Diaz decision is only debatable if you're blind. Condit won 4 rounds.

Also, Caceres heading back to evens, thinking I might put a bit down especially if he gets back to evens, he did ok fighting in Macau vs a local hero type, don't see why Japan would be different and on paper he's a fav over Kang imo. Going to wait for now though since the money seems to be on Kang.

Tempted on Tavares but will probably stay away for now.

Anyone seen Tokudome's fights, is he any good? Marcello looked ok in his last fight but terrible in every other fight i've seen him in, might fade him if Tokudome has any potential at all but the line seems meh

Heavy steam on Vegh, looks like I got it in good there betting yesterday the line has moved a bunch. Put a small half unit play on the u3.5 rounds as well as both guys are more likely to win by TKO than any other method

Obviously debatable, it's been discussed more than any recent decision with big split in the MMA community regarding the decision.

I know most here disagree with me (I award aggression in fights more than most) but it was certainly debatable.

I think the difference comes from fans who've been watching the sport since it's NHB days and post TUF fans. I was watching and involved in the sport when aggression was very important and there weren't scorecards just a name on a board (and very early on just a draw if time ran out). Newer fans see MMA as more of a sport than a fight and therefore are happy giving wins to fighters who choose not to fully engage.

Right now my scoring is prob a bit off compared with the more modern judging, I just hope there is a push on the judges to award more for aggression again and penalise hit and run strategy.

It's not debatable because Diaz didn't do anything but stalk Condit and get punched in the face doing just that. Aggression is awesome if you're actually accomplishing something like hurting your opponent, but if you're just stalking him, not inflicting any damage, then you're losing the fight.
I'm not big fan of the hit and run strategy, the one that Edgar employs and I think in the Aldo Edgar, and Bendo Edgar fight, I think both Aldo and Bendo won because they had the harder strikes because they committed with their strikes, whereas edgar didn't commit, he was just focused on touching his opponents and getting out.
But in the 2nd BJ Penn Edgar fight, Edgar won because he employed his hit and run gameplan but didn't get hit in return. Just the same reason why Machida wins his fights, he hit and runs, but is succesful in not getting hit and is the reason why he wins.
I mean, I think to a degree, a fighter wins when he's more active from his back then the guy who holds him there, if he's not doing anything.

Fights need to be scored on the criteria, not on what you wish the criteria was. Under the criteria at UFC 143, any judge not scoring Condit as the winner is simply incompetent. Not only that, but even under Pride/Just Bleed rules, Condit STILL won the fight because he landed the most significant damage of the fight and had the most dominating round in I think it was r4 from memory

Why? Walking forward swinging at air is not a viable strategy to win fights. For example, Machida/Hendo and Machida/Rampage. Machida clearly inflicted more damage, which is EFFECTIVE striking in both fights. Does it matter whether he was moving forward or backward? To a very small degree, and if both fighters land a similar amount of damage then it can be a deciding factor but but nowhere near as much as it matters which fighter is landing the more damaging and effective strikes. In Condit/Diaz, one fighter landed the more damaging and effective strikes throughout and that was Condit.

Agree with everything Swoop and Swiiftx are saying WRT to Condit/Diaz. As I clearly broke down on here after the fight, the criteria is EFFECTIVE aggression, not aggression. AKA barreling forward swinging at air does not score you any ****ing points. Diaz fanboys gonna Diaz fanboy tho. Tired of rehashing this stuff. One fighter landed dozens of strikes, the other stalked forward and got kicked and punched. That doesn't NECESSARILY mean the one landing more won if the other guy is landing a few big power shots that are hurting his opponent, but that's simply not the case here.

Also continue to take issue with people who think Condit was somehow dominated by MacDonald. Go rewatch the fight please. Two close rounds and then domination by Carlos Condit.

The Ellenberger fight is the one that I think clearly Condit got a gift decision. I think most knowledgeable people scored that a draw and I agree with that score. Japanese scoring, Ellenberger wins; Condit is fortunate that fight was scored under 10 point must. First round was a clear 10-8 for Ellenberger. Fantastic fight tho, I definitely suggest anyone who hasn't watched it should track it down and give it a watch.

@Swiiftx I agree that Hendricks would do well to pursue a takedown-based game plan. We've seen in the past that such game plans can also help wrestlers land strikes on far superior strikers who are worried about takedowns (Sonnen vs Silva 1). If he does so I think he has to be favored but he has looked pretty content to box lately while going for the odd takedown here and there. Hard to really fault the guy for falling in love with his boxing as so many grapplers have foolishly done in the past though, the results have been nice for sure.

@Swoop Also thinking about fading Marcello. He just barrels forward swinging haymakers while sticking out his awful chin. Can't see how anyone who is decent at all doesn't have a reasonable shot against him.

Ellenberger -154/Marquardt +126.

Give me Ellenberger I think.

no matter what side you take the diaz/condit fight was clearly debatable both ways. out of all the bad decisions and robberies and close fights, i have never seen one more talked about than Diaz/Condit.

That includes in title fights, with shogun/machida and edgar/henderson.. both of which were super close and to be the champ, yet the interm belt has had more talk.

The only reason its talked about so much is because Diaz fanboys gonna Diaz fanboy. They have the most delusional and hardcore, til death do us part supporters since Fedor was relevant.

If you scored the fight by scoring criteria, Condit won. If you scored the fight and you're a Diaz fanboy, Diaz won. Seems to be pretty cut and dried in my experience.

Diaz also took centre of the cage, and forced the action and took control in the small amount of grappling in the fight. He was never in danger and not counting the leg jabs the striking was pretty even. Pride rules Condit gets yellow carded for passivity and the texture of the fight changes completely. I see how people scored for Condit but to say there is no argument when there is such division in the industry over the fight is ridiculous.

