Condit's performance was everything that's wrong with MMA.

It will not kill MMA it will make it better. IN reality you have it backwards. the fighter should try to execute his gameplan and defence is first. "Protect your selve at all times". To knock out a good fighter you have to set it up and if you are at the end of the fight you ride it out and donot risk a knockout, because in this sport knockouts come easy. great strategy. HOw old are you by the way?

 

RUN? I guess i missed the fight you watched.

 

Diaz fans, nuff said.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVyJt94u_VU[/ame]

 

I get your point man, but look anderson silva, jon jones and gsp, they all do the same, running around, picking her and ther and to often winning nn points when they could finish....

 

I don't think Jon Jones or Anderon belong on that list at all.

 

The Anderson Silva who's been to decision twice in his 14 fights with the UFC? And in that time has only been past the second round 4 times?

Jon Jones, who has been to decision only twice in his entire career? And last year finished Bader, Shogun, Rampage and Machida, in that order?

You be trolling?

 

lol

 

You do realise that Carlos Condit has only been to decision twice in his career as well?

 

Well, he's been to 4 decisions. He won two of them, but I know what you meant.

 

I was arguing against that guys list of point fighters, not for or against Condit.

I actually thing Condit did exceptionally well, as I've pointed out in one or two of these threads.

 

Hmm, I didn't think so. I've always seen Condit as a dangerous guy, the sort where you make a mistake and he capitalizes with his submissions or powerful striking. This can be done submissively in the sense he fights defensively and is still able to finish fights.

I watched the fight, I thought it was for the most part even with Diaz pushing, moving forward and landing, while I saw Condit retreating and every now and then landing something significant. What bugs me about the fight was what seems to be the implication that those little leg kicks Condit was landing meant something. Really they did little slowing Diaz down and were not so much effective aggression or the sort of money in the bank shots we normally understand leg kicks to be. They were more light strikes that were landed just for the sake of landing, with no real tactical meaning in terms of setting up something else be it slowing Diaz down for later rounds or dealing so much damage that he cant plant. They were tactical in the sense that they landed and seemed to count a bit in terms of scoring.

Not sure how accurate the fight metrics are, but from what I saw the striking was pretty much even. What I saw during the fight was Condit at times landing the more significant shots, with Diaz pushing the pace.. I thought both fighters were pretty equal, really I didn't see either guy winning. Neither were quite able to employ an effective game plan.

If you want to argue Condit employed an effective game plan, I don't quite get where Condit really got over on Diaz. He would get hit by Diaz and apparently get a little wobbled and really retreat pretty hard. He didn't fight like he was confident in his power because he landed some hard shots then just sort of watched his work and pretty much retreated. Is this the same Condit who decked Hardy with that crisp, well timed, perfectly placed shot? I didn't think so. It was Condits job to counter Diaz and keep him honest. He countered Diaz sometimes, but he also really retreated to the point he almost cowered. He didn't land more strikes, and considering a good portion of those strikes really were baby leg kicks, I didn't really think he BEAT Diaz, I didn't even think he won a, "match." To say he clowned Diaz is just odd..

Diaz wasn't all that impressive either. As an aggressive volume puncher he needed to move forward and land. He moved forward but didn't land as effectively as we are used to. He really didn't do enough offensively to BEAT Condit. I didn't think he won the "match" either.

Condit figured out how to effectively counter Diaz, but he virtually ran away from him at times as well which in my eyes is a real black mark.

Just as much as Diaz' inability to really land in any sort of volume was a black mark on him.

Not trying to say they both suck. This would make for a great rematch, but at the same time I felt the fight was so even there shouldn't have been a winner.

From Condit, when he caught Diaz with those eye catching strikes which left Diaz surprised and pawing the location he just got tagged on, he should have followed up with more. He is a fighter who has a reputation of being dangerous, killer precise striking.. I want to see more conviction and commitment to the strikes and counters he does land. I want to see him tag Diaz and then follow up with some measured aggression. I really was turned off by him running away, I like watching Condit fight, that isn't what I have come to expect from him.

 

Condit fought to his strengths & Diaz's weakness. Smart fighter I say. But he does go on about being the warrior he is & didn't fight that way. People expected him to go toe to toe with Diaz & I can see why some weren't happy with his performance but hey it worked & got him the win. And I for one still want to see GSP v Diaz....nothing has really changed there. The feeling will still be there for that one. And who knows now what Condit will turn up for the GSP fight.

 

It got him the win on the record, but what does it mean? It means that a couple judges deemed he won the fight. A better way to think about this is the if and why you believe one guy won considering the scoring criteria, or considering your own criteria.

From a technical perspective, I really didn't think either guy won.

Both guys landed nearly identical number of strikes while one guy was the aggressor which is supposed to be a positive, and the other guy was countering and really retreating hard, where retreating hard is supposed to be a negative. If you are to the point a case could be made that you are turning tail and running away, thats supposed to be a bad thing.