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 #71 of (permalink) Old 11-20-2012, 01:11 AM
The American Psycho
Bonnar426's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,307
Originally Posted by GrappleRetarded View Post
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

You forget that this isn't just some brutal sport where everyones out to kill each other. Its much more like a game of physical chess.-looney liam
Bonnar426 is offline  
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome