UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> Coach: Condit did as much damage from bottom


11/23/12 10:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
stonepony
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/1/11
Posts: 3657
Carlos vs Diaz, and Carlos vs Georges, were both scored accurately. There is no scandal with either decision.
11/23/12 1:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sacredhate
76 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/16/07
Posts: 13711
WWETopTeam - After the fight, Carlos Condit was looking for the finest vintage wines at Rashad's After party that rocked, while GSP was hooked up to IV's in the Emergency room as they ran CAT scans... YOU tell me who won!

after the fight GSP was declared "and still champion" and went home to a champions pay while Condit went to the back of the line.


Condit did amazing and was a gamer...but to declare that he won the fight? seriously? he came closer to beating GSP than anyone who hasn't...and looked better losing to GSP than anyone else has. that's it though.
11/23/12 2:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7990
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.
11/23/12 2:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Attila
42 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 21497
WWETopTeam - After the fight, Carlos Condit was looking for the finest vintage wines at Rashad's After party that rocked, while GSP was hooked up to IV's in the Emergency room as they ran CAT scans... YOU tell me who won!

Spoken like a true WWE fan.
11/23/12 3:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7991
Wasa-B - "Bumps and bruises don't tell the story of who controlled the ring and had the other backing up the whole time."

- Continuing to use damage in terms of cosmetic damage (again). Backing the other up doesnt necessarily mean you're controlling the ring either.

"And let me remind you that two of the three judges scored all 5 rounds for St. Pierre."

- And let me remind you that UFC judges arent exactly authorities on understanding MMA, you know this, everyone knows this
- let me remind you that the judges awarded condit the bout vs diaz and let me remind you that you are saying backing the other up the whole time is what matters

"Bumps and bruises don't tell the story of who controlled the ring and had the other backing up the whole time...St. Pierre dominated every fight statistic"

- Statistics tell the whole story and measure everything now too? They surely dont measure who controlled the ring, who was backing up who.

"St. Pierre dominated every fight statistic and was in complete control of the fight except for that one head kick."

- Well, you're one of these guys. Not sure if its worth it but if you thought GSP was in complete control on the ground from beginning to end, i'll just lump you in with those who assume the guy on top is the guy in control.

GSP didnt say it was his toughest fight since Serra or whatever because all he endeared was one head kick. He didnt say he gave it everything he had for nothing either. Someone must have been pushing him. Someone must have been giving him a fight.

Condit landed way more shots than Diaz did. GSP landed way more shots than Condit did. It's pretty straight forward.

Octagon control is absolutely a judging criteria though and that's why the Condit/Diaz fight was sort of controversial. Some were saying that Diaz backed him up enough to get the win but Condit outstruck him enough to get the nod.

You are trying to spin my comparison between bumps and bruises to ring control to say that somehow fight statistics dont matter as much as visible damage. It's laughable dude. Stop trying to fabricate a narrative that isnt there.

Fight statistics do matter and so does ring control. Dont complain to me about it - if you want damage to be a judging criteria then go talk to the athletic commissions.

If you want to say that being on top doesn't matter as much then tell me how you are supposed to advance position on the bottom without getting on top. Besides having a submission locked up or being extremely close to one, what is the best position on the ground? Guard. Meanwhile, on top, your punches are heavier, you control your opponent and keep them from getting up to their feet where they may be more comfortable, you can advance into dominant positions, and you undoubtedly have more options to finish the fight. That part isn't hard to figure out either. But if you want to say that the possibility of a submission and punches from the bottom are the great equalizer, you can punch and submit from the top too....

Your argument has not legs which is obvious when you resort to saying "well, you're one of those guys" and when you try to spin what I said.

I've got one last thing for you....
11/23/12 3:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/23/12 3:12 PM
Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7992
14. Judging


All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.

The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

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

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.

Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.

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 aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.

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

The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:

a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

if the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:

Effective grappling is weighed first; and
Effective striking is then weighed

If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:

Effective striking is weighed first; and
Effective grappling is then weighed

A round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.





Now, find me anything in there that says that visible damage is a judging criteria and I'll concede my argument to you.

