I thought condit won the fight clear. Hendricks didn't advance his position once after any of his takedowns. Condit got up everytime he was takendown and kicked his ass from his back. Condit clearly scored more on the feet.
Has Hendricks ever won a decision that wasn't at least a little controversial? Seems he either scores a KO or wins via controversial decision.
I don;t see what was controversial about the decision, according to the rules used in ufc he clearly won 2 rounds to 1.
I think Hendricks had to get the nod under the current judging system. The thing about sub fighters is unless they actually get the sub it is impossible for all 3 judges to see what they are doing on the ground at any one time so will not score as high on the cards. A take down, however, is an emphatic and undeniable event in a fight so will always score bigger in the judges eyes.
It was though, because a lot of people think Condit won. I gave it to Hendricks, but there is definitely some controversy.
That fight exposes modern MMA and makes it a sad day for the hardcore. How did Condit lose that fight. He won the striking and every takedown had nothing to do with control, it was purely to avoid the intesity and damage Condit was doing. Even when they went to the ground Condit would get up, threaten with subs and actually do damage. Condit took Hendricks left hand and then pushed the pace. Hendricks didn't have a technical answer. I felt bad for Condit to have to lose a fight to that type of wrestling. That wasn't 'control', that was 'stifling'.
I don't think anyone should take anything away from either fighter. These guys have very well rounde games and they both fought positively and fought to win. The scoring system will never be perfect and will be open to interpretation but Hendricks did enough, under the current system, to win. I think another two rounds and we have a different winner but I do not begrudge Hendricks. Whatever the reason for a take down it is a skill and a form of control over the fight and your opponent and should score. Even if it is to avoid getting hit. There is no other way to score it unless you just watch the fight and score on instinct and overall perception rather than actual black and white deeds.
These people would be completely wrong though, the ufc is scored in a certain way and it always has been, just because you think it should be scored differently doesn't mean condit won, because according to the way the ufc is currently scored and has been for along time he didn't, its not even subjective.
Well, the entire scoring system is a controversial subject. There are a lot of examples of guys who have won according to the scoring system, but lost in the fans eyes.
Yes but that is not the rules of the ufc, so in no way did condit win according to the ufc rules, so if you know the rules and you can;t win by those rules you have not won.
Even Condit in the Post Fight Press Conference conceded he lost the first two rounds, barring some kind of crazy perspective from the judges.
Nonsense Absolute nonsense! Hendricks showed some of the most technical double leg wrestling seen in an MMA fight at that level for quite some time, it was nothing short of brilliant, Condit was leaning in or jumping in and Hendricks was punishing him for it. People overlook and moan about wrestling like its a given that a guy can just take people down for the fun of it! people like that need to actually go and wrestle, then come back and say it! Filtering wrestling into an MMA style is a discipline in itself, wrestling doesn't just transition to MMA at the flick of a switch, it takes a talented individual to learn the art of wrestling for MMA, something Hendricks has and is doing. When we are talking about effective striking, Hendricks landed the better power shots on the feet in the first 2 rounds IMO, and had that not been Carlos Condit Hendricks would of been walking away with a KO bonus. Condit overall bullied the stand up through out the fight, but as one off single shots go, Hendricks was looking more likely to finish the fight than Condit. Wrestling is a part of MMA, if people don't like that they should tune into Muay Thai, Boxing and Kick Boxing. All the time we hear "modern rules", and "todays MMA stinks" and all the other BS that comes along with that! Why? because the UFC and like minded organisations do not condone steroids, or mis matches to make their stars look great when their actually not! or allow another human being to stomp on somebody's head when he's downed like a dog! Its nothing but bull ****! wrestling is one part of MMA, if that happens to be the most dominant aspect of the sport and stand up fighters cannot defend a take down, they need to get on a wrestling mat and learn how!
