MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos

MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (
-   UFC (
-   -   Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA (

GrappleRetarded 11-18-2012 06:43 PM

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

Roflcopter 11-18-2012 06:51 PM

This isn't a real fight. It's a sporting competition. Hence theirs judges and rules.

GSP clearly controlled the fight, passed guard multiple times. Landed shots from the top, did what he wanted to do as he was in the position to be offensive.

Sports_Nerd 11-18-2012 06:54 PM

2 Attachment(s)
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.

Roflcopter 11-18-2012 06:55 PM

That and Condit clearly got outgrappled in just about every round, whether it be the takedowns or the submission grappling game where GSP guard passed at least 6 or 7 times.

NoYards 11-18-2012 06:57 PM

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.


GrappleRetarded 11-18-2012 07:04 PM

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).

Roflcopter 11-18-2012 07:11 PM

That's not effective offense. Guard passing is.

This is like the basics.

GrappleRetarded 11-18-2012 07:14 PM


Originally Posted by Roflcopter (Post 1649225)
That's not effective offense. Guard passing is.

This is like the basics.

GSPS's face seems to indicate that Condits strikes from the bottom were indeed effective.

How did you score the Guida/Pettis fight? (not comparing this fight to Guida/Pettis, just curious)

Canadian Psycho 11-18-2012 07:24 PM

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.

dsmjrv 11-18-2012 07:37 PM

guida pettis is the perfect example of whats wrong with over emphasizing top control in MMA scoring.. gsp condit, not so much

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 , Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome