UnderGround Forums
 

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


11/25/12 11:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
OftheWay
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/16/10
Posts: 1357
MartinLav - I don't think he did any damage from the bottom. The dammage was done from the kick and top position ground and pound of Carlos. He nearly finished him there...

Other then that it was pretty loopsided.
If damage is measured by cuts, bruises, and abrasions I agree with Winklejohn. I remember watching the fight and thinking that it's unfortunate that the work put in from the bottom isn't really scored (BJJ or striking).

But I believe impact of punches, punches with the greatest potential of ending the fight, is a better measure of damage and GSP clearly did more of those types of punches. Phone Post
11/25/12 12:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8010
yellow wrkahlc - 
Porkchop - And I'm fine with leaving it at that. If someone wants to think that the faces of the fighters should be compared at the end of a fight then they can go on thinking that. It'll never happen and nor should it but they can keep on living the dream for all I care.

Gotta admit though, his face is pretty boom boom, fren.


yeah he didn't look good. It seemed like a lot of it was bruising because he didn't look quite that bad immediately after the fight, but he looked like absolute shit at the presser.
11/25/12 12:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42233
4thHorsemen - 
Wasa-B - 
4thHorsemen - 
Wasa-B - 
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.

Read my post again. I didn't say Condit didn't do anything, I said Condit was unable mount any serious offense and whatever he did was pretty much instantly nullified by GSP. The fight wasn't all that competitive, GSP looked like the far superior fighter except for the brief moment in the third. Other than that, GSP dominated Condit. Did anybody think when it went to the judges that it was gonna be close? I highly doubt it. Heck, two of the judges even gave the third round to GSP, which I disagreed with but shows my point.

I get that people are trying to show their respect to Condit because of his never give up style and I agree with it, but to say the fight was very competitive or that Condit did very well is an insult to Condit. He didn't do well and was completely outmatched by a superior fighter.

So I did read it again and you didnt say "Condit was unable to mount any serious offense," you said "Condit was unable to mount any offense whatsoever." Id say theres a bit of a diff there. ;p

I disagree that isnt wasnt competitive. On the ground it was very competitive which is why I posted those earlier questions. Are you thinking it wasnt competitive becauase GSP got the tds at will?

There's a whole world of stuff that was going on on the ground. Also, if it wasnt competitive, how come GSP never was able to tee off with GNP? His GNP campaign was not consistent at all. It was decent but more sporadic. And how come he couldnt get beyond half guard? Again, how come he was reacting or defending what Carlos was doing?

Condit made GSP work on the ground. It was very much a dog fight there and very competitive. If COndit was completely outmatched, GSP would have been teeing off consistently with GNP, really putting the hurt on Condit in a sustained manner, passing at will to not half but side and full mount, GNPing from mount, getting numerous sub attempts but he did none of that.

Regarding R3, i think that is a debatable round to score and comes down to the control vs damage/coming close to a finish arguement again.

Also, you can lose all 5 rounds and lose a dec 50-45 but the 10 must does not tell the entire story. A 50-45 can have each round in a way with the 1 guy edging out each round by a hair and still win 50-45. Im not saying GSP barely won each round but the 10 must tally does not necessarily show how close rounds are.

Sorry yes that's exactly what I mean... That Condit was unable to mount any serious offense whatsoeverever. I don't consider him throwing punches and elbows from off his back as offense, rather as defensive measures. So yes, he was unable to mount anemy serious offense except for the third round.

We can keep going back and forth on this so it's pretty pointless. If you felt that fight was conpetitive then I dunno what to say. I thought it was another dominating performance by GSP in every round except the third. at no other point did I, or anyone around me, feel like Condit was in the fight or was getting the better of GSP, which is pretty much the definition of a competitive fight.

Not sure what you consider "serious offense" then. I know its pretty subjective but you could just as much say GSP didnt put Carlos in any "serious" danger or did any "serious" damage. Again, i dont consider cuts "damage" in themselves but since GSP said himself that he got "hit a lot" and that it "hurt," ima take his word that Carlos did "damage" him outside of the kick and follow up (though GSP is always humble and gives his opponents props).

Again, I think GSP won but with respect, just because the guys you watched with agreed with you doesnt tell me anything necessarily esp when many fans still seem to have a hard time understand what's really going on on the ground, and if you thought GSP was dominating the entire time on the ground, i may have to put you in that category unfortuntately as well.
11/25/12 1:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42234
Porkchop - And I'm fine with leaving it at that. If someone wants to think that the faces of the fighters should be compared at the end of a fight then they can go on thinking that. It'll never happen and nor should it but they can keep on living the dream for all I care.

Well, looks like someone doesnt have better things to do after all.

And that someone still is defining damage exclusively in terms of cosmetic damage when the distinction has been made about 5-7 times.

Hurting guys with strikes in MMA apparently still doesnt matter.
11/25/12 1:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42235
The Tokyo Showdown - It was a good fight I would like to rewatch it. I thought both of them landed nice shots on the feet and Condit was landing well from the ground. I don't agree with the 2 types of fans breakdown, some people are saying Condit landed well off his back, more than GSP landed to him, and are therefor questioning who should have been winning decision points. These people are the minority.

Also.. scoring based on superficial damage Has happened.. it's not a dream..




ONE FC Judging Criteria:
Near KO or Submission
Damage (Internal, Accumulated, Superficial)
Striking combinations and cage generalship (Ground control, Superior positioning)
Earned takedowns or takedown defense

PRIDE FC
Decision
If the match goes the distance, then the outcome of the bout is determined by the three judges. A decision is made according to the following: the effort made to finish the fight via KO or submission, damage given to the opponent, standing combinations & ground control, aggressiveness and weight (in the case that the weight difference is 10kg/22lbs or more). The above criteria are listed according to priority. The fight is scored in its entirety and not round by round. After the third round, each judge must decide a winner. Matches cannot end in a draw.



There are some minor differences to UFC scoring such as UFC specifies that effective striking is defined strictly as the raw # of strikes landed.


Overall, it seems being on top, even if the person is striking very well from the bottom, is considered dominant and controlling enough to nullify any bottom strikes, although I remember Zaromskis winning a TKO stoppage against Spiritwolf when he opened a nasty cut with an elbow off his back.

I didnt mention Pride since we're going by UFC/unified rules but any serious fan knows about this.

Matt Hume also had segment on it in a Pride broadcast to explain. Of course, as mentioned, criteria aside, bias and subjectivity are always a factor too no matter what the criteria on paper in any org.

But yeah...guess i wasnt dreaming after all.

And the word "effective striking" i dont believe is defined in the unified rules either and if it was, that's a very wide and subjective term to define. Its more something you have to understand.

To think damaging/hurting someone is not effective striking is more dreamy though imo.
11/25/12 1:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/25/05
Posts: 24411
Condit did well, but really, GSP was a BEAST.

Took a death kick to the head, about 20 seconds of continuous striking with Condit on top.

GSP recovered, got up to his feet, connected Condit with 3-4 solid strikes and took him down like a child and started to pound on Condit once again. BEAST!
11/25/12 1:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42236
Porkchop - I think at the heart of this issue is the difference between the two main types of fans.

One type believes that all fighters should always be going for the kill at all costs. They dislike game-planning and think that a fighter that fights to win rather than finishing at all costs is a coward. They also believe that fighting is a form of entertainment.

The other type feels that fighters have the right to fight however they want and as long as they are fighting within the rules and show that they can win within those rules then they deserve to win and be congratulated for it. They admire game-planning and the strategies are as interesting as seeing two guys who have no game-plan just slugging it out. Maybe even more interesting to them is the strategy. These fans don't believe that fighters owe them an "exciting at all costs" fight and they also believe that they are just privileged to see the best fighters in the world facing off against each other.

I'm guessing that this difference of opinion boils down to this.

The fact that damage (aside from the obvious damage like knockdowns and shots that hurt a fighter heavily) is not a judging criteria is evident but some feel that it should be a criteria.... That is the difference in opinions here.

I dont believe all fighters should always be going for the kill at all costs

I dont dislike gameplanning, I love it.

I dont believe a fighter that fights to win rather than finishing at all costs is a coward

Fighting/MMA/prosports are however a form of entertainment but MMA is a sport on its own merit first and foremost.

There are many that do believe the above but im not sure how you can roll someone like me into that esp since ive spent much of my existence on this forum arguing against those very many things.

I was one of those guys defending Condit's fight against Diaz as well (though i thought it was very close and didnt think Carlos hit it out of the park, neither did Diaz).

The difference in those camps doesnt just boil down to that though as this is the first time ive heard anyone ever mention what you are mentioning in terms of damage and ive wasted many hours on here over the years.

Interestingly, you also seem to have expanded on your definition of damage and have even used a very word that i used i defining it: "hurt."

Have to lol here.
11/25/12 1:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8011
irishman84 - 
Porkchop - 
Chiron - 
Porkchop - Too bad this isnt the ultimate damage causing championships. Also, if damage is the most important thing, how much does blood count for? Carlos was a bloody mess from the last minute of the first round till the end of the fight.

Carlos fought a great fight but Georges is undoubtedly the better fighter.

Absolutely stupid comment. You do realize damage is the most important, if not the only thing that actually matters in a fight, short of a finish right? Everything else is only important if it actually results in one of those two things. Otherwise it was all for nothing.

How about we don't score fights until the press conference then?

Everyone seems to be talking about how beat up GSP looked an hour after the fight compared to Condit.

Let's not call fights until an hour after when we can tell who is more beat up.

Don't be dumb, all that matters are the techniques and who fought better.

with all due respect, i think ur missing the point brother. We arent saying judge the fights on damage as much as judge the cause of that damage. Some of these fucking morons really believe that all that damage was caused from one fucking hk in the 3rd. Most of these same people give points just for being on top and essentially believe that its impossible for the bottom to outscore said top. With the Condit/ GSP fight it wasnt even just the cosmetic damage... Look watch the last minute or so plus and minus the final bell. Thats not victory on Georges face thats DEFEAT and PAIN. and it only gets worse through the post fight media THAT IS WHY people keep bringing it up - because it's jumping out of the televsion screen @ you!

[talking television's dialoque/ message]: Holy shit this fucking guy that they are about to give the win to for "mostly" wrestle-fucking is FUCKED UP both physically and mentally and WOW... look at the "loser/ defeated/ vanquished" - he looks nothing like the loser/ defeated/ vanquished by comparison!

a little later at the press conference, the computer starts in with insights and images that are strange/ contradictory/ and thought provoking to any but the most biased of GSP wrestle-fuck fanatics.

[computer]: Wow i heard from the TV that GSP got the worst of it but GOTDAYUM he is one hurting motherfucking unit and should probably be under at least 24 hours observation in case he slips into a coma! and would you look at that... a few paper towels and that cut of Condits doesnt look so bad. Maybe they should try the paper towel trick on the mess that is GSP's face.

I agree that the damage shouldn't be scored but rather the strikes of the fight should. GSP unquestionably outstruck Condit.

Then you get into which strikes were more significant. They keep track of those too. GSP won that category too.

Then beyond that, you would have to score shots that cause a bloody nose, fat lip, swelling and somehow develop a ranking system for those shots and say which ones matter the most and the least. That isimpossible imo.

While Carlos landed a number of good shots throughout the fight, the majority of the damage he scored was immediately after the headkick. He was bashing Georges' face in from on top. After that exchange, Georges had some new cuts, more swelling and I believe that is where he sustained the majority of the damage from the fight.

I recognize though that it is really difficult to say exactly where and when specific damage was caused and so i dont even feel comfortable stating that that was the moment where most of the damage was caused. But to me, that highlights one of the problems with scoring the damage - it's so hard to say where and when it occurred exactly. And then of course there is the problem with deciding what shot is worth more to the judges - one that lands clean and snaps the head back vs one that seems less damaging but causes a cut or swelling.

It's so hard to say how it would work any other way than it does right now. And with the state of judging today, if we expect more criteria that is so subjective, we could make it far worse than it is today. The more ridgid of a structure the judges have to work with, the less chance they will fuck up the scoring imo.

Now I understand that you are saying judge the cause of the damage but as i mentioned earlier, then you have to decide what damage is worth more, what shot it was that caused the damage, and then you have to look at the fighters at the ende to see if your damage points are proportionate to which fighter looks more beat up.

It just wouldn't work.
11/25/12 1:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 11/25/12 1:24 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42237
Entreri - GSP damaged Carlos quite a bit from the ground. Carlos was also bleeding a river.

95% of damage Carlos did was from that kick and connected with some strikes as George recovered.

Minus that, GSP would look like he usually does after a fight.

Bleeding a river doesnt really mean much though. You can cut someone and make them bleed profusely without really "hurting" them. But as Condit said, it looks good and fans like it.

I would also disagree with the 95% damage thing. That was obviously the most significant damage done as it could have put George away but i also saw GSP getting hit all night in Carlos' guard. Hard to quantify the whole thing but i bet that it wasnt comfortable for George and that was what he was alluding to when he said "he hit me a lot, it was painful..."

It def effected GSP from getting into a better riddum on the ground though imo o and def helped open things up for Condit to dictate some of the ground action as well. Condit was very active from his guard.

Also, as very as GSP damaging Condit on the ground, GSP def has some GNP of his own but i think Condit landed more though obviously top position GNP is generally more powerful, i never really saw GSP tee off with that much of quality GNP and not that often.

I wanted to see more of it but i think a major reason he wasnt able to lead a sustained heavy GNP campaign was in fact that Carlos was also hitting GSP and also being active with sub and sweep attempts.

Every time GSP would posture up to GNP, it was like 2 shots and then he would base out and cover. He didnt keep on pounding away because he wasnt able to maintain that posture.
11/25/12 1:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8012
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - I think at the heart of this issue is the difference between the two main types of fans.

One type believes that all fighters should always be going for the kill at all costs. They dislike game-planning and think that a fighter that fights to win rather than finishing at all costs is a coward. They also believe that fighting is a form of entertainment.

The other type feels that fighters have the right to fight however they want and as long as they are fighting within the rules and show that they can win within those rules then they deserve to win and be congratulated for it. They admire game-planning and the strategies are as interesting as seeing two guys who have no game-plan just slugging it out. Maybe even more interesting to them is the strategy. These fans don't believe that fighters owe them an "exciting at all costs" fight and they also believe that they are just privileged to see the best fighters in the world facing off against each other.

I'm guessing that this difference of opinion boils down to this.

The fact that damage (aside from the obvious damage like knockdowns and shots that hurt a fighter heavily) is not a judging criteria is evident but some feel that it should be a criteria.... That is the difference in opinions here.

I dont believe all fighters should always be going for the kill at all costs

I dont dislike gameplanning, I love it.

I dont believe a fighter that fights to win rather than finishing at all costs is a coward

Fighting/MMA/prosports are however a form of entertainment but MMA is a sport on its own merit first and foremost.

There are many that do believe the above but im not sure how you can roll someone like me into that esp since ive spent much of my existence on this forum arguing against those very many things.

I was one of those guys defending Condit's fight against Diaz as well (though i thought it was very close and didnt think Carlos hit it out of the park, neither did Diaz).

The difference in those camps doesnt just boil down to that though as this is the first time ive heard anyone ever mention what you are mentioning in terms of damage and ive wasted many hours on here over the years.

Interestingly, you also seem to have expanded on your definition of damage and have even used a very word that i used i defining it: "hurt."

Have to lol here.

When i use the term hurt I think I'm using it in a different way than you are though. I dont think that damage to the skin should count for anything really. If you think it should, then how much does a pint of blood count for? Because Condit leaked all over the ring for that entire fight.

It just doesnt work realistically to try to account for damage to the face.

But you keep stating that cosmetic damage doesnt mean anything to you.


Please summarize your position because at this point I'm not sure where you are at.
11/25/12 1:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Entreri
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/25/05
Posts: 24413
Wasa-B - 
Entreri - GSP damaged Carlos quite a bit from the ground. Carlos was also bleeding a river.

95% of damage Carlos did was from that kick and connected with some strikes as George recovered.

Minus that, GSP would look like he usually does after a fight.

Bleeding a river doesnt really mean much though. You can cut someone and make them bleed profusely without really "hurting" them. But as Condit said, it looks good and fans like it.

I would also disagree with the 95% damage thing. That was obviously the most significant damage done as it could have put George away but i also saw GSP getting hit all night in Carlos' guard. Hard to quantify the whole thing but i bet that it wasnt comfortable for George and that was what he was alluding to when he said "he hit me a lot, it was painful..."

It def effected GSP from getting into a better riddum on the ground though imo o and def helped open things up for Condit to dictate some of the ground action as well. Condit was very active from his guard.

Also, as very as GSP damaging Condit on the ground, GSP def has some GNP of his own but i think Condit landed more though obviously top position GNP is generally more powerful, i never really saw GSP tee off with that much of quality GNP and not that often.

I wanted to see more of it but i think a major reason he wasnt able to lead a sustained heavy GNP campaign was in fact that Carlos was also hitting GSP and also being active with sub and sweep attempts.

Every time GSP would posture up to GNP, it was like 2 shots and then he would base out and cover. He didnt keep on pounding away because he wasnt able to maintain that posture.

We will disagree.

Only time GSP was hurt was from that kick and Carlos GnP afterwards. GSP was on cruise control before that and pretty much afterwards.
11/25/12 1:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8013
The thing is that this debate can never come to an end until one of the people who feel the damage should count for more comes up with a judging system that accounts for it.

Keep in mind that effective striking does not mean damage. It means clean shots that land flush. If you want to have damage a part of the criteria, come up with a structured system of judging that includes damage and what possible damage counts for more or less than the next. It must have a gradient of damage from most significant to least significant.

Until we have an idea of what your goal is or what you want to be changed, this debate is just a waste of everyones time.

So there is the task, to bring an end to this pointless debate that will effect no change, propose a system of judging that might cause a change in the way you want. Who knows, maybe Keith Kizer will read it and adopt it into the unified rules....

Until then, i dont see what your goal could be in debating this issue.

I look forward to seeing the rules systems that everyone comes up with.
11/25/12 1:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BaraoKix
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/20/12
Posts: 6965

Who else has beaten Carlos that badly before?
11/25/12 1:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42239
Porkchop - 
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - I think at the heart of this issue is the difference between the two main types of fans.

One type believes that all fighters should always be going for the kill at all costs. They dislike game-planning and think that a fighter that fights to win rather than finishing at all costs is a coward. They also believe that fighting is a form of entertainment.

The other type feels that fighters have the right to fight however they want and as long as they are fighting within the rules and show that they can win within those rules then they deserve to win and be congratulated for it. They admire game-planning and the strategies are as interesting as seeing two guys who have no game-plan just slugging it out. Maybe even more interesting to them is the strategy. These fans don't believe that fighters owe them an "exciting at all costs" fight and they also believe that they are just privileged to see the best fighters in the world facing off against each other.

I'm guessing that this difference of opinion boils down to this.

The fact that damage (aside from the obvious damage like knockdowns and shots that hurt a fighter heavily) is not a judging criteria is evident but some feel that it should be a criteria.... That is the difference in opinions here.

I dont believe all fighters should always be going for the kill at all costs

I dont dislike gameplanning, I love it.

I dont believe a fighter that fights to win rather than finishing at all costs is a coward

Fighting/MMA/prosports are however a form of entertainment but MMA is a sport on its own merit first and foremost.

There are many that do believe the above but im not sure how you can roll someone like me into that esp since ive spent much of my existence on this forum arguing against those very many things.

I was one of those guys defending Condit's fight against Diaz as well (though i thought it was very close and didnt think Carlos hit it out of the park, neither did Diaz).

The difference in those camps doesnt just boil down to that though as this is the first time ive heard anyone ever mention what you are mentioning in terms of damage and ive wasted many hours on here over the years.

Interestingly, you also seem to have expanded on your definition of damage and have even used a very word that i used i defining it: "hurt."

Have to lol here.

When i use the term hurt I think I'm using it in a different way than you are though. I dont think that damage to the skin should count for anything really. If you think it should, then how much does a pint of blood count for? Because Condit leaked all over the ring for that entire fight.

It just doesnt work realistically to try to account for damage to the face.

But you keep stating that cosmetic damage doesnt mean anything to you.


Please summarize your position because at this point I'm not sure where you are at.

Guess there arent any better things to do on a Sunday afternoon than talk mma bs on the UG righT? ;p

Im using the term "hurt" in the same way as you or in the only real meaning of it imo, to "hurt" someone, to cause them "pain" or "damage."

So you're finally acknowledging that im not weighing cosmetic damage heavily. Thank you. It only took about 5-10 tries. I wouldnt say cosmetic damage means nothing though as you put it yourself, strikes that land matter and are scored.

But strikes that cut for example are usually overrated probably by both judges and fans because they LOOK good. But as mentioned above in terms of GSP cutting Condit with the elbow, it doesnt tell us how badly Condit was actually "hurt" from it though.

So we have strikes that score and strikes that visibly rock or wobble or then drop someone (though dropping someone can also occur from off-balancing them and not necessarily hurting them too).

The quality of strikes should also matter in addition to quanity. But of course its difficult to judge the quality of the strikes. Some snap a fighter's head back - which shows that it landed cleanly but we dont know if those actually "hurt" the guy but it should obviously count as a solid or well connected blow.

I believe you also mentioned in another post that about how significant or "power" strikes are scored/tallied/measured by things like Fightmetric but those are judged/scored entirely from landing from the power hand or leg, no? And as the Condit fight showed (im not arguing that Condit didnt win btw), he had a high power strike tally but many of them were light or "weak" or not really power shots as we know them. But he was still landing with the power hand or leg, still legit, still scoring.

But the point is that Fightmetric means something but if cuts down tell the whole story, neither do stats. Stats cannot measure the real quality or damage of strikes. We all know judging how much strikes hurt or effect the other is difficult. A punch that does not snap the head back but lands square and flush can hurt someone but they may not show it.

But the bottom line is that hurting the other guy does matter. Im not saying its clear on how to score it (how do score between 5 strikes that all may have landed to different effect)? But to say that hurting or damaging your opponent (short of visibly wobbling them) doesnt matter is obviously incorrect.
11/25/12 1:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42240
Entreri - 
Wasa-B - 
Entreri - GSP damaged Carlos quite a bit from the ground. Carlos was also bleeding a river.

95% of damage Carlos did was from that kick and connected with some strikes as George recovered.

Minus that, GSP would look like he usually does after a fight.

Bleeding a river doesnt really mean much though. You can cut someone and make them bleed profusely without really "hurting" them. But as Condit said, it looks good and fans like it.

I would also disagree with the 95% damage thing. That was obviously the most significant damage done as it could have put George away but i also saw GSP getting hit all night in Carlos' guard. Hard to quantify the whole thing but i bet that it wasnt comfortable for George and that was what he was alluding to when he said "he hit me a lot, it was painful..."

It def effected GSP from getting into a better riddum on the ground though imo o and def helped open things up for Condit to dictate some of the ground action as well. Condit was very active from his guard.

Also, as very as GSP damaging Condit on the ground, GSP def has some GNP of his own but i think Condit landed more though obviously top position GNP is generally more powerful, i never really saw GSP tee off with that much of quality GNP and not that often.

I wanted to see more of it but i think a major reason he wasnt able to lead a sustained heavy GNP campaign was in fact that Carlos was also hitting GSP and also being active with sub and sweep attempts.

Every time GSP would posture up to GNP, it was like 2 shots and then he would base out and cover. He didnt keep on pounding away because he wasnt able to maintain that posture.

We will disagree.

Only time GSP was hurt was from that kick and Carlos GnP afterwards. GSP was on cruise control before that and pretty much afterwards.

No prob on disagreeing but i do have a problem with anyone thinking that GSP dominated the ground.

Obviously GSP was really only significantly hurt from the kick and follow up.

But then you say that GSP was on "cruise control" before and after. That could mean also that he wasnt doing much significant offense of his own on the ground either.

And i def did not see GSP on cruise control, i saw him in a real battle on the ground. Both guys were doing lots of stuff in terms of GNP and grappling.

Again, GSP won but Condit made him work, Condit gave him battle all the way thru.
11/25/12 2:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8015
irishman84 - 
Porkchop - 
irishman84 - 
Porkchop - 
Chiron - 
Porkchop - Too bad this isnt the ultimate damage causing championships. Also, if damage is the most important thing, how much does blood count for? Carlos was a bloody mess from the last minute of the first round till the end of the fight.

Carlos fought a great fight but Georges is undoubtedly the better fighter.

Absolutely stupid comment. You do realize damage is the most important, if not the only thing that actually matters in a fight, short of a finish right? Everything else is only important if it actually results in one of those two things. Otherwise it was all for nothing.

How about we don't score fights until the press conference then?

Everyone seems to be talking about how beat up GSP looked an hour after the fight compared to Condit.

Let's not call fights until an hour after when we can tell who is more beat up.

Don't be dumb, all that matters are the techniques and who fought better.

with all due respect, i think ur missing the point brother. We arent saying judge the fights on damage as much as judge the cause of that damage. Some of these fucking morons really believe that all that damage was caused from one fucking hk in the 3rd. Most of these same people give points just for being on top and essentially believe that its impossible for the bottom to outscore said top. With the Condit/ GSP fight it wasnt even just the cosmetic damage... Look watch the last minute or so plus and minus the final bell. Thats not victory on Georges face thats DEFEAT and PAIN. and it only gets worse through the post fight media THAT IS WHY people keep bringing it up - because it's jumping out of the televsion screen @ you!

[talking television's dialoque/ message]: Holy shit this fucking guy that they are about to give the win to for "mostly" wrestle-fucking is FUCKED UP both physically and mentally and WOW... look at the "loser/ defeated/ vanquished" - he looks nothing like the loser/ defeated/ vanquished by comparison!

a little later at the press conference, the computer starts in with insights and images that are strange/ contradictory/ and thought provoking to any but the most biased of GSP wrestle-fuck fanatics.

[computer]: Wow i heard from the TV that GSP got the worst of it but GOTDAYUM he is one hurting motherfucking unit and should probably be under at least 24 hours observation in case he slips into a coma! and would you look at that... a few paper towels and that cut of Condits doesnt look so bad. Maybe they should try the paper towel trick on the mess that is GSP's face.

I agree that the damage shouldn't be scored but rather the strikes of the fight should. GSP unquestionably outstruck Condit.

Then you get into which strikes were more significant. They keep track of those too. GSP won that category too.

Then beyond that, you would have to score shots that cause a bloody nose, fat lip, swelling and somehow develop a ranking system for those shots and say which ones matter the most and the least. That isimpossible imo.

While Carlos landed a number of good shots throughout the fight, the majority of the damage he scored was immediately after the headkick. He was bashing Georges' face in from on top. After that exchange, Georges had some new cuts, more swelling and I believe that is where he sustained the majority of the damage from the fight.

I recognize though that it is really difficult to say exactly where and when specific damage was caused and so i dont even feel comfortable stating that that was the moment where most of the damage was caused. But to me, that highlights one of the problems with scoring the damage - it's so hard to say where and when it occurred exactly. And then of course there is the problem with deciding what shot is worth more to the judges - one that lands clean and snaps the head back vs one that seems less damaging but causes a cut or swelling.

It's so hard to say how it would work any other way than it does right now. And with the state of judging today, if we expect more criteria that is so subjective, we could make it far worse than it is today. The more ridgid of a structure the judges have to work with, the less chance they will fuck up the scoring imo.

Now I understand that you are saying judge the cause of the damage but as i mentioned earlier, then you have to decide what damage is worth more, what shot it was that caused the damage, and then you have to look at the fighters at the ende to see if your damage points are proportionate to which fighter looks more beat up.

It just wouldn't work.

You go ahead and let them keep track of significant strikes for you bro i can handle that myself. He absolutely DID NOT "clearly outstrike Condit". Thats jridiculous. GSP was going for takedowns for a reason... Because he was uncomfortable standing. and again, talk about not being able to judge fights on damage all you want but ur an absolute clown if you can look at their faces and tell me GSP landed more sig strikes because "THEY keep track of those". I agree there are exceptions to the damage rule but its pretty easy to tell which are the exceptions and this is not one of them. I refuse to call the guy with is head beat in at the end of the fight the winner because he got takedowns and controlled position. Those TDs will hurt in the morning lol. Not to mention the fact that Condit almost finised George and and the opposite cant be said. Im not going to go into explaining the sig strikes behind the more sig damage or the various other examples of Condit's scoring during the fight because its over, but if you really got from that fight what ur saying u did, i can only conclude that ur either a notorious wrestle-fucker yourself or ghey and similar to a broad, uncomfortable with the more deliberate violence displayed by the more dangerous species of mm-artist.

Wow, i thought we might have an intelligent conversation. So much for that.

Look, if you don't believe the fight statistics then that's your problem and i can't help you. Also, if you think that Georges just does takedowns to avoid the striking of his opponents, then once again, you're on your own. i wont bother trying to inform you otherwise.

It must really suck watching MMA when you hate the judging system so much.

If you truely think that the faces of the fighters is what maters most as you keep restating, sucks to be you. Fights will never be judged like that and nor should they.

12'ers gonna 12.
11/25/12 2:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42241
Porkchop - The thing is that this debate can never come to an end until one of the people who feel the damage should count for more comes up with a judging system that accounts for it.

Keep in mind that effective striking does not mean damage. It means clean shots that land flush. If you want to have damage a part of the criteria, come up with a structured system of judging that includes damage and what possible damage counts for more or less than the next. It must have a gradient of damage from most significant to least significant.

Until we have an idea of what your goal is or what you want to be changed, this debate is just a waste of everyones time.

So there is the task, to bring an end to this pointless debate that will effect no change, propose a system of judging that might cause a change in the way you want. Who knows, maybe Keith Kizer will read it and adopt it into the unified rules....

Until then, i dont see what your goal could be in debating this issue.

I look forward to seeing the rules systems that everyone comes up with.

"The thing is that this debate can never come to an end until one of the people who feel the damage should count for more comes up with a judging system that accounts for it."

- Some debates are eternal and evolve. The debate about top position for example being scored too highly automatically in the UFC has been doing on forever and there isnt a judding system that can reflect it, its more the knowledge of the judge himself. Same goes for scoring striking imo.

"Keep in mind that effective striking does not mean damage."

- Says who? You? Where does it say that in the judging criteria you quoted? I would say that it does not mean damage exclusively but i would def say that is one of the things that consitutues "effective striking" and i believe most people would agree with me here.

"It means clean shots that land flush. If you want to have damage a part of the criteria, come up with a structured system of judging that includes damage and what possible damage counts for more or less than the next. It must have a gradient of damage from most significant to least significant."

- You're acting as if there is a scientific method for the human eye to know when all strikes land "flush" on another person. There is not structured system for that either.

Now it may be easier to see/judge when strikes land "flush" over "damaging"/"hurting" someone but that doesnt mean landing "flush" is always easy, clear and scientifically proven or even defined either. And even if it were defined, it doesnt mean the 3 judges will score said "flush" strike the same.

"Until we have an idea of what your goal is or what you want to be changed, this debate is just a waste of everyones time.

So there is the task, to bring an end to this pointless debate that will effect no change, propose a system of judging that might cause a change in the way you want. Who knows, maybe Keith Kizer will read it and adopt it into the unified rules....

Until then, i dont see what your goal could be in debating this issue.

I look forward to seeing the rules systems that everyone comes up with."

There will never ever been a perfect rule/judging system either on paper or person. Boxing, a sport that only deals with striking has been around forever and even without politics/corruption, there have and always will be contested decisions. Why? Is it a problem with the judging styems or judges or both?

How about judging/weighing leg kicks, strikes the body vs the head? How does the current judging system clearly define how to score what and how much? Wasnt this a big debate from the Condit/Diaz bout, Shogun/Machida 1?

I think you're making this more complex than is. I think the judges (and fans) already do take into account the quality of the shots vs the quantity and that in itself is a subjective and non-clearly defined metric to weigh.

And of course judging the quality of shots, hurting someone is always a question of debate and always will be. This isnt a new debate either. Boxing/kickboxing has been dealing with it forever. There is no theory (criteria written down on paper) that can solve this. It comes down more to the knowledge of the judges esp in the MMA context imo.
11/25/12 2:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42242
Porkchop - 
irishman84 - 
Porkchop - 
irishman84 - 
Porkchop - 
Chiron - 
Porkchop - Too bad this isnt the ultimate damage causing championships. Also, if damage is the most important thing, how much does blood count for? Carlos was a bloody mess from the last minute of the first round till the end of the fight.

Carlos fought a great fight but Georges is undoubtedly the better fighter.

Absolutely stupid comment. You do realize damage is the most important, if not the only thing that actually matters in a fight, short of a finish right? Everything else is only important if it actually results in one of those two things. Otherwise it was all for nothing.

How about we don't score fights until the press conference then?

Everyone seems to be talking about how beat up GSP looked an hour after the fight compared to Condit.

Let's not call fights until an hour after when we can tell who is more beat up.

Don't be dumb, all that matters are the techniques and who fought better.

with all due respect, i think ur missing the point brother. We arent saying judge the fights on damage as much as judge the cause of that damage. Some of these fucking morons really believe that all that damage was caused from one fucking hk in the 3rd. Most of these same people give points just for being on top and essentially believe that its impossible for the bottom to outscore said top. With the Condit/ GSP fight it wasnt even just the cosmetic damage... Look watch the last minute or so plus and minus the final bell. Thats not victory on Georges face thats DEFEAT and PAIN. and it only gets worse through the post fight media THAT IS WHY people keep bringing it up - because it's jumping out of the televsion screen @ you!

[talking television's dialoque/ message]: Holy shit this fucking guy that they are about to give the win to for "mostly" wrestle-fucking is FUCKED UP both physically and mentally and WOW... look at the "loser/ defeated/ vanquished" - he looks nothing like the loser/ defeated/ vanquished by comparison!

a little later at the press conference, the computer starts in with insights and images that are strange/ contradictory/ and thought provoking to any but the most biased of GSP wrestle-fuck fanatics.

[computer]: Wow i heard from the TV that GSP got the worst of it but GOTDAYUM he is one hurting motherfucking unit and should probably be under at least 24 hours observation in case he slips into a coma! and would you look at that... a few paper towels and that cut of Condits doesnt look so bad. Maybe they should try the paper towel trick on the mess that is GSP's face.

I agree that the damage shouldn't be scored but rather the strikes of the fight should. GSP unquestionably outstruck Condit.

Then you get into which strikes were more significant. They keep track of those too. GSP won that category too.

Then beyond that, you would have to score shots that cause a bloody nose, fat lip, swelling and somehow develop a ranking system for those shots and say which ones matter the most and the least. That isimpossible imo.

While Carlos landed a number of good shots throughout the fight, the majority of the damage he scored was immediately after the headkick. He was bashing Georges' face in from on top. After that exchange, Georges had some new cuts, more swelling and I believe that is where he sustained the majority of the damage from the fight.

I recognize though that it is really difficult to say exactly where and when specific damage was caused and so i dont even feel comfortable stating that that was the moment where most of the damage was caused. But to me, that highlights one of the problems with scoring the damage - it's so hard to say where and when it occurred exactly. And then of course there is the problem with deciding what shot is worth more to the judges - one that lands clean and snaps the head back vs one that seems less damaging but causes a cut or swelling.

It's so hard to say how it would work any other way than it does right now. And with the state of judging today, if we expect more criteria that is so subjective, we could make it far worse than it is today. The more ridgid of a structure the judges have to work with, the less chance they will fuck up the scoring imo.

Now I understand that you are saying judge the cause of the damage but as i mentioned earlier, then you have to decide what damage is worth more, what shot it was that caused the damage, and then you have to look at the fighters at the ende to see if your damage points are proportionate to which fighter looks more beat up.

It just wouldn't work.

You go ahead and let them keep track of significant strikes for you bro i can handle that myself. He absolutely DID NOT "clearly outstrike Condit". Thats jridiculous. GSP was going for takedowns for a reason... Because he was uncomfortable standing. and again, talk about not being able to judge fights on damage all you want but ur an absolute clown if you can look at their faces and tell me GSP landed more sig strikes because "THEY keep track of those". I agree there are exceptions to the damage rule but its pretty easy to tell which are the exceptions and this is not one of them. I refuse to call the guy with is head beat in at the end of the fight the winner because he got takedowns and controlled position. Those TDs will hurt in the morning lol. Not to mention the fact that Condit almost finised George and and the opposite cant be said. Im not going to go into explaining the sig strikes behind the more sig damage or the various other examples of Condit's scoring during the fight because its over, but if you really got from that fight what ur saying u did, i can only conclude that ur either a notorious wrestle-fucker yourself or ghey and similar to a broad, uncomfortable with the more deliberate violence displayed by the more dangerous species of mm-artist.

Wow, i thought we might have an intelligent conversation. So much for that.

Look, if you don't believe the fight statistics then that's your problem and i can't help you. Also, if you think that Georges just does takedowns to avoid the striking of his opponents, then once again, you're on your own. i wont bother trying to inform you otherwise.

It must really suck watching MMA when you hate the judging system so much.

If you truely think that the faces of the fighters is what maters most as you keep restating, sucks to be you. Fights will never be judged like that and nor should they.

12'ers gonna 12.

7ers gonna 7

1ers gonna 1?
11/25/12 2:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Porkchop
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/26/07
Posts: 8016
Wasa-B - 
Porkchop - The thing is that this debate can never come to an end until one of the people who feel the damage should count for more comes up with a judging system that accounts for it.

Keep in mind that effective striking does not mean damage. It means clean shots that land flush. If you want to have damage a part of the criteria, come up with a structured system of judging that includes damage and what possible damage counts for more or less than the next. It must have a gradient of damage from most significant to least significant.

Until we have an idea of what your goal is or what you want to be changed, this debate is just a waste of everyones time.

So there is the task, to bring an end to this pointless debate that will effect no change, propose a system of judging that might cause a change in the way you want. Who knows, maybe Keith Kizer will read it and adopt it into the unified rules....

Until then, i dont see what your goal could be in debating this issue.

I look forward to seeing the rules systems that everyone comes up with.

"The thing is that this debate can never come to an end until one of the people who feel the damage should count for more comes up with a judging system that accounts for it."

- Some debates are eternal and evolve. The debate about top position for example being scored too highly automatically in the UFC has been doing on forever and there isnt a judding system that can reflect it, its more the knowledge of the judge himself. Same goes for scoring striking imo.

"Keep in mind that effective striking does not mean damage."

- Says who? You? Where does it say that in the judging criteria you quoted? I would say that it does not mean damage exclusively but i would def say that is one of the things that consitutues "effective striking" and i believe most people would agree with me here.

"It means clean shots that land flush. If you want to have damage a part of the criteria, come up with a structured system of judging that includes damage and what possible damage counts for more or less than the next. It must have a gradient of damage from most significant to least significant."

- You're acting as if there is a scientific method for the human eye to know when all strikes land "flush" on another person. There is not structured system for that either.

Now it may be easier to see/judge when strikes land "flush" over "damaging"/"hurting" someone but that doesnt mean landing "flush" is always easy, clear and scientifically proven or even defined either. And even if it were defined, it doesnt mean the 3 judges will score said "flush" strike the same.

"Until we have an idea of what your goal is or what you want to be changed, this debate is just a waste of everyones time.

So there is the task, to bring an end to this pointless debate that will effect no change, propose a system of judging that might cause a change in the way you want. Who knows, maybe Keith Kizer will read it and adopt it into the unified rules....

Until then, i dont see what your goal could be in debating this issue.

I look forward to seeing the rules systems that everyone comes up with."

There will never ever been a perfect rule/judging system either on paper or person. Boxing, a sport that only deals with striking has been around forever and even without politics/corruption, there have and always will be contested decisions. Why? Is it a problem with the judging styems or judges or both?

