Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA
Before you guys start labelling me as a sour Condit fan, I gave GSP the nod and scored it three rounds to two in a thrilling and competitive fight.
I can't be alone in thinking that top control is just ridiculously over valued in this sport, because it seems like people are just accepting the fact that who ever is on top from the guard(s) position is automatically winning the fight, regardless of what the opponent is doing from the bottom.
Having watched the fight two times now and reading the responses not just on here, but on various online MMA forums and blogs, it really infuriates me to see people label this fight as a dominant and easy victory for GSP and for the judges to score it 50-45 for GSP - how is this even possible?
Why do you rate control over damage? Why is control such an over emphasised aspect of judging criteria?
In a real fight, simply controlling the other person doesn't get you the win. In a real fight, two guys scrap it out until their opponent is either knocked out, submitted or just verbally gives up. Fighting is about breaking the wills of your adversaries, not holding them to the ground for as long as you can.
Do people know that judges were enforced into combat sports to simply stop fights ending in draws. If there were no judges, fighters would have to go for the finish and thus be much more encouraged to inflict real damage rather than simply "control" their opponents.
And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.