Why are you giving credit to the striking? It led to no real threat of knockout.

If we're going to look at a fight impartially, neither of you can decipher what led to a real threat of striking or submissions. You just have to score the fight for what happened. Score Condit for out-striking, and score Diaz for gaining back control.

How else are you going to score the fight, when no takedowns were even attempted the first three rounds and Diaz' 2 takedown attempts in the 4th round were stuffed.

It was soo fun watching Condit use footwork and ring management to dot Diaz' punk face. He landed 151 significant strikes vs only 105 for Diaz, total landslide. I am sure Diaz will be watching the superbowl through one eye today, his face was pummeled. At least this was a clearcut obvious decision without a hint of controversy. Maybe Diaz can pick an opponent who fight him exactly how he wants next time. This fight wasn't even close.

it's about effective striking and effective grappling. Condits striking was effective and what diaz did in the 5th definitely counts as effective grappling.

it actually was very close when judging it round by round. Both 1 and 2 could easily have gone the way of diaz. And the fifth as well.

It was a just decision, but lets not fool ourselves. It was highly competitive.
It's kind of weird how you use fightmetric stats to point to how it wasn't even close and totally disregard everything else fightmetric provided.

http://blog.fightmetric.com/2012/02/...tatistics.html

The judges may have not looked fondly on the taunting/talking

Remember Mazagatti during the Lawler/Diaz fight?

"Stop talking"

I would be very surprised if that was a factor.

You don't think it could have been a factor that Diaz continued to taunt Condit while Condit hit him?

Do hometown decisions happen? Is there a tangible benefit to getting the crowd behind you? If you think so, than that demonstrates that judges will show affinity for certain fighters due to different variables

Not really. Could you explain in what way?

Hometown decisions happen. They're sometimes due to corruption, but more frequently due to the crowds reaction accentuates the offensive output by the favorite.

That is just IMO obviously. I'm all ears for your theory if you want to expand on it.

I just did

It's not difficult. You think a crowd favorite only helps the fighter perform and doesn't sway the judging? You think the UFC's in Brazil and Candada are corrupt? You think every Bellator show is corrupt?

Difference between corrupt and inept

I don't think it was "very close". I already saw ALL of the fightmetric stats that you included and they confirmed the outcome, Condit 4-1 or 3-2. Obviously there is subjectivity in fight scoring that will always lead to debate.

In my original post I used hyperbole to respond to the idiotic post that I quoted. While Condit did not dominate the fight, the final decision was never in question. Diaz will whine like a baby, pretend that he was robbed, he deserved the win, etc to self promote and keep getting paid. Dude is a punk and a well rounded top fighter should be able to exploit his unidemensional pressing style.

Not sure if I'm being unclear. I never said it's because the crowd helps the fighter perform. What i said was that the crowds reaction when their favorite dish out damage is not in proportion to the effectiveness of the attack. So even if it's grazing blows they will go crazy and possibly influence the judges that way. It's really hard from the judges angles (even with monitors) to see the impact of every punch(etc).
In short, the crowd makes the impression that one guy is being more effective than the other.

Why would taunting sway a judge? Would he look at it and think "what an *******, **** him"?

Yes and every round except for two was very very close. So how is this not a close fight?

I don't think this is a robbery. I bet on Diaz and scored it for Condit. I just disagree with your comments on it not being close. It was. Very much so.

You think that thought is above Cecil Peoples?

Did you read the judges reasoning for 50-45 Edgar in their first fight?

I didn't read that, no.
I wouldn't dispute there's some ****ty judges out there. I was just interested as to how big an impact "taunting" could possibly have.

Not trying to stir up **** and argue here. It would actually be interesting to consider if there's any truth to it. Can you think of fights where it has played a role? I know you mentioned the Lawler fight, but that seems to be the referee rather than the judges. (no idea why Mazzagati would even say such a thing. Is there a rule against taunting?)

Ya I dunno. Im just saying it coulda been a factor. There's no one else like Diaz so it's not like there's much of a track record.