How about judging/weighing leg kicks, strikes the body vs the head? How does the current judging system clearly define how to score what and how much? Wasnt this a big debate from the Condit/Diaz bout, Shogun/Machida 1?

I think you're making this more complex than is. I think the judges (and fans) already do take into account the quality of the shots vs the quantity and that in itself is a subjective and non-clearly defined metric to weigh.

And of course judging the quality of shots, hurting someone is always a question of debate and always will be. This isnt a new debate either. Boxing/kickboxing has been dealing with it forever. There is no theory (criteria written down on paper) that can solve this. It comes down more to the knowledge of the judges esp in the MMA context imo.

""Keep in mind that effective striking does not mean damage."

- Says who? You? Where does it say that in the judging criteria you quoted? I would say that it does not mean damage exclusively but i would def say that is one of the things that consitutues "effective striking" and i believe most people would agree with me here."


Taken from Fight Metric - slightly more respected source of judging criteria than Wasa-B


"This volume or "counting" stat is one of the higher-profile records in MMA. It simply asks the question "which fighter has dished out the greatest volume of punishment in the history of the sport?" A quick definition: significant strikes refer to all strikes at distance and power strikes in the clinch and on the ground. It does not include small, short strikes in the clinch and on the ground. Those will be included in the Total Strikes category."


"You're acting as if there is a scientific method for the human eye to know when all strikes land "flush" on another person. There is not structured system for that either."

- Wow. Why do you bother if you want to dispute the ability of judges to decide which punches land flush??? If you hate MMA judges that much then just become one. Otherwise, let them do their job.

What I gathered from your last post is that you see flaws in the way strikes are scored and that you think you know better than the judges themselves on how to score them.

There is not much more I can do to help you with this. I showed you the judging criteria and you tried to say that effective striking is the equivalent of damage. So I posted above Fight Metric's definition of significant strikes and it doesn't really match up with the way you defined it as only being the power hand or leg.

I'm sure you will continue to debate this stuff till the end of time but the fact is that I posted the judging criteria, the definition of significant strikes and asked you to propose a new system and none of it has meant anything to you.

Good luck winning arguments on a forum about judging problems but the fact of the matter is that until you take your concerns to the commissions and try to effect some change, you are just another keyboard warrior complaining to people who dont care about your opinion.

Have fun!
11/26/12 2:54 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42247
Your Fight Metric quote (which is also not the Unified Rules you quoted earlier, which is where the term "effective striking" comes from) seems to define "significant strikes" and not "effective striking." Funny enough it also mentions "punishment."

Also, the "significant strikes" thing really wasnt the meat of the discussion, i merely mentioned it as an example of how much debate it stirred after the Condit/Diaz fight. But it appears you took the opportunity to find a quote somewhere that corrected me on a definition (one that I incidentally mentioned with a question mark to begin with.

Bravo.

My quote is here:

"I believe you also mentioned in another post that about how significant or "power" strikes are scored/tallied/measured by things like Fightmetric but those are judged/scored entirely from landing from the power hand or leg, no? And as the Condit fight showed (im not arguing that Condit didnt win btw), he had a high power strike tally but many of them were light or "weak" or not really power shots as we know them. But he was still landing with the power hand or leg, still legit, still scoring."

"Why do you bother if you want to dispute the ability of judges to decide which punches land flush???"

- Because there are different degrees of "flush" and because there are also different angles that all judges are not privy to exactly the same (common factor in discussion of boxing judging).

"If you hate MMA judges that much then just become one. Otherwise, let them do their job.'

- I dont hate them, dont want to be one but you may have noticed that the level of respect they have is quote poor from the UG to BLAF. Are you also gonna ask me to fight one of the fighters I supposedly hate?

"I showed you the judging criteria and you tried to say that effective striking is the equivalent of damage.

My exact quote is here: "I would say that it does not mean damage exclusively but i would def say that is one of the things that consitutues "effective striking."" It was also very available for your reference being that its the post that you responded too and was quoted in your post.

"Good luck winning arguments on a forum about judging problems but the fact of the matter is that until you take your concerns to the commissions and try to effect some change, you are just another keyboard warrior complaining to people who dont care about your opinion."

- Commissions, here i come. Seems like this keyboard warrior is pretty engaged with another one here otherwise with people who say they got "better things to do" but came back and now say they and others dont care though the discussions seems to have carried on for quite a reasonable length and even had the "better things to do" guy come back to continue it.

"Have fun!"

- I think we are.
11/26/12 2:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42248
Btw, just noticed I had some spelling errors and stuff above. Call them out!
11/26/12 3:04 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42249
http://www.fightmetric.com/aboutthestats.html

The FightMetric Effectiveness Score is based on qualitative and quantitative research into the things that matter most in ending a fight. Its algorithm is based on historical fight data and guided by the following principles:

-The goal of every fighter is to end his fight

Only things that win fights and confer advantages should score points. Those that result in more victories score higher.

-Not all strikes are created equal

Power matters a great deal. Even a total head strike count means nothing unless you know how many of those strikes were landed with power.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.

-Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur.
11/26/12 3:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
333 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42250
Did I mention:

"Damage is not a one-round effect

Cuts, swelling, and tight joint locks end fights both by doctor's stoppage and by impairing a fighter's ability to perform. Those effects last the duration of the fight and should be scored as such, not just in the round in which they occur."
11/26/12 2:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
orcus
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/1/03
Posts: 74412

"Read my post again. I didn't say Condit didn't do anything, I said Condit was unable mount any serious offense and whatever he did was pretty much instantly nullified by GSP."

 

Can't say I remember much serious offense from GSP either, certainly nothing on the level of Carlos dropping GSP and going after him.

11/27/12 9:09 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
lockon
67 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/3/08
Posts: 1138
Lol @ this debate being a waste of time unless we create some new scoring system. Don't be ridiculous, this forum regularly discusses hypothetical fights and rankings. This is absolutely fine. Phone Post

Reply Post

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