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 #57 of (permalink) Old 11-19-2012, 06:06 PM Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Manchestoorrrrrrr
Posts: 1,469
Originally Posted by SideWays222 View Post
It really isnt indicative of that though. Condit landed alot of punches in the stand up portion of the fight too. You are just seeing what you want to see.

And tbh bruises to the face do not equal damage. Iv gotten bruises on my face and i wasnt hurt or damaged. I would actually press on the bruise because i like the feeling lol
And lips swell up fairly easy as well.

The only bruise indicative of damage might be the one on GSPs nose BUT id bet the house that was caused by a punch to the nose when Condit rocked GSP.
You press against the bruises because you like the feel. Now you're just talking shit. No one, no one, likes pressing against bruises on their face/body because it feels good. Stop talking utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by zarny View Post
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.
Here's thing, people keep going on about how GSP landed a volume of huge punches and elbows from the top position, but I guess I didn't see them. Most of the shots GSP tried to land from the top position were grazing or partial blocked from Condit. Condit did a great job at limiting the space for GSP to utilise and posture up to reign down heavy blows.

Other than at the end of the first round with the slicing elbow which busted Condit wide open, and I think it was in the fourth round where GSP landed a solid clean elbow on the bridge of Condits nose, I didn't see many of these clean, heavy blows from GSP's top positon, really I didn't. As I said, it looked like the majority of them were grazing or partially blocked.

GSP got his ass kicked in that third round. He didn't put Condit on his back and start punching and elbowing him in the face again. After he regained his composure in that round, he got the take down, buried his head in Condits chest and ate a shit load of elbows and fists to the head from the bottom, he didn't really land any thing on the ground in that round.

Originally Posted by zarny View Post

You need a course in logic.

That's like saying a baseball team had more offense because they scored 5 runs in 1 inning despite losing the game 9-5.

The fact Condit's head kick and 1 minute of GNP were the most significant and damaging strikes of the fight doesn't actually mean he did more damage over the course of the entire fight.

Entire being the operative word.

But here is what really flies over your head. Even if you say that over the course of the entire fight Condit did more damage...that isn't the only criteria a fight is judged on.
Or maybe you need a course in reading comprehension, seeing as though this is the second time you've made sentences up out of....nothing.

Where did I ever say that damage is the only criteria the fight is judged on, any where? It hasn't flew over my head, I simply believe that damage should be by far the most emphasised aspect of judging criteria.

Over the course of the entire fight, the stand up exchanges were relatively even (third round aside). Both fighters landed their fair share of clean shots on the feet. Then the third round came and Condit landed a nasty head kick and followed up with a barrage of clean elbows to GSP.

On the ground, people keep saying GSP lit Condit up with punches and elbows, but as I said earlier, I didn't really see many clean shots actually land, Condit defended well from the bottom.

I'd like to see more gifs from Rearnaked actually showing GSP landing some good, clean punches and elbows from the top position, other than the big elbow he landed n round one and the one he landed to Condits nose in think round 4.
GrappleRetarded is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome