MMA Thread - Page 46 - Sports Betting

PiercE · 02-07-2012, 04:12 AM

lock of the century would be werdum over mir imo. werdum looked beast like in that fight.

Swiiftx · 02-07-2012, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingofcool

Hes for sure one of the best strikers in the division, his sprawl is great and his footwork excellent.

His offensive wrestling is meh and his bjj is probably still meh.

I don't see how Nog beats him though. Nog won't get him to the ground i don't think and on the feet i feel Alex is way too powerful and honestly a better technical striker as well.

Nog can test his chin i guess? He could also get some weird trip and really punish him on the ground if hes on top.'

Nogueira is slipping in my opinion. He hasn't had a good performance in a long time, and I'm not going to qualify the Ortiz win as such. Ortiz looked absolutely horrible.

This. He has one of the best boxing, if not the best, in the division and excellent footwork. This is mainly the reason because he started of as a boxer in Sweden. He has decent TDD's which he showed against Phil Davis for a bigger part of the fight until he got taken down and submitted. So I'd say his biggest weakness is the ground but since I don't think Noguiera is a half as good wrestler as Davis, this fight is going to remain on the feet, also bc in Nogs fights, I haven't seen him try taking it to the ground, he's content with standing it seems.

Also after his loss to Davis, he went to train with them at Team Alliance so that got to count for something. In due time I definitely think he's going to become a top 5 lhw fighter.

just_mo · 02-07-2012, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swiiftx

This. He has one of the best boxing, if not the best, in the division and excellent footwork. This is mainly the reason because he started of as a boxer in Sweden. He has decent TDD's which he showed against Phil Davis for a bigger part of the fight until he got taken down and submitted. So I'd say his biggest weakness is the ground but since I don't think Noguiera is a half as good wrestler as Davis, this fight is going to remain on the feet, also bc in Nogs fights, I haven't seen him try taking it to the ground, he's content with standing it seems.

Also after his loss to Davis, he went to train with them at Team Alliance so that got to count for something. In due time I definitely think he's going to become a top 5 lhw fighter.

I also see Gustafsson as a longtime top 5 LHW in the near future. If he comes out and finishes Nog, I will obv be 100% sold.

@Pierce ya I think I favor Werdum over Mir too. Don't see Mir getting anything done on the ground, and Werdum's standup looked excellent on Saturday. Mir ain't eating the same strikes Nelson ate.

SwoopAE · 02-07-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiercE

lock of the century would be werdum over mir imo. werdum looked beast like in that fight.

Nope i'm as high on Werdum as anyone but that's a flip at best. Remember all you people said Nelson would crush Mir? How did that turn out? My bet on that one will depend on the lines but i'll probably be taking whoever the underdog is.

Swiiftx · 02-07-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwoopAE

Nope i'm as high on Werdum as anyone but that's a flip at best. Remember all you people said Nelson would crush Mir? How did that turn out? My bet on that one will depend on the lines but i'll probably be taking whoever the underdog is.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...86&postcount=7

Werdum over Mir. He has a more versatile striking and the grappling cancels out each other pretty much. Also because Werdum has looked better in his fight vs Nelson than Mir looked in his fight vs Nelson/Mirko and Noguera. As of late, Mir has looked pretty sluggish and slow to me.

TeflonDawg · 02-07-2012, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by just_mo

Thank YOU for providing me the opportunity to completely crush your pathetic argument using actual facts and evidence. Here are some more.

Straight from the unified rules:

4) “Effective Aggressiveness”: Moving forward or backwards, but setting the tempo of the contest while effectively scoring with legal strikes, takedowns, and submissions while blocking the opponents counters.

Notice the second part of that...WHILE EFFECTIVELY SCORING WITH LEGAL STRIKES ETC. WHILE BLOCKING THE OPPONENT'S COUNTERS. It's already been established that Condit outdid Diaz in these areas. More importantly, notice the first part..."moving forward or backwards, but setting the tempo of the contest..." Nowhere does it say barreling forward into strikes constitutes effective aggression.

By these parameters, Condit clearly had more effective aggression since he determined the tempo of the contest while moving and scoring with more legal strikes and blocking more of his opponent's.

3) “Octagon Control”: Dictating the pace, location and position of the contest using the following maneuvers:

a) Countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown to remain standing and legally striking effectively;
b) Taking down an opponent to force a ground fight;
c) Creating threatening submission attempts pass the guard to achieve mount, while on the ground;
d) Creating striking opportunities, while on the ground.

Who dictated the pace of the bout? Clearly Condit since he wanted a tactical striking battle, which we got, and not a firefight, which Diaz wanted. Who dictated the location/position of the bout? Clearly Condit, since he wanted to fight in the center while Diaz wanted to fight with Condit's back against the fence. Therefore, Condit wins Octagon Control as well.

Who won striking? Condit. Who won aggression? Condit. Who won Octagon Control? Condit.

Who deservedly won the fight? Condit. GG.

