Quote:
Originally Posted by Army Eye
Now I've heard it all. Thank you.
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.