Don't talk about boxing and kickboxing and any other sports as you tried to earlier either. We are talking about MMA and this was taken from the UFC website.

Feel free to research the rules from the NSAC too if you want but I'm thinking with your ideas about how judges score or should score MMA matches, any bit of researching of judging criteria would be a big help from where you are currently at.

If you want to give me any more opinions about what SHOULD be judged in your view, save your breath. If you want to try to PROVE that judges score fights based on damage then go for it. But if it doesn't have any factual basis, once again, don't waste your time or mine.
11/23/12 3:14 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
catbath
39 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/6/10
Posts: 958

Damage is pretty subjective. Some people bruise and cut easier.  There's also an issue of skin tone.  Oten, fighters of more fair races show welts and bruises more predominantly.  Do you really want judges gauging who's winning by assessing surface injuries.

You also run into problems with submission-based damage. What if a fighter has popped someone's elbow during a fight -- an injury that requires 6-8 months rehab? Should that be judged as more damage than a swollen eye that will heal up in two weeks? Or what if a guy rolls his ankle while fighting? Technically, that's damage he received during the fight -- so should his opponent be credited for that?

Obviously, hurting your opponent should matter. But there's a reason the judging tries to focus on more quantifiable criteria (not that it's perfect).

11/23/12 3:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sacredhate
76 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/16/07
Posts: 13719
WWETopTeam - 
sacredhate - 
WWETopTeam - After the fight, Carlos Condit was looking for the finest vintage wines at Rashad's After party that rocked, while GSP was hooked up to IV's in the Emergency room as they ran CAT scans... YOU tell me who won!

after the fight GSP was declared "and still champion" and went home to a champions pay while Condit went to the back of the line.


Condit did amazing and was a gamer...but to declare that he won the fight? seriously? he came closer to beating GSP than anyone who hasn't...and looked better losing to GSP than anyone else has. that's it though.

GSP won the MMA match, Condit won the FIGHT!

Condit came closest to finishing GSP. Condit DROPPED GSP. Gsp did not drop condit. Condit's guard nullified GSP's top game where he could not get passed half guard for most of the fight. Condit on top postured up and GNP GSP so hard the fight was gonna get stopped.

Condit did most damage standing up. Condit did more damage on the ground despite limited time on top in comparison to GSP.

Condit's bjj stifled any damage from GSP other than a few punches getting through. In the 3rd round GSP LaynPrayed condit after taking damage standing up.

Condit landed numerous punishing strikes from his back.


Attempts to finish the fight + Damage > Control

Condit's guard didn't nullify GSP's top game as much as GSP's takedowns nullified Condit's ability to strike.

Condit won 50 seconds of the fight, then got overwhelmed again.

At best Condit can argue that he was competitive...but to say that Condit won based on 51 seconds of control where he landed strikes and 21 minutes where he successfully managed to not get too damaged or finished is silly.

Condit won 51 seconds of that fight. that is all. spin it however you want but GSP wanted to be on top of Condit and was, Condit wanted to stand up or scramble and couldn't.

nice troll though.
11/23/12 3:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42203
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.
11/23/12 3:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42204
Porkchop - 14. Judging


All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.

The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

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

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.

Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.

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 aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.

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

The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:

a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

if the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:

Effective grappling is weighed first; and
Effective striking is then weighed

If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:

Effective striking is weighed first; and
Effective grappling is then weighed

A round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.





Now, find me anything in there that says that visible damage is a judging criteria and I'll concede my argument to you.

Don't talk about boxing and kickboxing and any other sports as you tried to earlier either. We are talking about MMA and this was taken from the UFC website.

Feel free to research the rules from the NSAC too if you want but I'm thinking with your ideas about how judges score or should score MMA matches, any bit of researching of judging criteria would be a big help from where you are currently at.

If you want to give me any more opinions about what SHOULD be judged in your view, save your breath. If you want to try to PROVE that judges score fights based on damage then go for it. But if it doesn't have any factual basis, once again, don't waste your time or mine.

OMG.

Someone checked the judging criteria.

I guess i'm a little out of my league here.

But I've got one last thing for you....

"Effective striking." That so ends the arguement and discussion and completely settles what that means, eh?

Actually, one more thing, for some reason, you still cannot get the concept out of your head that im not talking about "visible damage" and then continue about wasting peoples time, spinning what people are saying. Thats not a spin actually, that's just either being blind or death or just being ignorant. Im not sure but you are not arguing with me, you're arguing with whoever is talking about "visible damage."

I'm taking about damage.
11/23/12 3:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42205
catbath - 

Damage is pretty subjective. Some people bruise and cut easier.  There's also an issue of skin tone.  Oten, fighters of more fair races show welts and bruises more predominantly.  Do you really want judges gauging who's winning by assessing surface injuries.

You also run into problems with submission-based damage. What if a fighter has popped someone's elbow during a fight -- an injury that requires 6-8 months rehab? Should that be judged as more damage than a swollen eye that will heal up in two weeks? Or what if a guy rolls his ankle while fighting? Technically, that's damage he received during the fight -- so should his opponent be credited for that?

Obviously, hurting your opponent should matter. But there's a reason the judging tries to focus on more quantifiable criteria (not that it's perfect).


Damage is absolutely subjective but we're not talking about visible/cosmetic damage. We're talking about hurting the opponent. Yes, that again is also hard to judge but since this is a full contact fight sport where striking is involved, its part of life.

Regarding submission based damage, thats even harder to quantify but to me, the most important aspect of a submission or near submission is coming close to a fight finish, not the damage that may have occured from a near submission. Often times, there is zero damage from a near submission but you still have been a hairline away from the putting the other guy away.

And then you hit on a great point, hurting your opponent does matter but its hard to quantify but quantifying strikes are not perfect either. Exactly. There's quantity and there's quality.

This is an age old thing to weign in any striking contest - one guy may have hit the other 20 times but the other may have hit the other 10 times but way heavier shots, more damage, etc...but you have to judge each round of every fight on their own and take into account everything else.
11/23/12 3:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42206
I should add that control is also subjective.

As is what is "effective" esp vs the other opponent's "effective" striking or grappling. It can be worded any way but at the end of the day, the judges, even if completely educated, all still have bias' and may view who was more "effective" slightly differently. That is the problem with judging, its subjective and will never be perfect.

But the larger problem is not so much the criteria but as we know, that many of the UFC judges just are not qualified MMA judges.
11/23/12 3:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42207
sacredhate - 
WWETopTeam - 
sacredhate - 
WWETopTeam - After the fight, Carlos Condit was looking for the finest vintage wines at Rashad's After party that rocked, while GSP was hooked up to IV's in the Emergency room as they ran CAT scans... YOU tell me who won!

after the fight GSP was declared "and still champion" and went home to a champions pay while Condit went to the back of the line.


Condit did amazing and was a gamer...but to declare that he won the fight? seriously? he came closer to beating GSP than anyone who hasn't...and looked better losing to GSP than anyone else has. that's it though.

GSP won the MMA match, Condit won the FIGHT!

Condit came closest to finishing GSP. Condit DROPPED GSP. Gsp did not drop condit. Condit's guard nullified GSP's top game where he could not get passed half guard for most of the fight. Condit on top postured up and GNP GSP so hard the fight was gonna get stopped.

Condit did most damage standing up. Condit did more damage on the ground despite limited time on top in comparison to GSP.

Condit's bjj stifled any damage from GSP other than a few punches getting through. In the 3rd round GSP LaynPrayed condit after taking damage standing up.

Condit landed numerous punishing strikes from his back.


Attempts to finish the fight + Damage > Control

Condit's guard didn't nullify GSP's top game as much as GSP's takedowns nullified Condit's ability to strike.

Condit won 50 seconds of the fight, then got overwhelmed again.

At best Condit can argue that he was competitive...but to say that Condit won based on 51 seconds of control where he landed strikes and 21 minutes where he successfully managed to not get too damaged or finished is silly.

Condit won 51 seconds of that fight. that is all. spin it however you want but GSP wanted to be on top of Condit and was, Condit wanted to stand up or scramble and couldn't.

nice troll though.

I, myself, though GSP won. That was never in doubt.

But many of those rounds that were spent on the ground were not complete dominations by GSP. I have no problems with him winning those rounds, i wanted him to win them and i thought he did. But a lot of the ground action was still close and contested.

Condit was not "overwhelmed" for the entire fight outside that 50 second sequence.

At many times, GSP was reacting or defending to what Condit was dictating in his guard - reverse GNP, angling for subs and sweeps. Condit was absolutely active with both striking and grappling in his guard. Im not saying he was more active and effective with his striking and grappling than GSP, I'm saying it wasnt all GSP.

I would also think that GSP would be the first person to acknowledge that and that though he is always quick to give his opponents credit (before and after fights), I think he was giving Condit extra props after the fight for a reason. I think GSP said "i gave it my all" because Carlos pushed him to do so.
11/23/12 4:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7993
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

what distinction are you talking about?

Damage doesn't matter as long as it isn't a knockdown, someone being visibly wabbled by a heavy shot, the fight being stopped from a cut or if it was stopped because a fighter was unable to continue due to injury.

In any other sense it means nothing.

Prove me wrong.
11/23/12 4:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/23/12 4:23 PM
Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7994
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 14. Judging


All bouts will be evaluated and scored by 3 judges who shall evaluate the contest from different location around the ring/fighting area. The referee may not be one of the 3 judges.

The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and 9 points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

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

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.

Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant.

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 aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.

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

The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round:

a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

if the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:

Effective grappling is weighed first; and
Effective striking is then weighed

If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:

Effective striking is weighed first; and
Effective grappling is then weighed

A round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.





Now, find me anything in there that says that visible damage is a judging criteria and I'll concede my argument to you.

Don't talk about boxing and kickboxing and any other sports as you tried to earlier either. We are talking about MMA and this was taken from the UFC website.

Feel free to research the rules from the NSAC too if you want but I'm thinking with your ideas about how judges score or should score MMA matches, any bit of researching of judging criteria would be a big help from where you are currently at.

If you want to give me any more opinions about what SHOULD be judged in your view, save your breath. If you want to try to PROVE that judges score fights based on damage then go for it. But if it doesn't have any factual basis, once again, don't waste your time or mine.

OMG.

Someone checked the judging criteria.

I guess i'm a little out of my league here.

But I've got one last thing for you....

"Effective striking." That so ends the arguement and discussion and completely settles what that means, eh?

Actually, one more thing, for some reason, you still cannot get the concept out of your head that im not talking about "visible damage" and then continue about wasting peoples time, spinning what people are saying. Thats not a spin actually, that's just either being blind or death or just being ignorant. Im not sure but you are not arguing with me, you're arguing with whoever is talking about "visible damage."

I'm taking about damage.

effective striking does not equal damage....

I'd like to hear your definition of damage though. What exactly do you think it means? It seems that you think that effective striking means damage when it certainly doesn't.

But go for it, lets hear your take on what damage means.


PS:

"Actually, one more thing, for some reason, you still cannot get the concept out of your head that im not talking about "visible damage" and then continue about wasting peoples time, spinning what people are saying. Thats not a spin actually, that's just either being blind or death or just being ignorant."

It's hard to have a legitimate debate with anyone who has that loose of a grip on the English language. This is a mess with double negatives, nonsensical sentence structure, death vs deaf, and it seems like he called himself ignorant....
11/23/12 4:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42209
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

what distinction are you talking about?

Damage doesn't matter as long as it isn't a knockdown, someone being visibly wabbled by a heavy shot, the fight being stopped from a cut or if it was stopped because a fighter was unable to continue due to injury.

In any other sense it means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

What you said means nothing.

Prove me wrong.
11/23/12 4:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7996
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

what distinction are you talking about?

Damage doesn't matter as long as it isn't a knockdown, someone being visibly wabbled by a heavy shot, the fight being stopped from a cut or if it was stopped because a fighter was unable to continue due to injury.

In any other sense it means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

What you said means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

I feel like I'm debating a child.

