MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos - View Single Post - Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA
View Single Post
post #12 of (permalink) Old 11-18-2012, 07:53 PM
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 561
This thread has been done a million times.

Lets go back to the basics - the unified rules of MMA have the following criteria;

1. Effective striking - sub-catergories are first a heavy importance om the quality of strkes, followed by number of strikes, as well as taking into account visible damage (eg, cuts, brusing, as well as stunning & "rocking" or knocking down an opponent)
2. Effective grappling - takedowns, passes, submission attempts, reverals, etc
3. Effective agression - moving forward, or attacking with submission from the guard
4. cage/ring control (UFC calls this octagon control)

out of those criteria, the only criteria that GSP didn't win in every round was arguably criteria #1, in round #3. "Effective agression" does not take into account stikes from the bottom, only submissions. The only catergory that scores points for strikes from the bottom is "effective striking". The strikes that Condit was throwing from the bottom weren't significant/power strikes. GSP landed the better quality strikes in each round, which is what the judges want to see. Condit landed more stikes overall, but the quality of strikes were better from GSP. The other 3 criteria GSP won easily in each round - giving the overall round to GSP.

How did you have 2 rounds for Condit anyways? I believe one of the judges gave Condit the 3rd round - I have no idea how anyone could give any other rounds to Condit.

The reason GSP won, is because he won in every criteria except arguably "effective striking" in a few of the rounds. Without a doubt he was the agressor, had better effective grappling, and better octagon control.

Make sense?

Last edited by RedRocket44; 11-18-2012 at 08:22 PM.
RedRocket44 is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome