Hendricks easily won the first, I can't remember which way they went but I had Condit and Hendricks splitting the second and third so was not surprised with a Hendricks 29-28 score. The last two were close so it would not have been an outrage for it to have gone the other way. Hendricks shooting is excellent and he gets good position, trouble is he doesn't do much with it. I guess that's the difference between him and GSP, GSP gets great position and is a master of gnp.

GSP has to be the classiest athlete in sport. Just watch the post-fight presser and he's on the stage with Hendricks and because they're in Montreal some of the questions are asked in french (GSP is also asked sometimes to give answers to other questions a second time in french, which he does without complaint). A reporter asks him, in french, about Hendricks and before he answers he turns to Johny and says "He asked me about you, so after I answer him I'll answer again in english out of respect."

Dude is impossible to root against.

Even at the pre fight conference with Diaz I recall him translating questions / answers. After the fight, even though Diaz had taken a swing at him twice after the bell and accused him before the fight of taking roids he still praised Diaz. Guy trained with a group of kids at one of his pre fight open training sessions to give them a chance of a lifetime. Have to agree, love or hate his fighting style, the man is total class.

I had a friend who played with him at the WSOP and said he was total class (I'd get pretty pissed if people kept coming up to me to ask for a photo, much respect for the guys who always oblige and smile).

how is gsp at thumb wrestling though? for some reason u dont see a lot of specialists in that discipline in mma. i was 34-5 in the 5th grade lunchroom i think if i could turn the fight into a thumb wrestling match i could take him.

how is GSP at mud wrestling? I know some girls that are pretty talented.

Agree completely. Condit arguably did more damage from his back than Hendricks did from on top. The takedowns were not hard enough that they did much damage themselves, and the ways that Condit got up were as impressive as Hendricks taking him down. On their feet, Condit won and pushed the action the whole time. He was basically never going backwards and if the fight was 2 more rounds, he would have won imo. Hendricks did take him down with ease, did little damage on top, and the takedowns were necessary due to Condit constantly pressing the action and having Hendricks moving backwards.

I love Condit.

Skip to 3:30, this is NASTY!

Must have been cracked earlier in the fight and the backward step was just enough force. That was nasty!

looks like it was cracked right there with the leg kick block. Same thing as Corey Hill.

I just threw up. Then I watched that video.

watching the mousasi/gustafsson card. the madadi/johnson fight is pretty sweet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GveqpJMKRo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STEJt...ailpage#t=299s

NSFW language.

Guy has the potential to go far.

Anyone going to ufc160?

Condit fights have gotta be THE hardest fights to score in the UFC right now. Starting all the way back with Ellenberger, MacDonald and Kampman, and continuing up to Diaz and Hendricks, his fights are ALWAYS debatable when they go to decision.

Clearly no opponent is EVER comfortable against him. A young Rory MacDonald was actually the closest to being in control, and of course that was the guy Condit came all the way back on and finished. His biggest strength in my view is his ability from his back to limit his opponents' attacks while also firing off a steady diet of strikes of his own. The best defense is a good offense.

The problem he faces when it comes to scoring is that his game is more about a steady assault than a few flashy moments. He pours it on for fifteen minutes, regardless where the fight goes, and he's gonna make you more miserable than you make him. In my mind that's what winning a fight is. But even if he's slowly but surely piling up that edge over three rounds, most judges still just see two guys going at it in a cloud of fists and feet. Then when his opponent scores a take-down- boom- now there's a concrete scoring moment. The insufficiently trained judges now have an easy way out: "well, both guys were brawling, then Hendricks mixed a couple slams in there".

It's a shame, but when you don't get many stoppages and you don't spend much time on top, you're walking a very thin line. It's always going to be very hard for Condit to sustain a long winning streak without running into a situation where two out of three judges go against him based on take-downs.

GSP's game these days relies on a steady assault over 25 mins and he consistently gets the decisions, high workrate can score the points as long as you demonstrate you are controlling the fight and outworking your opponent. Limiting your opponents attacks from your back is not going to win a round and nor should it imho. You will have to demonstrate to the judges that the damage you cause from your back is worth more than the fact your opponent is controlling where the fight takes place. Hendricks controlled the majority of the fight, this means Condit needs to do some serious damage to make up for it. Getting back up only to get taken down again is not going to get the win.

Condit doesn't limit damage from his back, he does damage from his back. Hendricks didn't control the fight, he was backpedaling on their feet and forced to tackle to not get beat. It was a great fight and should have been a draw or Condit win imo. Obv people will disagree.