You can't define the word damage, you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage which it absolutely does not and you resort to twisting of words and "I know you are but what am I" type argument tactics.

Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does.
11/23/12 4:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42210
"effective striking does not equal damage...."

Does not exclusively mean damage.

"I'd like to hear your definition of damage though. What exactly do you think it means? It seems that you think that effective striking means damage when it certainly doesn't.

But go for it, lets hear your take on what damage means."

No, ive never meant that "effective striking" means "damage" and "damage" alone. But its def part of it.

Im not sure why you think hurting your opponent has no bearing in being "effective" with one's "striking." Again, its not the only criteria or point of striking someone but who ever doesnt think its a major objective must be, yes, ignorant.

Of course, its hard to quantify or weigh exactly but so is evauluating who is being more "effectie" isnt exactly clear cut either. Maybe its just me but the one that looks to be damaging the other more (which can be of course subjective as is nearly everything in judging) seems to be a pretty important factor.
11/23/12 4:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42211
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

what distinction are you talking about?

Damage doesn't matter as long as it isn't a knockdown, someone being visibly wabbled by a heavy shot, the fight being stopped from a cut or if it was stopped because a fighter was unable to continue due to injury.

In any other sense it means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

What you said means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

I feel like I'm debating a child.

You can't define the word damage, you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage which it absolutely does not and you resort to twisting of words and "I know you are but what am I" type argument tactics.

Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does.

"I feel like I'm debating a child."

- Cuz i just reiterated what you said? My thoughts exactly.

"You can't define the word damage"

- Its when you hurt someone

"you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage"

- Ive never said that once and make it absolutely clear that that's not what i meant yet you're STILL holding on to that for dear life. Why?

"Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does."

- And you've made no case to me that it doesnt either. Get a grip dude. There i said it too.

Hurting your opponent in MMA matters.

Yes, it does.
11/23/12 4:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7997
Wasa-B - "effective striking does not equal damage...."

Does not exclusively mean damage.

"I'd like to hear your definition of damage though. What exactly do you think it means? It seems that you think that effective striking means damage when it certainly doesn't.

But go for it, lets hear your take on what damage means."

No, ive never meant that "effective striking" means "damage" and "damage" alone. But its def part of it.

Im not sure why you think hurting your opponent has no bearing in being "effective" with one's "striking." Again, its not the only criteria or point of striking someone but who ever doesnt think its a major objective must be, yes, ignorant.

Of course, its hard to quantify or weigh exactly but so is evauluating who is being more "effectie" isnt exactly clear cut either. Maybe its just me but the one that looks to be damaging the other more (which can be of course subjective as is nearly everything in judging) seems to be a pretty important factor.

"Im not sure why you think hurting your opponent has no bearing in being "effective" with one's "striking." Again, its not the only criteria or point of striking someone but who ever doesnt think its a major objective must be, yes, ignorant. "

Effective striking has nothing to do with damage unless it is a knockdown, wabbling, something that physically incapacitates a fighter.

To get back to the St. Pierre/Condit fight, Georges face had no impact on how he dominated that fight and to say that it did is moronic.

The idea that bumps, bruises, swelling, or cuts alone should be scored as part of the judging criteria is fuckin retarded.
11/23/12 4:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 7998
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

what distinction are you talking about?

Damage doesn't matter as long as it isn't a knockdown, someone being visibly wabbled by a heavy shot, the fight being stopped from a cut or if it was stopped because a fighter was unable to continue due to injury.

In any other sense it means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

What you said means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

I feel like I'm debating a child.

You can't define the word damage, you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage which it absolutely does not and you resort to twisting of words and "I know you are but what am I" type argument tactics.

Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does.

"I feel like I'm debating a child."

- Cuz i just reiterated what you said? My thoughts exactly.

"You can't define the word damage"

- Its when you hurt someone

"you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage"

- Ive never said that once and make it absolutely clear that that's not what i meant yet you're STILL holding on to that for dear life. Why?

"Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does."

- And you've made no case to me that it doesnt either. Get a grip dude. There i said it too.

Hurting your opponent in MMA matters.

