Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
AhrnCityPahnder

UFC wagering: breaking news - judging is so terrible it got me to return here to update this thread title

Recommended Posts

Gimme Hendricks +

:no: George will eat Hendricks alive.
GSP's last 3 fights have all indicated that he is on the decline. He was looking at the clock in the 3rd tonight, I've never seen that from him before.
You're reading way too much into it. GSP looked phenomenal today and against Condit. Using the clock thing is some sort of poker "tell" that he's wilting is silly.Phenomenal performance from GSP. Diaz couldn't get anything going.Shocked to hear everyone agreeing with the Hendricks decision. Feels like I watched an entirely different fight, because I saw Condit being superior in the striking exchanges and doing more from the bottom than Hendricks on top when it went to the ground. Taking the opponent down and doing next to nothing with it doesn't score highly for me, and if it does for the judges, then the scoring criteria is clearly ridiculous. I watched it with the volume on low, so I don't know if Rogan was in full "this is the best Hendricks we've ever seen" mode, but I didn't have a doubt in my mind that Condit was superior. I'll watch it again later.
I've watched it a little more than twice using rewind and pause to consider some of the groundwork closely. Limited to 10 pt must rounds, I score it 29-28 Hendricks, Condit dominating the 3rd losing the first two barely. Not limited to the scoring system, I'd call Condit the winner. Metrics: Round one -- Condit has one more significant strike and 3 more total strikes landed. That's close, but he took 4 takedowns and did little on his back. The ground exchanges were even. 10-9 Hendricks because the takedowns were more significant than anything that happened. Round two -- Condit again with one more significant strike and just one more total strikes landed, and again giving 4 takedowns. This was even closer. I can see someone scoring it for Condit, but I'm still calling it for Hendricks based on the heaviest three blows of the round and the ease at which he dumped Condit being the key feature of the round. Condit did more on the ground but not quite enough to negate or overcome the constant takedowns. He needed to do more. Third round -- Condit with 10 more significant strikes, 20 more total strikes, and consistently better on the ground despite more takedowns. Easy round for him. Should they be heading to the championship rounds, Condit is likely going to stop him. If it was a hundred point must system I would score it something like 100-98, 100-99, 94-100 = 294-297 Condit. We've agreed before this boxing scoring system is flawed for three or five five minute rounds. This isn't even in the top 20 infuriating examples, but it does get added to the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.And I give Hendricks a decent chance of taking the title. GSP can't take a punch like Condit can. If one of those lefts connect, St. Pierre will hit the mat and Hendricks will finish him.

When you fight very conservatively, that's what you get. I think he's just fine with utterly dominating an opponent for 5 rounds and not exposing himself to a counter or submission attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.

:confused:he finished BJ Penn after 4 in the 09 Super Bowl card
6 fights, 5 rounds each= 150 minutes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.And I give Hendricks a decent chance of taking the title. GSP can't take a punch like Condit can. If one of those lefts connect, St. Pierre will hit the mat and Hendricks will finish him.

When you fight very conservatively, that's what you get. I think he's just fine with utterly dominating an opponent for 5 rounds and not exposing himself to a counter or submission attempt.
He bores me. I'll pop a cork the day he retires.Koscheck Hendricks was a very tough split decision for Hendricks. Both guys are storied wrestlers. GSP mostly stayed up with Kos (2nd fight) and Shields. Hendricks is the best wrestler AND striker of the three. It's an interesting matchup. I give Hendricks about the same chance I'd give Condit in a rematch, and we know how that went. Still seeing GSP fight a possibly better wrestler who he can't takedown at will who also brings fantastic KO power will have me jacked up for this one. Hendricks needs a lot of work for me to think he has a legit chance. Can't imagine him going five hard rounds they way he finished last night. I'll take a punchers chance though. Especially a puncher who may be the superior wrestler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimme Hendricks +

:no: George will eat Hendricks alive.
GSP's last 3 fights have all indicated that he is on the decline. He was looking at the clock in the 3rd tonight, I've never seen that from him before.
You're reading way too much into it. GSP looked phenomenal today and against Condit. Using the clock thing is some sort of poker "tell" that he's wilting is silly.Phenomenal performance from GSP. Diaz couldn't get anything going.Shocked to hear everyone agreeing with the Hendricks decision. Feels like I watched an entirely different fight, because I saw Condit being superior in the striking exchanges and doing more from the bottom than Hendricks on top when it went to the ground. Taking the opponent down and doing next to nothing with it doesn't score highly for me, and if it does for the judges, then the scoring criteria is clearly ridiculous. I watched it with the volume on low, so I don't know if Rogan was in full "this is the best Hendricks we've ever seen" mode, but I didn't have a doubt in my mind that Condit was superior. I'll watch it again later.
I've watched it a little more than twice using rewind and pause to consider some of the groundwork closely. Limited to 10 pt must rounds, I score it 29-28 Hendricks, Condit dominating the 3rd losing the first two barely. Not limited to the scoring system, I'd call Condit the winner. Metrics: Round one -- Condit has one more significant strike and 3 more total strikes landed. That's close, but he took 4 takedowns and did little on his back. The ground exchanges were even. 10-9 Hendricks because the takedowns were more significant than anything that happened. Round two -- Condit again with one more significant strike and just one more total strikes landed, and again giving 4 takedowns. This was even closer. I can see someone scoring it for Condit, but I'm still calling it for Hendricks based on the heaviest three blows of the round and the ease at which he dumped Condit being the key feature of the round. Condit did more on the ground but not quite enough to negate or overcome the constant takedowns. He needed to do more. Third round -- Condit with 10 more significant strikes, 20 more total strikes, and consistently better on the ground despite more takedowns. Easy round for him. Should they be heading to the championship rounds, Condit is likely going to stop him. If it was a hundred point must system I would score it something like 100-98, 100-99, 94-100 = 294-297 Condit. We've agreed before this boxing scoring system is flawed for three or five five minute rounds. This isn't even in the top 20 infuriating examples, but it does get added to the list.
I respectful disagree. Hendricks was the aggressor and controlled his opponent. Condit is a good fighter.I give the win to the guy who tossed the other guy all over the mat all night. Condit worked hard but didn't do enough.It was a close fight but I thought Hendricks did a little more. Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimme Hendricks +

