Originally Posted by GrappleRetarded
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.
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.