In the last 5 years, mainly due to fighting inferior competition, Diaz has only gone to dec twice. One was in his backyard of San Jose and got a UD against Noons (Noons thought he won but it was close). The other was a SD win against Mike Aina (who?) in Hawaii.

If you've never seen the Diaz/Lawler fight go watch it now. It's one of my all time favs

I have seen it, i just never put that moment into my longterm memory i guess.

With the quality of judges we've seen even in top fights that doesn't sound too unlikely tbh. Two judges had it 49-46 with Diaz taking round 3 - I think you could train a monkey to do better judging than that.

that caught my attention actually. On my initial viewing i thought round 3 was a clear win for Condit, but fightmetric has it very close. Jordan Breen (who i think is a very good analyst, honestly) also scored it for Diaz, as well as two judges.

One of the problems with mma is that old school boxingjudges are put into these positions to judge mma. I don't think thats optimal.

Dan Stittgen vs. Stephen Thompson, impressive win by Thompson, it's going to be very interesting to see him vs real fighters. Stittgen looked really really bad, so it's very hard to determine how good Thompson really is.

Alex Caceres vs. Edwin Figueroa, Caceres won that fight imo, even with the 2 point deduction, he outgrappled figueroa by far and even won the standup except for that 1 kick by Figuerioa. Can't complain though, had money on Figueroa to win.

Dustin Poirier vs. Max Holloway, There's 2 winners in this fight imo, Holloways standup looked really sharp and is a force to be reckoned with later on.

Ed Herman vs. Clifford Starks, Herman has a hell of a chin. Stark was winning the fight until that choke and I think this was a dangerous bet.

Josh Koscheck vs. Mike Pierce, I scored it for Pierce. He pressed Kos way more against the cage and landed more combinations. Only thing Kos had going for him was 2 vs 1 takedowns and even then, both got up quickly. Kos standup skills are pretty bad and he's a cheater when it comes to fighting, no doubt, he pulled some **** in the Daley fight, eyepoked AJ in their fight and now again eyepokes Pierce, what an idiot. Pierce did not deserve this, I definitely liked my 0.25 unit bet on Pierce even if it didnt come through. Placed one unit on it going the distance so that went through at least.

Roy Nelson vs. Fabricio Werdum, Werdum looked good and once again Roy Nelson shows that he has the best chin in the HW, but nothing more than that.

Nick Diaz vs. Carlos Condit, Not a robbery by far, I'm not sure but r1 1 and 2 where kinda hard to score, whilst r3 and 4 went to Condit. R5 I think went to Diaz. Condit executed a perfect gameplan. And you can't really give Diaz the win bc he pushed the pace, if that was the case, fighters like Machida would never win his decisions even if they outstrike their opponents.

Telling you things yall may already know.

Cecil Peoples is kind of the go to joke of a ref reference. I wasn't doing that, he was one of those 49-46 refs.

Ironically he was the one after Machida/Rua I said "Leg kicks certainly don't finish fights" in defense of his Machida scorecard.

i remember this. One of the most ******ed comments i've heard from a judge in combat sports.

Clearly misspoke here. Diaz/Penn went to dec but Diaz had the crowd behind him and it was clear he whooped Penn's ass in Rd 2 & 3

Don't discount the impact crowds have on the refs as well. A Brazilian did not lose 1 fight at UFC 142, and any serious gambler who witnessed UFC 134 knew this was going to be a sustantial home field edge. The most obvious ref edge may have been the Johnson fight, as the ref always broke up the fighters almost immediately when Johnson took him down, making the fighters stand up and neutralizing any chance Johnson had at winning on the ground.

Yeah i definitely think the referees can get influenced and feel intimidated making tough calls against the hometown guy. I don't think it's as much of a factor with the judges though.

But it definitely is something to consider. I personally think it's mostly due to the crowd reactions accentuating the punches, kicks, grappling of "their guy" though when it comes to the scoring judges (not the ref inside the octagon).