruitless, how can it be scored as effective? This is how Martin Kampmann loses fights!

As for the rematch, I doubt it was Condit's decision for a rematch. Supposedly it was Condit's choice whether he wanted to wait for GSP or defend the interim title first. We all know how bad DW wants GSP vs Diaz so I imagine he's been harping to Condit about the rematch.

Condit's been given some shitty treatment over the whole WW Championship triangle. First having to "agree to step aside" and losing his promised title fight after Diaz beat BJ, then not being given his due credit after he beat Diaz, and now being pressured by the boss and fans to rematch Diaz instead of taking his now guaranteed fight with GSP.

Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

8 Feb 2012 13:34
Yes, because thats how it works. Fighters get rewarded for pressuring the opponent, for 'pushing the pace'. Because otherwise you may get 2 fighters with the same gameplan as condit , who end up standing either side of the cage staring at each other for 25 minutes, because neither will engage 1st. The same reason pride had yellow cards.

Both men were fully in control of their movements? You seem to missing the point. Condit was choosing where to go only as a result of the movement choices diaz was making. If im standing still and youcome walking at me its mychoice to get out of the way, but mychoice is still a resultof the aggressors original movement.

A rematch isnt about whether condit is being treated shitty orpressured, a fighter just cantput abelt on ice for a year. You have to defend it. Same with if diaz had won. Georges says hell be ready to fight in november, at best. Ivedone my ACL 3 times and just because you think youll begood to go doesntmean shit. Hecouldeasily tearit again in training.

Lets just put the whole ww division on ice till 2014 then because carlos earned his shot. Lets say diaz doesnt deserve the rematch, carlos still should give theno1 contender a shot in 5-6 months. And fact is because the fight was so close diaz probably is still the no1 contender. Just like with edgar maynard, they needed 3 fights to solve it.
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

9 Feb 2012 00:38
Rematch was on now its off, looking like diaz tested positive for thc.
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

9 Feb 2012 00:45
where's that from? can't find any info
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

9 Feb 2012 01:09
It hasnt been officially released yet by nicks camp, ithink theyre waiting for the ncas to announce it. Could just be a rumour yet though.
Paolo G
Paolo G avatar

7408 posts since 10/8/06

9 Feb 2012 11:49
I agree with phelen, condit won. He used an awesome game plan which you have to have disgusting skill and talent to implement. Diaz face was pretty battered, condits wasnt, he hit him cleanly way more times. Instead of being a prick and dropping his hands he should of been hitting him, you lose and say your gonna retire, toys out the pram much?

How sick were thoise kick punch kick combos…so so so good! Condit is my new hero.
JustinCredible
JustinCredible avatar

2694 posts since 11/6/08

9 Feb 2012 12:11
Condit clearly won it for me, totally agree that they could have fought for hours and condit would never have hurt him but he definitely landed considerably more shots and he grew in confidence as the fight went on as it was obvious Diaz's only hope of winning was a big KO.

As CV said if you score it strictly based on scoring system then you can see why people say Diaz deserved it as he controlled the octogon and was the agressor for most of the fight but again Condit consistently beat him to the punch despite being almost exclusively on the back foot.
Commander_Venus
Commander_Venus avatar

8620 posts since 16/7/06

9 Feb 2012 12:25
No matter which way you go you must agree something needs to bedone about the scoring and judges. The general concensus from both sides of fans is that condit won round 3, well thets the round that the two judges gave to diaz. And they gave 5 to condit, most of the world includingcondit himself gave that todiaz. How can fans appreciate the sport when we dont know wtf is going on andwho is potentially winning a fight? If diaz would have been given the nod id have felt so badfor carlos, best result would have been a draw and thus a forced rematch. This will end up being the most contentious decision in mma history andwill neverbe resolved because we prob wont ever see a rematch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_yfOgYc70