Yes, it does.

you're an idiot.

I have better things to do.

Later.
11/23/12 4:48 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42212
MAG - 
stonepony - Yeah, Carlos did extremely well. I'm sure Georges would be the first to admit that. He did a lot better than Nick would.

gsp has admitted it - he said condit and fitch were his two toughest fights.

And of the 2, i think Condit gave GSP more of the fight. Fitch was tough as shit but cant remember if he really got anything going really at all. He just kept on coming back after GSP threw everything at him.

Condit actually knocked GSP down, had a chance to finish him, swept him, had GSP defending subs, was putting a decent licking on GSP on the ground as well. I dont think Fitch did any of that.

It still seems that people think guy on top is automatically winning the fight every second he is on top after all these years.

Im not sure Condit did better than Diaz would though, that remains to be seen. But Condit has more one strike damage power than Diaz. Diaz is an accumulator who often needs his opponent to just stand in the pocket with him to impose his game. Diaz is also easy to take down though his guard is at least as good as Condit's if not better and Condit was the first guy to sweep GSP (ever right?).

I still def wanna see GSP/Diaz and think Diaz would give GSP a good fight. GSP just doesnt have enough offense to really do a number on guys standing or on the ground these days so its hard to see him doing either to Diaz. Diaz hardly ever gets into trouble in his guard (if ever really without getting dropped first).

However, Hendricks probably has the better chance to beat GSP with the puncher's chance though Diaz would likely be more competitive in a losing affair.
11/23/12 4:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42213
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

The distinction has been made already.

Damaging your opponent matters in judging bouts in MMA (as does it in boxing, kickboxing, full contact striking sports). Its a revolutionary concept, i know.

It absolutely does not matter. Look at the judging criteria for MMA. You obviously haven't.

Nowhere does it say that whoever looks more beat up loses favour in the judges eyes.

You are simply saying what you think should be judged but in reality it is absolutely not part of the judging criteria.

Cuts dont count, broken noses dont count, swollen eyes dont count and bruises dont count.

You are living in a fantasy land.

Dude, you are still using "damage" as in "cosmetic" or "superficial damage" when the distinction has been made.

Stop doing this.

what distinction are you talking about?

Damage doesn't matter as long as it isn't a knockdown, someone being visibly wabbled by a heavy shot, the fight being stopped from a cut or if it was stopped because a fighter was unable to continue due to injury.

In any other sense it means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

What you said means nothing.

Prove me wrong.

I feel like I'm debating a child.

You can't define the word damage, you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage which it absolutely does not and you resort to twisting of words and "I know you are but what am I" type argument tactics.

Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does.

"I feel like I'm debating a child."

- Cuz i just reiterated what you said? My thoughts exactly.

"You can't define the word damage"

- Its when you hurt someone

"you have no answer to the judging criteria except to say that effective striking = damage"

- Ive never said that once and make it absolutely clear that that's not what i meant yet you're STILL holding on to that for dear life. Why?

"Get a grip dude. Damage doesn't mean shit and you have made no case that it does."

- And you've made no case to me that it doesnt either. Get a grip dude. There i said it too.

Hurting your opponent in MMA matters.

Yes, it does.

you're an idiot.

I have better things to do.

Later.

And you calling people names cuz they dont agree with you and getting mad and stuff.

So now you have better things to do, eh? After all that. All of a sudden. Tuck Tuck.

Hurting your opponent in MMA matters.

Yes, it does.
11/23/12 4:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
4thHorsemen
11 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 4/6/11
Posts: 591
I didn't think it was a close fight at all. GSP dominated him, save for that minute or so in the third round. Other than that, Condit was unable to mount any offense whatsoever.
11/23/12 4:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
289 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42215
4thHorsemen - I didn't think it was a close fight at all. GSP dominated him, save for that minute or so in the third round. Other than that, Condit was unable to mount any offense whatsoever.

Condit didnt sweep GSP?

Condit was bashing GSP's head all night in his guard?

GSP wasnt defending other sweep and sub attempts?

GSP had his way on the ground all night?

Its 2012 fellas. We need to know the game a bit more.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.