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
#3 ·
I agree that the top position is over emphasized in MMA.

That wasn't the case in GSP vs Condit though.

Power in striking comes from your core. Muscles that a fighter posturing up from the top can bring into play, but that a fighter throwing elbows off his back generally can't.

I personally scored the fight 49-46, but I can definitely understand a 50-45 score. GSP was winning the striking battle, got caught, took some damage on the ground, got up, got the takedown, and did some damage on the ground. He imposed his skillset for most of that round, despite being put on rubber legs.

Your last 3 paragraphs are too stupid to respond to.
 
#5 ·
easy answer. Don't get taken down and let some 'lesser fighter' control you like a little girl ... or maybe just hide a knife in your shorts and shive your opponent since there doesn't seem to be any need for rules and it's all just a matter of who can walk out of the ring under their own power.

:ROLLEYES:
 
#6 · (Edited)


That's a pretty badly busted up face for some one who spent the large majority of the fight on the ground in the top position.

Condit's ground and pound from the bottom was quite clearly very effective and other than the huge slicing elbow GSP landed at the end of the first round, I'm not so sure GSP's strikes from the top were really that significant at all.

@Roflcopter, GSP passed to half guard very briefly a few times throughout 25 minutes. Condit immediately hip escaped and regained full guard pretty much every time GSP passed.

Condit did a great job of controlling GSP's posture and not allowing GSP much space to land strikes and land short elbows and strikes of his own from the bottom.

@SportsNerd, I don't see how my last three paragraphs are stupid when these fighters are competing in an organisation called the Ultimate FIGHTING Championship. The goal is to fight, not simply control for 3/5 rounds (not having a go at GSP here, but speaking in general terms).
 
#9 ·
I'm not so certain GSP didn't take the bulk of that damage in the minute that Condit rained down elbow after elbow following the head-kick. You could see the damage that had been inflicted when GSP returned to his corner following the third round. I can't say that Carlos didn't add to that little collection of cuts and bruises as the fight continued, but I do think it likely that the worst was done in his minute or so of ground and pound.
 
#12 · (Edited)
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?
 
#14 ·
Top Control might be a little bit overrated BUT not in the Condit/GSP fight. From bottom you dont create nearly as much power as you do from the top. So sure Condit was active but GSP wasnt exactly stalling either. I thought GSP did more damage from the top then Condit did from the bottom. And that picture proves absolutely nothing because GSP got hit in the face standing up also. Just 1 punch to the nose could have created that whole bruise. And the rest does not even look that bad.

You know what i think is more overrated then top control??? Looking at a guys face post fight to indicate how much damage he took.
 
#15 · (Edited)
And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.
That is not what octagon control is.

Octagon control is defined as "dictating the pace, place and position of the fight." That criteria would have easily been given to GSP in every round.

Believe it or not, no points are given at all, in any criteria for defense, other than grappling for reverals/sweeps. It is primarly only a method of not losing, not a means of scoring points.

eg. a submission that nearly finishes an opponent scores more points than multiple trivial/weak submission attempts, however no points are scored for defending submissions.

Same idea with striking, and takedowns.

It's all about implementing your gameplan on the other opponent -- being the agressor, with more points awared for quality over quantity.

Again - nobody goes into a fight with the plan to land strikes from the bottom, submit from the bottom, or ending the fight with an upkick. If you do, lucky you -- you get the finish and possibly a KO/sub of the night bonus. But you can't honestly say that was what your plan was going into the fight. You can prepare for those situations, but you don't go into the fight planning to win that way. The only exception may be very skilled BJJ fighters who like to pull guard and try for triangles / armbars etc. The rules don't exactly favour that style, but a takedown is awarded for pulling guard.

This is one of the reasons why you hear people say that wrestling is one of the best base skills for MMA. You score points for grappling (takedowns), control (dictating the pace/place), and you are going to be landing strikes or attempting submissions once on the ground.
 
#21 ·
The problem is that the judges aren't actually supposed to give it the weight that they do. Damage, effective striking, and effective grappling are the three main criteria. Aggression and control are supposed to be tie breakers not round winners.

Neither of them should even be criteria in the first place they have nothing to do with winning an MMA fight outside of what would fall under the other criteria and could and should be judged under those criteria. It seriously screws up the sport because you wouldn't have nearly as many lay and prayers or mud fighters without it. Luckily Lawlor wasn't rewarded for his mud fighting the other night and GSP being rewarded for his LNP wasn't relevant to his victory since he outright won 3 rounds with the other criteria.
 
#23 · (Edited)
The problem is that the judges aren't actually supposed to give it the weight that they do. Damage, effective striking, and effective grappling are the three main criteria. Aggression and control are supposed to be tie breakers not round winners.
In the unified rules of MMA damage is not it's own criteria - although I believe when the UFC does thier little pre-fight rules thing it makes it look like one.

It's actually a sub-component of effective striking, which takes into account quality of strikes, quantity of strikes, as well as visible damage, "rocking" (stuns) and knockdowns.

This is why the judges saw the fight the way they did - GSP landed more power shots (most important sub-criteria), however condit landed more shots and they were both visibly damaged. GSP maybe a little worse for wear near rounds 4 and 5, but thankfully the fights aren't scored on what fighters look like at the end of the fight. Judges score each round as they go. Condit looked a lot worse for the first half of the fight than GSP did. GSP would have won the "damage" category in rounds 1 and 2, probably not 3, and the others were a toss up. It was towards the end of the fight that Condit would have scored points for damage. Plus GSP dominated in every other category the entire fight.
 
#28 ·
I realize it's not a checklist - it's very much widely arbitrary.

But again - if we are looking at just visible damage alone it's not scored in a "one-shot" deal at the end of the fight (like the OP makes it sound). After round 1 - GSP wins in the damage department for the cut he opened near the end of the round. Same after round 2 as I don't recall GSP looking too bad. Lets say Condit wins round 3. If GSP looks no worse after the 4th round, and he opened another cut on Condit, then GSP should win round 4.

Again - I realize it's not a checklist, but thats how the judges should be approaching it.
I am not talking about cuts and bruises I am talking about the accumulation of power of strikes landed and damage done by attempted submissions.
 
#29 ·
I am not talking about cuts and bruises I am talking about the accumulation of power of strikes landed and damage done by attempted submissions.
well same idea, each criteria / sub critera is socred on a round by round basis, not at the end of the fight.

You could land 100 power strikes in round 1, and if by an act of god the other fighter is still alive you could lose the fight if he lands 5 power shots in each of rounds 2-5, and you landed nothing.

Even though total power strikes were 100-20, you lost rounds 2-5, if all other factors were equal.

You can't just look at the fighters faces at the end of the fight and say Condit did more damage and should have won. If Condit does all that damage in the last round, and GSP opens up 4 cuts spread out over the first 4 rounds, he's going to win the effective striking category in the first 4 rounds.

Hopefully that explains my point better :D
 
#39 · (Edited)
GSP's face was marked up. Condit's was a mask of blood. I'm working on some gifs. Will post later tonight.
What is the point of this? It looks like a bad attempt to take things out of context and show 3 seconds a fight while ignoring everything that happened before and after it.

Ironically, you can see Condits face pouring with blood from DAMAGE done by GSP.
*Sigh
 
#31 ·
The thing is -- it wasn't only top control that won the fight for GSP like in the OP. Control is one of the less important criteria, but still scores points.

However to get top control you have to get takedowns, which GSP scored at least one in each round (7 total), which count towards effective grappling... which is an important criteria. Sort of a little domino effect -- to get (top) control, you need a takedown, which gets you points in a number of areas.

He also scored a lot of passes once he got the fight to the ground, which further helped his grappling and control. Finally, he landed more significant strikes throughout the fight as well.

I think I've beat this to death tonight - time to call it quits.
 
#32 ·
I just watched the fight again to make sure I remember it correctly. I was (somewhat ;)) intoxicated last night.

I was correct in my assessment though. Condit had next to nothing for GSP in that fight. It was a hell of a fight, and Condit is a ******* warrior, but GSP had him beat everywhere.

Condit had a good combo or two, and a good head kick. He had some good sub attempts but GSP was clearly never in trouble. With the exception of the one head kick, GSP landed harder, cleaner, and more overall strikes. Condits strikes from the bottom inflicted damage in the sense that they cut GSP... but if you think any of those strikes were harder than GSP's elbows / punches from on top I question if you have ever been in that position. The strikes from bottom can cut. Do they hurt as bad as from top? Hardly. Which is exactly why it isn't scored as much.

I don't have the time to explain why strikes from the bottom isn't as effective as strikes from in someones guard... or half guard. I didn't think something like that needed to be explained to people who have so many posts.
 
#33 ·
I don't have the time to explain why strikes from the bottom isn't as effective as strikes from in someones guard... or half guard. I didn't think something like that needed to be explained to people who have so many posts.
Pretty simple really -- there's no power/weight behind them when you have somebody's bodyweight ontop of you -- pushing you into the mat. They are more of arm punches than anything of significance.

They can cut/bruise, just like any other strike though... you're simply tearing the skin when the glove rides along the face. No damage behind them though.
 
#34 ·
And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.
You need to check out the Gracie breakdown of the fight (there's a recent thread on it,) and listen to Condit himself at the post fight presser.

Condit wasn't controlling GSPs posture, GSP was doing exactly what he should have been doing in order to counter a good JJ practitioner from attempting submissions ffrom his back, while 'bringing the rain' down on Condit.

I was concerned, and stated so in another thread, that GSP wasn't passing any more than into half guard, then I watched the Gracie breakdown and heard Condit explain why he was having problems with GSP in guard, and it became pretty clear who was controlling whom.
 
#37 ·
It is what is it and positions count although they shouldn't. Fact is GSP and a lot of other guys who rely on top control would probably fight very differently if the rules were changed and control didn't matter. In my opinion these rules we have right now are biased to the point where a certain skillset is made almost useless whereas another skillset is absolutely overpowered. That's just not the way it should be. The game is rigged.
 
#43 ·
Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this way then.

That's cute you sigh online.

You still didn't explain the point of your GIF. GSP wasn't scoring in the judges eyes based on that three second GIF. That was also a fraction of the fight, and in itself had absolutely nothing to do with how the fight was scored.

I am seriously wondering if we are just being trolled at this point.
Jesus man, does he have to spell it out for you. He was proving a point to me that GSP busted Condit wide open (which I've already acknowledged on countless occasions).
 
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