:no: George will eat Hendricks alive.
GSP's last 3 fights have all indicated that he is on the decline. He was looking at the clock in the 3rd tonight, I've never seen that from him before.
You're reading way too much into it. GSP looked phenomenal today and against Condit. Using the clock thing is some sort of poker "tell" that he's wilting is silly.Phenomenal performance from GSP. Diaz couldn't get anything going.Shocked to hear everyone agreeing with the Hendricks decision. Feels like I watched an entirely different fight, because I saw Condit being superior in the striking exchanges and doing more from the bottom than Hendricks on top when it went to the ground. Taking the opponent down and doing next to nothing with it doesn't score highly for me, and if it does for the judges, then the scoring criteria is clearly ridiculous. I watched it with the volume on low, so I don't know if Rogan was in full "this is the best Hendricks we've ever seen" mode, but I didn't have a doubt in my mind that Condit was superior. I'll watch it again later.
I've watched it a little more than twice using rewind and pause to consider some of the groundwork closely. Limited to 10 pt must rounds, I score it 29-28 Hendricks, Condit dominating the 3rd losing the first two barely. Not limited to the scoring system, I'd call Condit the winner. Metrics: Round one -- Condit has one more significant strike and 3 more total strikes landed. That's close, but he took 4 takedowns and did little on his back. The ground exchanges were even. 10-9 Hendricks because the takedowns were more significant than anything that happened. Round two -- Condit again with one more significant strike and just one more total strikes landed, and again giving 4 takedowns. This was even closer. I can see someone scoring it for Condit, but I'm still calling it for Hendricks based on the heaviest three blows of the round and the ease at which he dumped Condit being the key feature of the round. Condit did more on the ground but not quite enough to negate or overcome the constant takedowns. He needed to do more. Third round -- Condit with 10 more significant strikes, 20 more total strikes, and consistently better on the ground despite more takedowns. Easy round for him. Should they be heading to the championship rounds, Condit is likely going to stop him. If it was a hundred point must system I would score it something like 100-98, 100-99, 94-100 = 294-297 Condit. We've agreed before this boxing scoring system is flawed for three or five five minute rounds. This isn't even in the top 20 infuriating examples, but it does get added to the list.
I respectful disagree. Hendricks was the aggressor and controlled his opponent. Condit is a good fighter and just because he's the up n comer doesn't mean he gets the win just by giving Hendricks a challenge. I give the win to the guy who tossed the other guy all over the mat all night. Condit worked hard but didn't do enough.It was a close fight but I thought Hendricks did a little more.
I'm very comfortable with the decision, so no beef from me for anyone seeing Hendricks the winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimme Hendricks +

:no: George will eat Hendricks alive.
Hendricks has never been eaten alive by anyone. If anyone can neutralize GSP's wrestling it's Johny. In his college run, he defeated ranked guys while injured, pulled off some massive comebacks, and was never dominated. Hendrick's hip escapes are also top notch where I don't think GSP can hold him down if he does take him down. GSP was letting Nick crawl over to the cage and get up. Nick doesn't cut much weight, Johny cuts from about 210 when he starts.In a standing battle, GSP's jab won't be able to stop Hendricks from coming in and touching his chin. GSP did not take getting hit well last night. Edited by hooter311

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.

:confused:he finished BJ Penn after 4 in the 09 Super Bowl card
6 fights, 5 rounds each= 150 minutes
Not only that, but his "finish" of BJP was Penn's subpar cardio. He couldn't get off his seat and the corner threw in the towel. Granted, he was beat up, and GSP was taking it to him, but he didn't really finish him from where I sit. It's been 195 minutes of octagon time for GSP since the ref pulled him off Matt Serra in April 2008. He hasn't KO'd or submitted anyone since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this Hendricks/GSP fight isn't until December or so. Johny needs time for that left hand to heal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.And I give Hendricks a decent chance of taking the title. GSP can't take a punch like Condit can. If one of those lefts connect, St. Pierre will hit the mat and Hendricks will finish him.

When you fight very conservatively, that's what you get. I think he's just fine with utterly dominating an opponent for 5 rounds and not exposing himself to a counter or submission attempt.
He bores me. I'll pop a cork the day he retires.Koscheck Hendricks was a very tough split decision for Hendricks. Both guys are storied wrestlers. GSP mostly stayed up with Kos (2nd fight) and Shields. Hendricks is the best wrestler AND striker of the three. It's an interesting matchup. I give Hendricks about the same chance I'd give Condit in a rematch, and we know how that went. Still seeing GSP fight a possibly better wrestler who he can't takedown at will who also brings fantastic KO power will have me jacked up for this one. Hendricks needs a lot of work for me to think he has a legit chance. Can't imagine him going five hard rounds they way he finished last night. I'll take a punchers chance though. Especially a puncher who may be the superior wrestler.
I get my monies worth with GSP. There's something about watching him just dominate his competition that I just find entertaining. His top game is far more active than what I saw from hendricks last night. Hendicks will have the best shot of anyone at beating GSP b/c of the punching power, but its not as if he has good striking. He literally throws nothing beside that lunging left hand. I was a little surprised by Condits inability to keep the distance. GSP likes to work farther outside than normal and that combined with the reach advantage and excellent foot speed will force Hendricks to really sell out just to get anywhere near GSP. Doing so will just put him off balance and expose him to GSPs nasty double. Hendricks would be a real force at light weight and it looks like he wouldn't have too much trouble making the cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.And I give Hendricks a decent chance of taking the title. GSP can't take a punch like Condit can. If one of those lefts connect, St. Pierre will hit the mat and Hendricks will finish him.

When you fight very conservatively, that's what you get. I think he's just fine with utterly dominating an opponent for 5 rounds and not exposing himself to a counter or submission attempt.
He bores me. I'll pop a cork the day he retires.Koscheck Hendricks was a very tough split decision for Hendricks. Both guys are storied wrestlers. GSP mostly stayed up with Kos (2nd fight) and Shields. Hendricks is the best wrestler AND striker of the three. It's an interesting matchup. I give Hendricks about the same chance I'd give Condit in a rematch, and we know how that went. Still seeing GSP fight a possibly better wrestler who he can't takedown at will who also brings fantastic KO power will have me jacked up for this one. Hendricks needs a lot of work for me to think he has a legit chance. Can't imagine him going five hard rounds they way he finished last night. I'll take a punchers chance though. Especially a puncher who may be the superior wrestler.
I get my monies worth with GSP. There's something about watching him just dominate his competition that I just find entertaining. His top game is far more active than what I saw from hendricks last night. Hendicks will have the best shot of anyone at beating GSP b/c of the punching power, but its not as if he has good striking. He literally throws nothing beside that lunging left hand. I was a little surprised by Condits inability to keep the distance. GSP likes to work farther outside than normal and that combined with the reach advantage and excellent foot speed will force Hendricks to really sell out just to get anywhere near GSP. Doing so will just put him off balance and expose him to GSPs nasty double. Hendricks would be a real force at light weight and it looks like he wouldn't have too much trouble making the cut.
Hendricks being active on top of Condit, especially with a broken left hand, would have been the worst idea ever. Condit is a nasty, nasty finisher with plenty of power. He fought a gameplan against both Diaz and GSP, I feel too many people are judging him as a fighter based on those two fights and not when he was decimating the rest of the division. Hendricks could not make lightweight, he is a huge dude for 5'9", he was a 2 time National Champion wrestler at 165 lbs, and he year before that he was #6 in the nation at 165 lbs. GSP may have the best functional wrestling game in MMA, but he doesn't have the lifetime of experience that Johny brings to the table. Johny no doubt will have some tricks on the defensive end that GSP will have a hard time training for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.And I give Hendricks a decent chance of taking the title. GSP can't take a punch like Condit can. If one of those lefts connect, St. Pierre will hit the mat and Hendricks will finish him.

When you fight very conservatively, that's what you get. I think he's just fine with utterly dominating an opponent for 5 rounds and not exposing himself to a counter or submission attempt.
He bores me. I'll pop a cork the day he retires.Koscheck Hendricks was a very tough split decision for Hendricks. Both guys are storied wrestlers. GSP mostly stayed up with Kos (2nd fight) and Shields. Hendricks is the best wrestler AND striker of the three. It's an interesting matchup. I give Hendricks about the same chance I'd give Condit in a rematch, and we know how that went. Still seeing GSP fight a possibly better wrestler who he can't takedown at will who also brings fantastic KO power will have me jacked up for this one. Hendricks needs a lot of work for me to think he has a legit chance. Can't imagine him going five hard rounds they way he finished last night. I'll take a punchers chance though. Especially a puncher who may be the superior wrestler.
I get my monies worth with GSP. There's something about watching him just dominate his competition that I just find entertaining. His top game is far more active than what I saw from hendricks last night. Hendicks will have the best shot of anyone at beating GSP b/c of the punching power, but its not as if he has good striking. He literally throws nothing beside that lunging left hand. I was a little surprised by Condits inability to keep the distance. GSP likes to work farther outside than normal and that combined with the reach advantage and excellent foot speed will force Hendricks to really sell out just to get anywhere near GSP. Doing so will just put him off balance and expose him to GSPs nasty double. Hendricks would be a real force at light weight and it looks like he wouldn't have too much trouble making the cut.
Hendricks being active on top of Condit, especially with a broken left hand, would have been the worst idea ever. Condit is a nasty, nasty finisher with plenty of power. He fought a gameplan against both Diaz and GSP, I feel too many people are judging him as a fighter based on those two fights and not when he was decimating the rest of the division. Hendricks could not make lightweight, he is a huge dude for 5'9", he was a 2 time National Champion wrestler at 165 lbs, and he year before that he was #6 in the nation at 165 lbs. GSP may have the best functional wrestling game in MMA, but he doesn't have the lifetime of experience that Johny brings to the table. Johny no doubt will have some tricks on the defensive end that GSP will have a hard time training for.
He wasn't active at any point in the fight. If he did break his hand, it certainly wasn't until later in the 2nd. I'm no judge of wrestlers, but Koschek has an almost identical wrestling career (4 time all-american, NC, runner up NC, etc) and he did nothing against GSP. And Condit might be my new favorite fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johny Hendricks bio

TRAINING: I wake up around 11am and then I head to the gym to do conditioning and learn some moves and head home after about 2 hours. I do family time for a while and then at 7:30 head back to practice and go live for about 2 hours, head home, then watch TV and play video games and go to bed around 2 or 3.

When and why did you start training for fighting? June 2007 - to be the World Champion

What ranks and titles have you held? 4X Div. 1 All-American, 2X Div. 1 National Champion

Do you have any heroes? God

What is your favorite technique? Punching people in the face

What does it mean for you to fight in the UFC? It means everything to be fighting in the UFC because this is where the best fighters are and that's what I want - to fight the best.

Did you go to college, and if so, what degree did you earn? Oklahoma State University, Bachelors in Secondary Education

What was your job before you started fighting? Student

Gotta love him.

Edited by STEADYMOBBIN 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSP is now on a UFC-record 150 consecutive minutes run without a finish. Oof.And I give Hendricks a decent chance of taking the title. GSP can't take a punch like Condit can. If one of those lefts connect, St. Pierre will hit the mat and Hendricks will finish him.

When you fight very conservatively, that's what you get. I think he's just fine with utterly dominating an opponent for 5 rounds and not exposing himself to a counter or submission attempt.
He bores me. I'll pop a cork the day he retires.Koscheck Hendricks was a very tough split decision for Hendricks. Both guys are storied wrestlers. GSP mostly stayed up with Kos (2nd fight) and Shields. Hendricks is the best wrestler AND striker of the three. It's an interesting matchup. I give Hendricks about the same chance I'd give Condit in a rematch, and we know how that went. Still seeing GSP fight a possibly better wrestler who he can't takedown at will who also brings fantastic KO power will have me jacked up for this one. Hendricks needs a lot of work for me to think he has a legit chance. Can't imagine him going five hard rounds they way he finished last night. I'll take a punchers chance though. Especially a puncher who may be the superior wrestler.
I get my monies worth with GSP. There's something about watching him just dominate his competition that I just find entertaining. His top game is far more active than what I saw from hendricks last night. Hendicks will have the best shot of anyone at beating GSP b/c of the punching power, but its not as if he has good striking. He literally throws nothing beside that lunging left hand. I was a little surprised by Condits inability to keep the distance. GSP likes to work farther outside than normal and that combined with the reach advantage and excellent foot speed will force Hendricks to really sell out just to get anywhere near GSP. Doing so will just put him off balance and expose him to GSPs nasty double. Hendricks would be a real force at light weight and it looks like he wouldn't have too much trouble making the cut.
Hendricks being active on top of Condit, especially with a broken left hand, would have been the worst idea ever. Condit is a nasty, nasty finisher with plenty of power. He fought a gameplan against both Diaz and GSP, I feel too many people are judging him as a fighter based on those two fights and not when he was decimating the rest of the division. Hendricks could not make lightweight, he is a huge dude for 5'9", he was a 2 time National Champion wrestler at 165 lbs, and he year before that he was #6 in the nation at 165 lbs. GSP may have the best functional wrestling game in MMA, but he doesn't have the lifetime of experience that Johny brings to the table. Johny no doubt will have some tricks on the defensive end that GSP will have a hard time training for.
He wasn't active at any point in the fight. If he did break his hand, it certainly wasn't until later in the 2nd. I'm no judge of wrestlers, but Koschek has an almost identical wrestling career (4 time all-american, NC, runner up NC, etc) and he did nothing against GSP. And Condit might be my new favorite fighter.
Similar college wrestlers, Koscheck actually fought at a higher weight class. But his wrestling doesn't translate to MMA as well, and his striking isn't on the same level as Johny. The Hendricks/Koscheck fight should not have been a split decision and Johny was healing up from having mono and bronchitis 3 weeks before the fight.I'm not saying Johny should be favored on the books, not even close. But if we get a +225 or so that has tremendous value.Again, being active on top of Condit at any time would have been a tremendous mistake with his BJJ. Hendricks' game plan was just like his intial takedown. Slam Condit for the points and wait for him to get up. As he started to wear down Johny was putting Condit down so he didn't get finished, but it was never his intention to engage. Condit had his timing down and had the conditioning to capitalize with the knees if Johny would have kept it standing.Poor judging would have scored it 30-27 Johny with the takedowns. I think 29-28 Hendricks was the accurate score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't paying really close attention, but I had Hendrick-Condit as a 29-29 draw, but I personally think a lot of rounds should be scored 10-10.

I think GSP is too long for Hendricks. GSP would keep the fight outside of Hendricks' range. Takedown attempts would start from so far away that GSP would have time to stuff them. Lunging left hooks would give GSP openings for takedowns. Plus Hendricks offense seems so limited, I'm pretty confident that GSP's team would have him very prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't paying really close attention, but I had Hendrick-Condit as a 29-29 draw, but I personally think a lot of rounds should be scored 10-10. I think GSP is too long for Hendricks. GSP would keep the fight outside of Hendricks' range. Takedown attempts would start from so far away that GSP would have time to stuff them. Lunging left hooks would give GSP openings for takedowns. Plus Hendricks offense seems so limited, I'm pretty confident that GSP's team would have him very prepared.

Here are the stats:http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/4221Hendricks also had Octagon control and was the aggressor all three rounds. I just don't see how you could score that a draw. Not saying that it wasn't the best fight I've seen in a long time and I don't have any doubt Condit would have gotten the finish had it been 5 rounds.Hendricks deserves the title shot, he has for a while. A draw would have screwed that up. Ellenberger vs Maia needs to happen to determine the next in line.ETA: I don't disagree about needing more 10-10 rounds. But the takedowns in this fight should have been scored accordingly. Edited by hooter311

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't paying really close attention, but I had Hendrick-Condit as a 29-29 draw, but I personally think a lot of rounds should be scored 10-10. I think GSP is too long for Hendricks. GSP would keep the fight outside of Hendricks' range. Takedown attempts would start from so far away that GSP would have time to stuff them. Lunging left hooks would give GSP openings for takedowns. Plus Hendricks offense seems so limited, I'm pretty confident that GSP's team would have him very prepared.

Here are the stats:http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/4221Hendricks also had Octagon control and was the aggressor all three rounds. I just don't see how you could score that a draw. Not saying that it wasn't the best fight I've seen in a long time and I don't have any doubt Condit would have gotten the finish had it been 5 rounds.Hendricks deserves the title shot, he has for a while. A draw would have screwed that up. Ellenberger vs Maia needs to happen to determine the next in line.ETA: I don't disagree about needing more 10-10 rounds. But the takedowns in this fight should have been scored accordingly.
Significant strikesRound 1 22-25Round 2 26-24Round 3 21-45I don't think takedowns are necessarily octagon control. Condit got up 4 times. Other than being on top, I don't think Hendricks controlled Condit when inside of Condit's guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't paying really close attention, but I had Hendrick-Condit as a 29-29 draw, but I personally think a lot of rounds should be scored 10-10. I think GSP is too long for Hendricks. GSP would keep the fight outside of Hendricks' range. Takedown attempts would start from so far away that GSP would have time to stuff them. Lunging left hooks would give GSP openings for takedowns. Plus Hendricks offense seems so limited, I'm pretty confident that GSP's team would have him very prepared.

Here are the stats:http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/4221Hendricks also had Octagon control and was the aggressor all three rounds. I just don't see how you could score that a draw. Not saying that it wasn't the best fight I've seen in a long time and I don't have any doubt Condit would have gotten the finish had it been 5 rounds.Hendricks deserves the title shot, he has for a while. A draw would have screwed that up. Ellenberger vs Maia needs to happen to determine the next in line.ETA: I don't disagree about needing more 10-10 rounds. But the takedowns in this fight should have been scored accordingly.
Significant strikesRound 1 22-25Round 2 26-24Round 3 21-45I don't think takedowns are necessarily octagon control. Condit got up 4 times. Other than being on top, I don't think Hendricks controlled Condit when inside of Condit's guard.
The octagon control I was referring to was Condit backpedaling across the octagon to avoid that left. Those significant strikes by Hendricks in the first two rounds were landed with significantly more power. I just don't see giving a guy a 10-10 round when the other guy had 95% of the significant strike output and slammed him on his back 4 times without having to escape a decent submission attempt. Again, not taking anything away from Condit. Both are among my favorite fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has GSP chained more than 2 strikes together? His standup consists of a jab, superman punch, leg kick and occasional spinning kick. Virtually no combos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't paying really close attention, but I had Hendrick-Condit as a 29-29 draw, but I personally think a lot of rounds should be scored 10-10. I think GSP is too long for Hendricks. GSP would keep the fight outside of Hendricks' range. Takedown attempts would start from so far away that GSP would have time to stuff them. Lunging left hooks would give GSP openings for takedowns. Plus Hendricks offense seems so limited, I'm pretty confident that GSP's team would have him very prepared.

Here are the stats:http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/4221Hendricks also had Octagon control and was the aggressor all three rounds. I just don't see how you could score that a draw. Not saying that it wasn't the best fight I've seen in a long time and I don't have any doubt Condit would have gotten the finish had it been 5 rounds.Hendricks deserves the title shot, he has for a while. A draw would have screwed that up. Ellenberger vs Maia needs to happen to determine the next in line.ETA: I don't disagree about needing more 10-10 rounds. But the takedowns in this fight should have been scored accordingly.
Significant strikesRound 1 22-25Round 2 26-24Round 3 21-45I don't think takedowns are necessarily octagon control. Condit got up 4 times. Other than being on top, I don't think Hendricks controlled Condit when inside of Condit's guard.
The octagon control I was referring to was Condit backpedaling across the octagon to avoid that left. Those significant strikes by Hendricks in the first two rounds were landed with significantly more power. I just don't see giving a guy a 10-10 round when the other guy had 95% of the significant strike output and slammed him on his back 4 times without having to escape a decent submission attempt. Again, not taking anything away from Condit. Both are among my favorite fighters.
How would you feel about scoring it 10-9, 10-9, 10-8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as critical as anyone of the "takedown and then do nothing" approach some fighters use but Hendricks put Condit down 4 times in the last round. No way can that be a 10-8 against him. I think there do need to be more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds than are currently judged, but rd 3 was a textbook 10-9 rd for Condit imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as critical as anyone of the "takedown and then do nothing" approach some fighters use but Hendricks put Condit down 4 times in the last round. No way can that be a 10-8 against him. I think there do need to be more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds than are currently judged, but rd 3 was a textbook 10-9 rd for Condit imo.

:goodposting: Again I think a 10-9 for Hendricks would have been more likely than a 10-8 for Condit in round 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

edit: realizing that I very much alone as I see takedowns as a means to an end, not as a goal itself

Edited by Voice Of Reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?edit: realizing that I very much alone as I see takedowns as a means to an end, not as a goal itself

I'd have to watch the fight again but I agree with the decision under the current system that rewards take downs. Under a different system where a guy who gets taken down actually does more damage while down actually neutralizes the take down- I'd be leaning towards a draw for last night fight.However, to be fair, you would have to assume Hendricks would change strategy and not go for so many take downs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as critical as anyone of the "takedown and then do nothing" approach some fighters use but Hendricks put Condit down 4 times in the last round. No way can that be a 10-8 against him. I think there do need to be more 10-10 and 10-8 rounds than are currently judged, but rd 3 was a textbook 10-9 rd for Condit imo.

:goodposting: x1000Then you'll have these insane 10-8 decision rounds (like Condit in the 3rd would be) that'd have people up in arms. It was a 10-9 Condit round. Plain and simple. I don't mind a 10-8 if the guy gets absolutely slaughtered and the opposition does nothing the whole round. 4 takedowns isn't nothing. Edited by Craig_MiamiFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has GSP chained more than 2 strikes together? His standup consists of a jab, superman punch, leg kick and occasional spinning kick. Virtually no combos.

I don't think so. He's as conservative as you get. Even his right hand is almost always a straight right. He's all about keeping distance and attacking with kicks and that lightning quick jab which covers a great distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.
This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a guy gets destroyed the whole round but locks in a sub at the end but the bell goes off before the other guy taps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a guy gets destroyed the whole round but locks in a sub at the end but the bell goes off before the other guy taps?

What's the submission?In other news, Nick Diaz announces to the world that he's never paid taxes. This guy really is a box of rocks. Edited by NutterButter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a guy gets destroyed the whole round but locks in a sub at the end but the bell goes off before the other guy taps?

Fighter A = destroyerFighter B = destroyee, last second sub guyIf it's a "10 more seconds and B would have gotten a tap/A would have gone out" sub, 10-9 round for A . If it's some BS that A would have escaped from in 10 more seconds, 10-8 round for A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, Nick Diaz announces to the world that he's never paid taxes. This guy really is a box of rocks.

Yeah, that may be the dumbest thing he's ever said, and reaching that milestone is no small feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

A 25-22 striking advantage is quite small. A 4-0 takedown advantage is almost unheard of.After seeing the numbers (a small striking edge with another 4 takedowns), I'm even more convinced that Hendricks took the 2nd round. Easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.

The only time a near-finish isn't necessary for a 10-8 round is if one fighter has dominate position for the vast majority of the round and is constantly landing punches and/or submissions while the losing fighter has zero offense. The third round of Fitch/Penn comes to mind here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

A 25-22 striking advantage is quite small. A 4-0 takedown advantage is almost unheard of.After seeing the numbers (a small striking edge with another 4 takedowns), I'm even more convinced that Hendricks took the 2nd round. Easily.
Would the numbers have been less impressive if Condit were content to strike from the bottom for the whole round and Hendricks' takedown count were 1-0?The takedown count is 4-0 because Hendricks couldn't keep him down effectively. Is that really a big positive for Leonidas? Edited by Abrantes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

A 25-22 striking advantage is quite small. A 4-0 takedown advantage is almost unheard of.After seeing the numbers (a small striking edge with another 4 takedowns), I'm even more convinced that Hendricks took the 2nd round. Easily.
Would the numbers have been less impressive if Condit were content to strike from the bottom for the whole round and Hendricks' takedown count were 1-0?The takedown count is 4-0 because Hendricks couldn't keep him down effectively. Is that really a big positive for Leonidas?
Interesting point as most judges have a hard time giving a round to the guy spending most of it on the bottom even if he's more effective.The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though. I know this isn't a BJJ match, but in a BJJ match, a takedown is worth 2 points while getting up isn't rewarded. If Condit would have been able to sweep (3 points in BJJ) Hendricks four times and then get up, I would have awarded the round to Condit. I don't think the average MMA judge would agree with awarding sweeps to heavily, but they are extremely difficult.This fight would be extremely interesting if Condit could sprawl effectively. Of course, it's hard to deny the takedown to someone with Hendricks' wresting, but I don't remember seeing Condit sprawl once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.
I guess my personal scale is10-10 close round, could make an argument for either guy10-9 one guy clearly gets the better of another10-8 fighter clearly wins round and is twice as effective as the standard for 10-910-7 fighter is completely overwhelmed for the entire round, fight could have been stopped, some Frank Edgar 1st rounds and a round of Velasquez vs Rothwell come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

A 25-22 striking advantage is quite small. A 4-0 takedown advantage is almost unheard of.

After seeing the numbers (a small striking edge with another 4 takedowns), I'm even more convinced that Hendricks took the 2nd round. Easily.

Would the numbers have been less impressive if Condit were content to strike from the bottom for the whole round and Hendricks' takedown count were 1-0?

The takedown count is 4-0 because Hendricks couldn't keep him down effectively. Is that really a big positive for Leonidas?

Interesting point as most judges have a hard time giving a round to the guy spending most of it on the bottom even if he's more effective.

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though. I know this isn't a BJJ match, but in a BJJ match, a takedown is worth 2 points while getting up isn't rewarded. If Condit would have been able to sweep (3 points in BJJ) Hendricks four times and then get up, I would have awarded the round to Condit. I don't think the average MMA judge would agree with awarding sweeps to heavily, but they are extremely difficult.

This fight would be extremely interesting if Condit could sprawl effectively. Of course, it's hard to deny the takedown to someone with Hendricks' wresting, but I don't remember seeing Condit sprawl once.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocked to hear everyone agreeing with the Hendricks decision. Feels like I watched an entirely different fight, because I saw Condit being superior in the striking exchanges and doing more from the bottom than Hendricks on top when it went to the ground. Taking the opponent down and doing next to nothing with it doesn't score highly for me, and if it does for the judges, then the scoring criteria is clearly ridiculous. I watched it with the volume on low, so I don't know if Rogan was in full "this is the best Hendricks we've ever seen" mode, but I didn't have a doubt in my mind that Condit was superior. I'll watch it again later.

I've watched it a little more than twice using rewind and pause to consider some of the groundwork closely. Limited to 10 pt must rounds, I score it 29-28 Hendricks, Condit dominating the 3rd losing the first two barely. Not limited to the scoring system, I'd call Condit the winner.

Metrics: Round one -- Condit has one more significant strike and 3 more total strikes landed. That's close, but he took 4 takedowns and did little on his back. The ground exchanges were even. 10-9 Hendricks because the takedowns were more significant than anything that happened. Round two -- Condit again with one more significant strike and just one more total strikes landed, and again giving 4 takedowns. This was even closer. I can see someone scoring it for Condit, but I'm still calling it for Hendricks based on the heaviest three blows of the round and the ease at which he dumped Condit being the key feature of the round. Condit did more on the ground but not quite enough to negate or overcome the constant takedowns. He needed to do more. Third round -- Condit with 10 more significant strikes, 20 more total strikes, and consistently better on the ground despite more takedowns. Easy round for him. Should they be heading to the championship rounds, Condit is likely going to stop him. If it was a hundred point must system I would score it something like 100-98, 100-99, 94-100 = 294-297 Condit.

We've agreed before this boxing scoring system is flawed for three or five five minute rounds. This isn't even in the top 20 infuriating examples, but it does get added to the list.

Definitely not. I'm mostly just surprised at how little discussion there was about it. It's nearly all "yup, Hendricks won without a doubt". I had Condit 29-28, winning the second round too. I might see it as a closer fight on second viewing.

Also glad to see you're still around with the GSP hate, man. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.
I guess my personal scale is10-10 close round, could make an argument for either guy10-9 one guy clearly gets the better of another10-8 fighter clearly wins round and is twice as effective as the standard for 10-910-7 fighter is completely overwhelmed for the entire round, fight could have been stopped, some Frank Edgar 1st rounds and a round of Velasquez vs Rothwell come to mind.
I don't remember a 10-7 round ever being scored in the UFC. Have there been any?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

A 25-22 striking advantage is quite small. A 4-0 takedown advantage is almost unheard of.

After seeing the numbers (a small striking edge with another 4 takedowns), I'm even more convinced that Hendricks took the 2nd round. Easily.

Would the numbers have been less impressive if Condit were content to strike from the bottom for the whole round and Hendricks' takedown count were 1-0?

The takedown count is 4-0 because Hendricks couldn't keep him down effectively. Is that really a big positive for Leonidas?

Interesting point as most judges have a hard time giving a round to the guy spending most of it on the bottom even if he's more effective.

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though. I know this isn't a BJJ match, but in a BJJ match, a takedown is worth 2 points while getting up isn't rewarded. If Condit would have been able to sweep (3 points in BJJ) Hendricks four times and then get up, I would have awarded the round to Condit. I don't think the average MMA judge would agree with awarding sweeps to heavily, but they are extremely difficult.

This fight would be extremely interesting if Condit could sprawl effectively. Of course, it's hard to deny the takedown to someone with Hendricks' wresting, but I don't remember seeing Condit sprawl once.

