Quote:
Originally Posted by Army Eye
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.
Yes, the rules say Condit was effectively aggressive and controlling the Octagon. This IN ADDITION to being the more effective striker, the number 1 criteria in judging.
@TeflonDawg, how do you weigh winning 3.5 minutes of winning effective striking by a relatively close margin against 1.5 minutes of losing effective grappling by a relatively wide margin? The answer, of course, is it's tricky and subjective. I personally give much more weight to the striking unless I perceive the submission attempts to be very threatening. For example, I never thought Condit was in real danger of being subbed, while I was waiting with bated breath as Figueroa was fighting off Caceres' RNC attempts. Another good example IIRC, was Kampmann/Shields, where I scored the third for Kampmann even though Shield had back control for a bit because I never felt Kampmann was in any danger, and he was clearly winning the striking. That said, I wouldn't really argue with going the other way in either of those 2 rounds. Side note, your friend's argument that "leg jab" basically don't count is complete trash. Hand jabs count, so do leg jabs.