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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

I like Diaz, but he can talk about the "baby" leg kicks as much as he want because in r3,4 and 5 they had taken their toll on him and his movement and overall game had stagnated a lot compared to r1 and 2 whereas Condits physical condition wasn't affected as much throughout the rounds.
With that said, who was closer losing in the fifth round? It was clearly Condit since Diaz was a lot closer to submitting Condit than Condit TKO/KO'ing Diaz. It's hard to score the fifth round since Diaz both got a takedown and a very dominant position whilst Condit outstruck him(but Diaz landed as well on the feet in 5th round) for the majority of the time.

Man idk, this is like the Shogun Henderson fight, it wasnt a robbery, but no one would have complained if the fight was a draw(though it'd be a robbery if shogun had won imo) and I'd say the same here, if it was a draw I wouldn't complain and if Condit won(which he did) I wouldn't complain either.

Condit just agreed to rematch, news on mma.tv

Interesting to see how he will fight this time, he's been hammered on the mma forums this week.

I just heard this on twitter, and if this is true, it's really, really dumb. If Condit loses, he will have split a pair of fights with Diaz but Diaz is the one who gets the real title shot? While his win counts for basically nothing? Makes no sense. If Condit is gonna defend interim title, it should be against Ellenberger or Hendricks.

As for how Condit will fight, I'm sure he will come out with a very similar game plan. Diaz has to prove he can keep up with Condit's diverse kickboxing game. I think Diaz would be wise to pursue some grappling a little more aggressively this time.

Hendricks is not in a position to fight for a title. You gotta see it from the UFC's point of view. I doubt half the viewers even know who the hell he is (even with the fitch KO).

Hendricks vs. Koscheck. Rematch Diaz vs. Condit to end the speculations. Let the division sort itself out to have contender for GSP after he mauls condit/diaz.

It's true that Hendricks is probably mostly anonymous to the casual fan. But I mean whose fault is that? It's pretty much accepted that the UFC has sucked at promoting the next generation of fighters post-Liddell/Couture/Ortiz. GSP and Lesnar carried the company the last couple of years and it took Sonnen to make Silva a draw. Hendricks' last 2 fights were a war with another top up and comer and a brutal KO of an elite WW. On merit, the guy should be one more big time win away from a title shot.

It's obvious the UFC really likes Ellenberger and are hoping he crushes Sanchez to vault him to a title shot...

Reports now that Condit rematch story is false.

This is basically no different than any controversial or close title fight/immediate rematch. You coulda said the same thing with;

Edgar/Penn, Edgar/Maynard, Shogun/Machida, etc

dana said not this year

You Diaz fanboys are delusional it wasn't even ****ing close, Condit won easily and there is no way an immediate rematch is justified. I had it 49-46, and while 48-47 is acceptable, scoring the fight for Diaz isn't. 50-45 is more acceptable than scoring the fight for Diaz.

If nick wants to earn his title shot, he should have to fight for it like anyone else, even Sonnen had to (obvious exceptions are LEGIT close title fights like Shogun/Machida 1 and Penn/Edgar 1 and Edgar/Maynard 2)

This one wasn't close, let it go Diaz fans if your boy is as good as he thinks he is he'll have no problems beating a Fitch or a Koscheck or a Hendricks for another shot.

I would, Condit won 49-46 or 48-47, no other score is remotely acceptable, there were no 10-8 rounds, and if you score the first round 10-10 then even then Condit wins 49-47 in my books, although some people think r2 was Diaz's best for some reason I felt like even though the stats say otherwise the first round was closer to being Diaz's than the second.