This could be argued back and forward for weeks and both sides have valid points, suffice to say I don't think a decision either way could be called a robbery. Agree?

there is no way condit won this fight. i had money on him, and was cheering for him the entire time.. but there is no arguing that dec. on the feet Condit had a clear edge, but hendrix nailed him with some bombs.. and when the fight went condits way hendrix just took it to the ground with ease.

if you think condit won, you seriously need to go rewatch the fight with an openmind

perhaps thats because Condit didn't really mind it going there. He has such sick game off his back that he doesn't need to train TDD as much because he can outscore his opponents from his back often. I mean you admit that Condit had the clear edge on the feet....well did Hendrix really do that much more damage on the ground(compared to what Condit threatened with off his back)? I could see someone realistically arguing that Condit outscored Hendrix both when the fight was standing and when the fight was on the ground.

It's clutching at straws to suggest that even though he is the better striker and Hendricks is the better wrestler, Condit wanted the fight on the ground. Hendricks didn't do much once he took Condit down but Condit was hardly giving him a beating from his back. If people want to watch two athletes stand toe to toe and punch it out there's a sport for that, it's called boxing.

Your argument is ridiculous.

You are arguing that under your own opinion on how fights should be scored, condit won. What you should be arguing, is that you do not believe mma fights are judged properly..

Under the scoring criteria that stands, you would have to be extremely biased to say that condit won the fight.

Fair enough. Let me propose a hypothetical, and I would be interested in hearing two answers from everyone: First, how they think the fight should be scored in an ideal scoring system. Secondly, how they think the fight should be scored under current rules....


Fighter A is significantly better than Fighter B when standing. If we were to quantify it, most would expect Fighter A to dish out ~85% of the damage while standing and Fighter B only dishes out ~15% of the damage while standing.

On the ground, Fighter A is also superior. In fact when Fighter A has top position we expect him to dish out a similar percentage of around ~85% of the total damage done while his opponent does ~15%. In fact Fighter A is so much better on the ground than Fighter B that even when Fighter B is on top we'd still expect Fighter A to dish out ~55% of the damage(vs ~45% for his opponent).

Obviously it would be impossible to ever quantify things so exactly, but for this hypothetical lets assume that not only are we able to quantify our expectations this accurately but lets also assume that the fight plays out exactly according to the above percentages when in the different positions. Moreover, lets assume that both Fighter A and Fighter B have a general idea about all of this. Therefore it would be in Fighter B's best interest to achieve top position on the ground, while it would be in Fighter A's best interest to either keep the fight standing or be on top when on the ground(I understand that there are other positions such as scrambles or in the clinch, and I understand that being "on top" in guard is a ton different than being "on top" in mount, half guard, or side control....I'm merely simplifying things for the purpose of discussion).

Finally lets assume that Fighter B has great takedowns while Fighter A has below average take down defense. As such, the fight plays out as follows: Fighter A dominates while standing(85% vs 15%) for the first bit of each round, Fighter B takes him down, Fighter B maintains top position for the rest of the round, and Fighter A does slightly more damage(55% vs 45%) off of his back than Fighter B does while being on top.

After 3 rounds the fight goes to a decision. Fighter B has clearly controlled where the fight took place, and Fighter A has clearly been forced to work out of a position that he would rather avoid. As such, "octagon control" is completely one-sided in Fighter B's favor. However, at no point during the fight were the two fighters ever in a position where we would expect Fighter B to dish out more damage, nor did Fighter B dish out more damage in any one position in actual practice.

In that fight it would most likely go 30-27. BUT... firstly Condit did not do more damage on the ground from his back. That is wishful thinking. There is a difference between not copping a beating on your back and being the one dishing it out. And you can't score a fight based on what he would do if he were on top if that never actually happens. Also position on the ground is a huge thing here - if B can easily get into mount or half guard then it would be very hard to say that A is controlling the fight on the ground. If on the other hand A can keep B in full guard and almost submit them on several occassions then it is a different matter. Also Condit did not do 85% of the damage on the feet, again that's just wishful thinking. More yes but not this obscene beating that you are making out. If he did 85% of the damage Hendricks would have been KO'ed.

In the specific case, it would depend how long the fight stayed standing, if fighter B got TD within 30sec everyround, and got out worked on ground (but was able to maintain a dominant position) I give it to fighter B. If it took more than a min, fighter A.

However, condit did way less than 50% damage off of his back, and not even sure if he did 50% of damage while standing.