In wrestling, it appears to be pretty much the same with 1-5 points awarded for a take down and 0 for an escape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I saw the standard for a 10-9 being pretty low if being outstruck 25-22, but getting 4 takedowns gets a fighter that. If that is the standard for 10-9, what would the numbers have to look like to award a 10-8?

Therein is the problem. This is all completely subjective for each judge. My interpretation of it is this -- A 10-8 round should be complete one-sided domination by one fighter where it was questionable that the other fighter would even make it out of the round (completely rocked/near KO/almost choked/submitted). If there's any semblance of back and forth action during a round it shouldn't be a 10-8.
I guess my personal scale is10-10 close round, could make an argument for either guy10-9 one guy clearly gets the better of another10-8 fighter clearly wins round and is twice as effective as the standard for 10-910-7 fighter is completely overwhelmed for the entire round, fight could have been stopped, some Frank Edgar 1st rounds and a round of Velasquez vs Rothwell come to mind.
I don't remember a 10-7 round ever being scored in the UFC. Have there been any?
I think Starnes-Quarry had one. Forest Petz vs Sam Morgan as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocked to hear everyone agreeing with the Hendricks decision. Feels like I watched an entirely different fight, because I saw Condit being superior in the striking exchanges and doing more from the bottom than Hendricks on top when it went to the ground. Taking the opponent down and doing next to nothing with it doesn't score highly for me, and if it does for the judges, then the scoring criteria is clearly ridiculous. I watched it with the volume on low, so I don't know if Rogan was in full "this is the best Hendricks we've ever seen" mode, but I didn't have a doubt in my mind that Condit was superior. I'll watch it again later.

I've watched it a little more than twice using rewind and pause to consider some of the groundwork closely. Limited to 10 pt must rounds, I score it 29-28 Hendricks, Condit dominating the 3rd losing the first two barely. Not limited to the scoring system, I'd call Condit the winner.

Metrics: Round one -- Condit has one more significant strike and 3 more total strikes landed. That's close, but he took 4 takedowns and did little on his back. The ground exchanges were even. 10-9 Hendricks because the takedowns were more significant than anything that happened. Round two -- Condit again with one more significant strike and just one more total strikes landed, and again giving 4 takedowns. This was even closer. I can see someone scoring it for Condit, but I'm still calling it for Hendricks based on the heaviest three blows of the round and the ease at which he dumped Condit being the key feature of the round. Condit did more on the ground but not quite enough to negate or overcome the constant takedowns. He needed to do more. Third round -- Condit with 10 more significant strikes, 20 more total strikes, and consistently better on the ground despite more takedowns. Easy round for him. Should they be heading to the championship rounds, Condit is likely going to stop him. If it was a hundred point must system I would score it something like 100-98, 100-99, 94-100 = 294-297 Condit.

We've agreed before this boxing scoring system is flawed for three or five five minute rounds. This isn't even in the top 20 infuriating examples, but it does get added to the list.

Definitely not. I'm mostly just surprised at how little discussion there was about it. It's nearly all "yup, Hendricks won without a doubt". I had Condit 29-28, winning the second round too. I might see it as a closer fight on second viewing.

Also glad to see you're still around with the GSP hate, man. :thumbup:

I'm not sure how much there is to discuss. I just watched it for a third time and in the 2nd, I give Condit a slight edge in striking, but he was taken down 4 times. You might be from the school of thought where a takedown doesn't matter unless there's damage inflicted, but I don't think the judges see it that way. And I don't think Condit was very effective from the bottom either. A couple of elbows to the top of the head, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, a takedown is an offensive move while avoiding the takedown and sprawling and getting up are defensive. Offensive success generally trumps defensive success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.
I'm talking about how fights should be judged. Otherwise there would be little to no discussion of judging, rather reporting what the judges scored it.

There is nothing in the unified rules that prioritizes wrestling, it's just an ad hoc rule of how judges score fights. Octagon control is the the closest, but I've never seen a judge score a round for a fighter because he controlled where the fight took place by stuffing takedowns.

Edited by Voice Of Reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
The important question is how they're judged. I think they're judged pretty highly b/c wrestling is one of the major disciplines of mma and in wrestling you score for takedowns and not for escapes. If what you're talking about is changing how fights are judged, then never mind.
I'm talking about how fights should be judged, clearly. Otherwise there would be little to no discussion of judging, rather reporting what the judges scored it.
Huh? You could still discuss why the fights were judged the way they were. its not robots we're talking about. there's frequently fights where one judge scores it completely opposite from another.

and i still think they have it right for their rewarding take downs and not escapes. that's how both freestyle and greco roman score it. they even used to award escapes, but took that away. i think they may be on to something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The four takedowns are more impressive than the four getups though.

Why?
After about two years of BJJ, I've found that holding someone down for even a minute is really difficult - unless you're able to grab their gi/clothing.
And some tai chi poses are difficult as well. Important question is what goal do they accomplish in MMA.
Takedowns dictate where the fight takes place. That's pretty important. And yes - so does getting up, but as stated before, I believe getting up is easier. Plus, being on the offensive should be more highly rewarded than being on the defensive. It really amazes me that this is questioned regarding grappling as it never is regarding striking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.