Machida again in Pride would be given yellow cards and threatened with disqualification. I feel he beat Henderson but the refs should be encouraged to use the passivity rule to force action.

Following your logic a fast fighter who lands 2 jabs at the beginning of each round and then runs from the fight should win. I believe they should force action being elusive and in the pocket is fine but evading the fight in general and creating a karate points match just damages the sport. It is signifiant whether the fighter is moving forwards or backwards and the judges should make the distinction in MMA just as they do in Boxing.

As I said I started watching the sport as NHB back in the SEG days so my view of what a fight should look like differs greatly from those who's starting point was MMA as a sport.

Took the center of the cage? Irrelevant. Forced the action? Irrelevant and not true, if anything Condit forced the action by landing strikes and therefore initiating exchanges. Other than the leg jabs the striking was even? LOL. Well other than Diaz taking Condit's back, the grappling was pretty even too then.

A fighter who lands two strikes and then runs the rest of the round does win, that's on his opponent to corner him and land a strike if the ref doesn't take points for timidity. Aside from Kalib Starnes the closest thing I've seen to outright timidity would probably be Guida against Maynard and Condit was nowhere near that.

lol @ trying to patronize us with the whole "back in my day FIGHTERS WERE REAL brah it was about BLOOD AND GUTS brah and SCRAPPING brah so I see it different than you noobs." GTFO with that. **** reeks of walking 15 miles uphill both ways in a blizzard.

Lol @ Diaz fanboys.

Tailed a few picks 4 bellator mentioned above , on the over/unders. Thx and GL to all, i'm hoping the favorites can pull thru, and we C a good free2watch KO or 2.

I like Lombard this weekend based on a really impressive last performance regardless of a weak opponent. I don't imagine a better price will come 4 Lombard, so I'm buying me some -210 Lombard and gonna hope 4 the best.

I think the money will come on Okami after the weigh ins the same way it did on Dollaway over Sarafian etc. just because the size difference is more than everyone thinks. Okami's at +175 from the +190 I bet him at now. I wouldn't be surprised to see him close at +125. Could be wrong though of course.

Getting to the stage where I could arb for some serious profit on Vegh, although I think i'm going to let it ride - I got something like -166 from memory and MPumbu is +220 now

I disagree with saying nick won that fight because under pride rules or whatever, they both knew what the judging criteria was. Also have huge amount of respect for Greg Jackson and his fighters for being able to come up with and stick to a gameplan.

However to say that the fight couldn't possibly have been scored the other way is pretty ridiculous. I understand how someone could judge it 49-46 condit/48-47 condit.. But you have to acknowledge that it was a close and debatable fight, Diaz could have easily won the first 2 with effective striking/octagon control, and the 5th with having condits back.

Either way he has his shot at George, and I'm sure this has been brought up to much. Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in

Damn I missed Lombard at -200, thought about firing but the line seemed to be pretty steadily moving down -_-

Center of the cage is relevant, it's octagon control and demonstrating aggression. Leg jabs don't hurt but look great on fight metric, they are hugely different to Thai kicks. Daiz taking the back is a far more dominant and relevant to the scoring of the round.

A fighter who strikes twice a runs shouldn't win is my point, the ref's should use their warnings/deduct points more frequently. It is within their remit to do so, currently they are not enforcing the rules to the level that they could.

I wasn't patronising you but explaining the differences in our positions, the sport was very different in the past and I feel is moving too far in the wrong direction, you are allowed you position on the Condit fight it seems you don't want me to have mine. I'd been trying to work out why my view point on the fight, as well as many others (fighters and trainers included) is so different from the posters on here and general consensus. I feel the older fans still want it judged more as NHB and a true fight and more modern fans view it more as a points based sport.

The problem is your position is objectively wrong on the Diaz/Condit fight, and anyone who thinks Diaz won deserves to be relentlessly mocked for scoring fights incorrectly under existing criteria.

Okay I need to watch the fight again I guess to make sure since i've only seen it twice but it seemed very, very clear to me, to the degree i'm shocked even Diaz fans thought he won.

Also, 0.6u on Brooks/Awad u2.5 rounds, I know next to nothing about either fighter but want a sweat and the under looks better than the over @ current prices based on their records

Joe Lauzon, Pat Miletch, Tim Kennedy, Jens Pulver, Matt Lindland, Mark Munzo, Condy McKenzue, Josh Neer, Rousey, Cung Le, Ellenberger, Yves Edwards, Dan Henderson.

All gave it to Diaz, yes some know him but to say there is now way anyone could when so many well respected fighters scored it that way is ridiculous.

Bink on the under, Awad was a huge dog. Seems like the line may have been slightly misplaced.

MMA fighters are the worst people to score fights because they tend to have a major bias towards/against people they or their friends train with or have rivalries with.

Ok gogogo Vegh, time to bink again

Wandy ITD +601, while wandy KO/TKO is only +550 lol. Just did 0.5u on +601

DHK/sylar goes to dec at -190, while DHK wins by dec is also -190 lol. Just did 1u on it, as I feel it is a good bet + I'm freerolling a sylar dec victory.

Also Lombard/okami goes to judges is -105 which I think I good value. Did 2u on that.

Pretty sweet finish by West in the Bellator fight. Worth a watch even if it's just for the finish.

Insane steam on Vegh now. Could arb and take a freeroll, but I want the sweat and clearly my -166 bet is hugely +EV given MPumbu is +229 now. Heavy steam on under too.

Interesting round.

I have it 10-9 Vegh because the shot that dropped MPumpu was the most significant damage of the round. MPumbu had slightly more control and tried a sub but Vegh was never in any danger

Also lol that Vegh didn't finish him there AND somehow would up on bottom

lol wat mpumbu why are you pulling guard