Mixed Martial Arts Forum banner

Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA

9K views 82 replies 33 participants last post by  SideWays222 
#1 ·
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.
 
See less See more
#42 ·
GSP fought a war in which he dominated. People get cut up / bruised up in wars all the time.

You are a hater. That was a hell of a fight. You are more concerned with the fact that GSP didn't finish than the fact that we got to see an amazing fight.

I could understand the hate for GSP if this fight was boring and he didn't finish. But it was a ******* war against a really tough opponent... and all GSP haters care about is that 1. GSP didn't finish and 2. OMG GSP was cut / bruised at the end of the fight.

Good God the amount of trolling on this board lately has been almost unbearable. I feel like sherdog bought this place out and is slowly merging the forums together. God help up.
 
#46 ·
I hear what people are saying about winning on a points system although Saturday wasn't really won by that. I've come to accept it. Edgar doesn't have much KO power so he has to stick and move. GSP does not have KO power either and coupled with a bad experience he has opted with the GJ fight system although he is very active...much more so than say Fitch, Lay Praynard, and definitely more so than Guida.

Early on people couldn't figure out Royce's technique until years down the road. His time passed.

Tito couldn't be stopped that was until the Iceman came in with the sprawl and brawl technique. Hughes was on a tear til a chubby Hawaiian submitted em and then a Canadian entered the scene who truly dethroned em.

Brock was winning by overpowering and controlling his opponents through sheer power and gnp until Cain learned to reverse through a butterfly guard, and Overeem showed him it was time to pick on someone his own size.

Chael Sonnen smothers people very similarly to all the other wrestlers, but guess what he got submitted by Maia and Anderson Silva.

Point is they all FOUND A WAY to win and each eventually were replaced. In the laws of the jungle only the strong survive through adaptation.

Look, I'm an all offensive type of guy in any sports you can think of. I hate the whole (safe) defense wins game strategy although I've come to learn that it's part of the game.

At the end of the day you can hate it, but you have to respect it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kin
#50 ·
Not going to read through all the pages but.. top position is overvalued, that's true. GSP most definitely won this fight and it's foolish to say otherwise. Fights like Mousasi/Lawal and Pettis/Guida pretty much prove how overvalued the top position is.
 
#55 ·
If you scored GSP v Condit 48-47 for GSP you need to rewatch the fight again for a third time.

At best, Condit won one round...the 3rd.

There have certainly been fights where the fighter on top does very little while the fighter on bottom is extremely active. For those fights...your argument might have merit.

Unfortunately for your rant it doesn't apply to GSP v Condit.

Not only did GSP maintain top control for virtually all of the fight, but he also did signifcant damage dropping elbows and punches.

GSP certainly did more damage while on top than Condit did while on the bottom in guard.

My question to you is why do you underrate top control?

Condit had no intentions of being on the bottom all night. He said so himself. He was only on the bottom because GSP put him there against his will. Sorry, but in every reality that counts.

Why do you over emphasize the damage from 1 shot while ignoring the rest of the fight?

Sure of all the punches, kicks and elbows in the fight Condit's HK in the 3rd round delivered the most damage.

The reality remains that the damage from that HK only allowed Condit to control GSP for less than a minute before getting put on his back to be punched and elbowed in the face again.

Sorry, but if all that "damage" only amounts to controlling the fight for less than a minute it doesn't count for much.
 
#61 ·
Gegard was awarded the first round by every judge I believe. He didn't deserve the rest of them because he gassed badly and couldn't keep up his attack from the bottom.

I don't know what it is about GSP but his hardcore fans are apparently the same people who were fans of Fedor. Just crazed and delusional making posts all over this forum arguing against statements that they imagined themselves and have no bearing on the reality of what is being posted. Not to mention pretending that GSP won the striking in every round somehow even though he was wrecked in the third standing and threw almost no strikes in the fifth because he didn't want to blow the fight once he had it won.
 
#65 ·
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.
You aren't alone, but I've studied Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Wing Chun, Wrestling and a couple flavors of Kung Fu, and to me, it comes to this. All other things being equal, Gravity wins.

If two guys are damaging each other on the ground, the one on top isn't carrying the other guy's weight.

All things being equal, the guy on top is gonna win 8 out of ten times, because he won't get tired as fast.
 
#66 ·
If two guys are damaging each other on the ground, the one on top isn't carrying the other guy's weight.

All things being equal, the guy on top is gonna win 8 out of ten times, because he won't get tired as fast.
This and the guy on top has the control, while the one on the bottom is being kept there against his will. When the GNP is weak and little action occurs through most of the match that sucks, but unless a sub comes from the bottom, top guy is the winner.
 
#71 ·
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?



I guess the best way I can put it is that the person on the bottom is in a position he does not want to be in. Everything he tries is a desperation move to change the current situation. He may be active in the bottom but if it isn't getting him anywhere then what good is his attempts.


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.


GSP doesn't just holds his opponents to the ground despite popular believe. He out wrestlers his opponents and even deals damage of his own while on top.



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.

That logic is flawed. If their are no judges most fighters would just fight to survive. Best example would be Carlson Gracie Jr vs John Lewis. Lewis knew he didn't stand a chance against Carlson if the fight went to the ground and so he pinned him against the cage for 15 minutes. Since their were no judges the fight was declared a draw and Lewis got half of the winners pot just for being a bitch.

And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.
Hoped I answered some of your questions
 
#72 ·
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.
Sorry GR, but this isn't a "real fight". This is Mixed Martial Arts, a sport wth rules and limitations. Opinion and philosophy of sport is all relative. I know some people who play sports for legacy. I know some who play sports due to their competitve nature. I know people who play sports for fun. But we can all agree that in a sport, there is a winner and a loser. The winner is the one who meets the criteria of the rules and completes them effectiely, or more so than his/her opponent and that is exactly what GSP did (as you've acknowledged).

I also have to disagree with your scorecard. I personally have watched the fight now about four times and I would have scored it 50-46, with round three being very close. Yes, Condit landed an awesomehead kick followed up by some heavy ground and pound, but St. Pierre controlled the contest in that round outside of that sequence. I don't know how anyone could score any of the other rounds for Condit. He was outstruck, beat up, and taken down at will. He was competitive, but still outclassed.

However...
Everyone knows me as someone who espouses the antithesis of the testosterone "true fighting" philosophy. I hate it. But, while I believe that this is a sport, it is also a combat sport. Damage should be the primary criteria, regardless of the position. I was livid after the Johnson/Torres fight because Johnson literally just layed in Torres' guard and did nothing while Torres completely wrecked him from the bottom. Yeah, Johnson had positional control and that should count for something but he did absolutely nothing with it while Torres was pounding away. This wasn't the case Saturday night with St. Pierre/Condit.
 
#73 ·
I think the annoying thing isn't that the guy who gets top control usually wins, it's more that that judges seem to think that the guy who gets top control ALWAYS WINS. This rewards the takedown and top control too much and ignores how comfortable the guy on the bottom is and what he is doing. While GSP clearly won the fight, there is no way that he won every round.

The UFC markets itself as being "as real as it gets" and mixed martial arts get their legitimacy from how effective they are in real combat situations - therefore, the judging should be as close as possible to what would win a real fight - damage and closeness to getting the finish.

That said, I don't think lay and pray is that big a problem, just because guys who do it don't get many fans and therefore don't make much money.
 
#78 ·
I think the annoying thing isn't that the guy who gets top control usually wins, it's more that that judges seem to think that the guy who gets top control ALWAYS WINS. This rewards the takedown and top control too much and ignores how comfortable the guy on the bottom is and what he is doing. While GSP clearly won the fight, there is no way that he won every round.
You are wrong, sir. The only round that is even in contention is the third round. GSP clearly dominated every other round. Please go back and watch the fight again.
 
#75 ·
In the eyes of the judges, the guy in top position is in the dominant position. End of story. If the fighter on top stays busy and inflicts damage then this is justified even more.

The only fighter that comes to mind which is dangerous and succesful off their back is Anderson - he will throw elbows, inflict damage and actually GETS submissios.

Usually if a fight goes to the ground and there is not much action it gets stood up anyways.

Is top position over emphasized? Not if it is done properly. A guy like GSP is probably the best at it.
 
#79 ·
I think that top control is over emphasized, but not hugely.

As others have stated, the person on top is automatically ahead. The top fighter's strikes will deal a higher baseline of damage, and he will usually already have scored points of landing a takedown that brought him to that position. Excluding incidents where the bottom fighter is tearing an inactive top guy apart with elbows, it totally makes sense to favor the latter.

In regards to the GSP-Condit fight, no one is saying Condit won. I would, however, argue that someone who gave Rd 3 to GSP is scoring takedowns too heavily. CC dropped GSP and attacked with a flurry of punches and elbows to a downed opponent. For a few moments, GSP was in danger of being finished; that is worth way more than any takedowns and meager GnP that happened later that round.

Conversely, GSP dominated the rest of the fight. He was very active on top with his punches and elbows -- many of which got through pretty clean, despite what some say. I wouldn't give GSP much credit for passing into half-guard, though. That won't get you any points at a grappling tournament, nor should they in an MMA fight.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top