So ldo on my facebook my friend is having this same argument. Here's the argument for Diaz one guy made:

Quote:

Originally Posted by facebook dude who thought Diaz should've won

Condit out struck Diaz by 4 strikes in round 1. 11 of those were "Leg Jabs" , meanwhile Diaz landed 27 to the head and body. Round 2, Diaz out struck Condit by 6. Round 5, Condit outstruck Diaz by 11, 8 of those were leg jabs. Diaz got the ...take down and almost submitted him. Do you give it to a guy that came forward, tried to finish the fight, or a guy that backpedaled, ran, and out struck his opponent due to "leg jabs." Those stats I quoted were from FightMetric btw.

So what do you guys think? Also, how much is a takedown/back control/submission attempt worth when scoring a round? How do we know the sub shifted the round 5 scoring Diaz's way or not?

Army Eye · 02-07-2012, 01:30 PM

So even though Diaz could've sat in the middle and clipped his toenails if he wanted to, Condit was apparently effectively aggressive and dictating where the fight went. OK then.

kingofcool · 02-07-2012, 02:23 PM

the most important aspect of judging is effective strikes and grappling. Not octagon control (which is an arbitrary criteria to say the least. Cecil Peoples who was one of the judges this time said after Machida/Shogun that Machida had the octagon control)

Aggression does not count for as much as you may think. And if it's not effective aggression it doesn't count at all.

It was a close fight. Condit got the decision. Nobody was robbed. Move the **** on.

DodgerIrish · 02-07-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingofcool

the most important aspect of judging is effective strikes and grappling. Not octagon control (which is an arbitrary criteria to say the least. Cecil Peoples who was one of the judges this time said after Machida/Shogun that Machida had the octagon control)

And Machida got the decision, you're contradicting yourself.

I bet Condit so I'm not bellyaching, I've only watched it the one time live and I think I had 2 3 and 4 for Condit but I was drunk and sweating it so I'd need to rewatch it to give a true accounting. It was a close fight tho

kingofcool · 02-07-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

And Machida got the decision, you're contradicting yourself.

I bet Condit so I'm not bellyaching

Yeah and Machida was backtracking getting chased by Shogun. How am i contradicting myself?

DodgerIrish · 02-07-2012, 02:32 PM

I just came upon this today. Obv Gracie is biased but the bold references what I brought up and I'd never heard it before

http://www.mmatorch.com/artman2/publ...le_12426.shtml

Quote:

"No I don't obviously [think Condit won], [Diaz] clearly won that fight," Gracie said in an interview with Ariel Helwani on the MMA Hour at MMAFighting.com (transcribed by BJPenn.com). "I've been there when Nicks lost fights and have told him you kind of let that one go... But this fight it was very clear. I was kind of shocked when I was in the cage, we were pretty much all in disbelief especially when the judges scores where read...

"If you repeat that first round five times you're still gonna lose because every judge had Nick losing that first round, so there was nothing we could have done... In my opinion I don't think the judges like Nick. He talks in the ring, Carlos was running in the ring and at one point Nick slapped him and told him to stop running. Nick thought it was going to be a dog fight."

DodgerIrish · 02-07-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingofcool

Yeah and Machida was backtracking getting chased by Shogun. How am i contradicting myself?

Ur right, I've been equating Diaz to Machida and Condit to Shogun in my mind b/c more punch heavy offense vs kick heavy and favorite vs underdog.

I thought Peoples may not want to be caught slighting the underdog after all the flack he got last time too

If I remember right Shogun was the one who would exit the exchanges though similar to Condit, maybe I'm wrong tho

DodgerIrish · 02-07-2012, 02:46 PM

Ya Condit/Diaz and Shogun/Machida are 2 diff scenarios. Condit would evade, stay at range and scram anytime an exchange went down.

Machida counter punched, but didn't run away. Big difference. Condit wanted to be first off and avoid any damage. Machida wanted to be second and deliver the bigger damage. Shogun and Condit both had a point scoring mentality, Condit much more so

Swiiftx · 02-07-2012, 03:21 PM

I'm a fan of machida and in the machida vs shogun fight, I thought he had lost the decision, mainly due to rogan being biased towards shogun. However, after rewatching the fight without sound, you could make a compelling argument that machida won 3/5 rounds.

The Condit Diaz fight was actually the first time I asked myself, wtf is winning the fight when it was till the start of r3. However, I do not think there is anything wrong w Condit winning the decision. R1 and R2 are the rounds that arguably went to Diaz whereas r3 and 4 easily went to Condit and r5 condit dominated the standup for 80% of the round until he went to the ground.

kingofcool · 02-07-2012, 03:55 PM

i didn't use machida/shogun as a measurement of good scoring. Just used it as a way to show how pointless the octagon control criteria is. It's up for everyone to judge it like they want. You can spin the "he decided where the fight took place" freely and it will make sense due to the wording of the criteria.

Effective striking and grappling is good ways to measure a fight. They are quantifiable.