Support NeoGAF

[MooseKing]

Exactly. How can you call Condit the winner when the man kept getting taken down time after time with no defense? Hendricks was all over him. If this was a 5 round match though, I'd think Condit would pull it out though.

For a few of those takedowns Condit allowed him to in attempts to make a submission. This is very common in BJJ.

Regardless. If you take me down, and I am on my back, but I crack open your skull with an elbow, then get up. I won that exchange. This happened to Hendricks virtually every single time he was on the ground.

Condit was constantly attacking and doing damage, Hendricks did nothing.

 

[gregor7777]

Factors into Octagon control, and being the aggressor.

That I disagree with, as an absolute. If your face is a speed bag, and you drop down for the legs to get out of trouble, were you the aggressor? No.

Not saying that was the case with Hendricks mind you. He was throwing.

 

[Tragicomedy]

Them's the rules:

Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active threatening guard.

Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking, taking down an opponent to force a ground fight, creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.

Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.

http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations

 

[Zeliard]

Condit still got taken down. Doesn't matter if Hendricks did nothing with it, he still put Condit on the ground. Condit lost.

He put Condit on the ground, where he effectively did nothing and where Condit ended up landing a lot more strikes.

We know that favors Hendricks because UFC judging is idiotic, but from any reasonable standpoint, it shouldn't. If you aren't doing any damage off the top or even attempting to be active, your takedown should be voided.

His baby punches and flying knees onto Hendricks guard.

Impressive.

Yes, Hendricks laying on top of Condit for stretches of time defines impressive.

 

[TheChits]

What are the chances that Diaz beats GSP? Like 3%?

I think it is probably a 7-3 matchup

 

[criesofthepast]

Deftones? Not bad Diaz, not bad.

 

[MooseKing]

Factors into Octagon control, and being the aggressor.

No it doesn't. Dana White says takedowns that happen but result in no damage, shoudl not count.

The judges have nothing to do with the UFC, and do not judge fights on ufc criteria. Virtually all of them are boxing judges.

 

[Godslay]

That I disagree with, as an absolute. If your face is a speed bag, and you drop down for the legs to get out of trouble, were you the aggressor? No.

Not saying that was the case with Hendricks mind you. He was throwing.

First two rounds I would argue Hendricks was in control and the aggressor. 3rd not as much. It was enough to win the fight though.

 

[NomarTyme]

Rooting for a good fight.

 

[gregor7777]

Them's the rules:


http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations

I think some of you guys are missing the point here...most of us are familiar with the rules and how UFC fights are scored. I'm saying it shouldn't be this way.

 

[Macattk15]

Yes, Hendricks laying on top of Condit for stretches of time defines impressive.

No but taking someone down 100% of the times he tried is. I agree Hendricks did nothing on the ground ... he still took him there whenever he wanted.

Ring control, aggressiveness etc.

 

[zychi]

I did more damage than you did while you performed this move, but since you performed the move, you win. That makes no sense. This isn't gymnastics or a Taekwondo kicks demo...

It's UFC/MMA judging. It's been this way for years. No point in complaining about it.

 

[Godslay]

No it doesn't. Dana White says takedowns that happen but result in no damage, shoudl not count.

The judges have nothing to do with the UFC, and do not judge fights on ufc criteria. Virtually all of them are boxing judges.

Look at TragicComedy's post. Pretty black and white.

 

[cr_blah_blah]

I look forward to how insufferable Diaz would be if he won. It'd be fantastic.

 

[Tragicomedy]

I think some of you guys are missing the point here...most of us are familiar with the rules and how UFC fights are scored. I'm saying it shouldn't be this way.

Right, but what is your proposed change? Not to score a takedown? Not to weigh it as heavily?

Wrestling is a huge component of MMA, and the end goal of that discipline is to take down and control your opponent. I fail to see how completely controlling your opponent isn't as valuable as a flurry of punches.

:edit: Also, this whole "GSP is pissed!" angle is hilariously forced. Diaz is clowning around and they're trying to build up the whole hate thing, but I'm not seeing it. GSP is going to fight his usual by the book (i.e. smart) style, and likely coming out on top.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Right, but what is your proposed change? Not to score a takedown? Not to weigh it as heavily?

Wrestling is a huge component of MMA, and that end goal of that discipline is to take down and control your opponent. I fail to see how completely controlling your opponent isn't as valuable as a flurry of punches.

Weigh it by how much damage is done with it. If you take a guy down, hold him for a few seconds, and then he gets his way back up, what exactly did you accomplish? It's like saying Hendricks should have gotten points for throwing all those lefts even though he didn't land any of them.

 

[Jest Chillin]

29-28 Hendricks, just like I said, easy call

This shows me you're an observant individual. Too much hype on knees that were blocked or missed. R1 and 2 to Hendricks on Striking and Takedowns.

Weigh it by how much damage is done with it. If you take a guy down, hold him for a few seconds, and then he gets his way back up, what exactly did you accomplish? It's like saying Hendricks should have gotten points for throwing all those lefts even though he didn't land any of them.

I agree with half of your post here but it's hard to because of the salt. It's true Hendricks didn't do much with the takedowns.. but the he won on striking in the first two rounds in addition to scoring takedowns which is controlling your opponent. Condit tooled him in the third but he needed a 10-8 round and didn't get it.

 

[FACE]

209 MOTHERFUCKERS!

 

[tass0]

GSP wins 50-44

This fight is gonna be crazy.

 

[NomarTyme]

GSP win by takedown.

 

[Godslay]

I think some of you guys are missing the point here...most of us are familiar with the rules and how UFC fights are scored. I'm saying it shouldn't be this way.

Why not? What's the difference between landing a punch and a takedown? You are exercising a technique on an opponent, that they either have to evade or counter.

 

[alr1ght]

Right, but what is your proposed change? Not to score a takedown? Not to weigh it as heavily?

Wrestling is a huge component of MMA, and the end goal of that discipline is to take down and control your opponent. I fail to see how completely controlling your opponent isn't as valuable as a flurry of punches.

Damage done should override everything. You don't win in basketball by out dribbling the other team.

 

[snack]

dat bitch count

 

[TheChits]

LOL at "bitch count"

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Why not? What's the difference between landing a punch and a takedown? You are exercising a technique on an opponent, that they either have to evade or counter.

A takedown isn't like landing a punch, it's like throwing a punch. A successful takedown is when you use it to advance position towards FINISHING a fight.

Hendricks never did this. If anything he used his takedowns to get away from Condit's stand up later in the fight. I understand why he won, I don't think it was some great injustice, but I disagree.

 

[R3TRO]

Oh man, about time

 

[Kreunt]

hoping Diaz losing by decision, so he can cry and say he's quitting again.

 

[MooseKing]

Look at TragicComedy's post. Pretty black and white.

Of all the things listed. Condit did MORE than Hendricks. Hendricks didn't mount, didn't reverse, didn't defend a takedown. All he did was takedown.

Condit reversed, was active off his back, and mounted offensive from the bottom.

 

[OptimoPeach]

Until the third round Condit did virtually nothing off of his back except threaten with a kimura and neutralize Hendricks' advances on the ground. Hendricks landed more cleanly and frequently on the feet in the first two rounds. Condit caught Hendricks with a few nice knees as Hendricks was coming in, a nice front kick in the second round, and some solid 1-2s, but Condit's biggest punch didn't come until the third round -- and yeah, Condit clearly won the third, and yeah, Condit would have won if he had two more rounds, but it doesn't matter. Shitty that it ended the way it did but you people have to be taking stupid pills if you think Condit won that fight

 

[hwalker84]

Imagine if Diaz wins.... take that in!

 

[alr1ght]

hoping Diaz losing by decision, so he can cry and say he's quitting again.

of course that is going to happen

 

[rinse82]

GSP 3rd round TKO

 

[Tragicomedy]

A takedown is about control and attempting to advance yourself into a position to do additional damage. Takedowns can be used offensively or defensively. When Condit started rocking Hendricks towards the end of that third round, Hendricks started dropping him in order to regain his bearing. That's a very wise strategic decision.

If a fighter can't avoid being taken down, they need to work on their takedown defense.

 

[Neffarias_Bredd]

Of all the things listed. Condit did MORE than Hendricks. Hendricks didn't mount, didn't reverse, didn't defend a takedown. All he did was takedown.

Condit reversed, was active off his back, and mounted offensive from the bottom.

And he won the third round

 

[Instro]

Diaz about to get smothered for 5 rounds.

 

[Jmanunknown]

First two rounds I would argue Hendricks was in control and the aggressor. 3rd not as much. It was enough to win the fight though.

Hendricks won the first and Condit won the third the second was a toss up. It really depends what you favor more takedowns or damage. Hendricks scored alot of takedowns in the second but did nothing with them at all where as Condit did alot of damage but, got taken down alot.

 

[LowEndTorque]

Don't be too quick to count Nick out. Dis gon b gud =)

 

[perryfarrell]

Does Bruce Buffer ever misspeak or stutter? Dat man is the most impressive individual in the ring.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

A takedown is about control and attempting to advance yourself into a position to do additional damage. Takedowns can be used offensively or defensively. When Condit started rocking Hendricks towards the end of that third round, Hendricks started dropping him in order to regain his bearing. That's a very wise strategic decision.

If a fighter can't avoid being taken down, they need to work on their takedown defense.

Which Hendricks never did. His takedowns were very ineffective. I wouldn't award a guy a win on the back of ineffective takedowns.

 

[kassatsu]

Does Bruce Buffer ever misspeak or stutter? Dat man is the most impressive individual in the ring.

Called the fight before this the main event.

 

[Tragicomedy]

Of all the things listed. Condit did MORE than Hendricks. Hendricks didn't mount, didn't reverse, didn't defend a takedown. All he did was takedown.

Condit reversed, was active off his back, and mounted offensive from the bottom.

Those are legitimate arguments, but it's a lot more nuanced to argue those than it is for a judge to see Hendricks drop him on his butt or back over and over again.

Condit was quite active and did well from his guard. BUT...nobody wins a fight when they get dropped 10+ times in a fight. Not under the current rule set.

 

[nick nacc]

Amazing intro by Bruce

 

[Jamie OD]

Let's do it!

 

[Buckethead]

Go Diaz go go go

 

[Zeliard]

Stop talking about the real main event, the GSP Double Leg Event has begun.

 

[Godslay]

A takedown isn't like landing a punch, it's like throwing a punch. A successful takedown is when you use it to advance position towards FINISHING a fight.

Hendricks never did this. If anything he used his takedowns to get away from Condit's stand up later in the fight. I understand why he won, I don't think it was some great injustice, but I disagree.

I disagree. If don't want to lose by being taken down, then stop the technique. Pretty simple. Fights on though.

 

[kassatsu]

Here we go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[MooseKing]

GSP has already done more on the ground than Hendricks did.

 

[kirblar]

Strength gap immediately obvious.

 

[Tragicomedy]

Moving on...Diaz gonna get that work!

He's literally clueless on how to handle this.