GSP vs. Condit fight from UFC 154, AMAZING

[Greg W]

I've said this before, The "greatest" somehow find a way to win the "close ones" time and time again, when it really is all on the line. Yes, GSP doesn't "finish" with grand splendor, but he brings it every time and no matter who you put him against he will figure out a way to get the "W". I always say with NFL QB's, there are good QB's and there are Great ones. The only difference is the great ones somehow find a way to will the big close games. Wayne Gretsky was the same, I couldn't stand watching him play, thought he was lame and boring, but I will say that he was great, because no matter what that guy would figure out a way to put the puck in the net, no matter what the other team threw at him.

[Wade Hamilton]

Notice how this is potential for fight of the year when Greg Jackson wasn't cornering either of them? Just saying...

[Arun Sharma]

I saw it live, and in 3rd round i felt GSP will not recover quickly from the kick, but he did and won. And as always his wrestling was top notch.

[La'akea Sanborn]

I agree that gsp is an awesome strategist and an extremely well rounded fighter who exemplifies high levels of technique in all aspects of the game. To me, just as we love the submission only dynamic of grappling, mma could consider getting rid of the judges and losing the decsions all together. I think the progression of mma has been tremendous but i'd like to see the original intent of combat sports reestablished as opposed to guys strategically playing with rounds, and timing takedowns, or just doing enough to score points. I think the evolution of the sport has seen growth in technique and how dynamic fighters have become, but it's discouraging watching guys who play the cards and wanna win by points. To me, this is not martial arts, and does not satisfy the question of who ultimately won the fight. I believe the real and pure intention of all combat athletes should be to finish, rather than play it safe. It's definitely part of the game now, but if we could just go round and round until there's a victor it would be a little more honest in approach.

[Wade Hamilton]

I agree that gsp is an awesome strategist and an extremely well rounded fighter who exemplifies high levels of technique in all aspects of the game. To me, just as we love the submission only dynamic of grappling, mma could consider getting rid of the judges and losing the decsions all together. I think the progression of mma has been tremendous but i'd like to see the original intent of combat sports reestablished as opposed to guys strategically playing with rounds, and timing takedowns, or just doing enough to score points. I think the evolution of the sport has seen growth in technique and how dynamic fighters have become, but it's discouraging watching guys who play the cards and wanna win by points. To me, this is not martial arts, and does not satisfy the question of who ultimately won the fight. I believe the real and pure intention of all combat athletes should be to finish, rather than play it safe. It's definitely part of the game now, but if we could just go round and round until there's a victor it would be a little more honest in approach.

I agree but that isn't a viable option for MMA. When the pre zuffa UFC tried it they had PPV's cut off before the main event because the fights went on to long.

I think an alternative is fights being scored as a whole instead of on rounds. There have been many instances where soneone had won the MMA match, but the other clearly won the fight... Leaving a lot of the fans divided and confused.
For instance:
-Rampage vs Machida - Rampage won the MMA match by squeaking out rounds 1 and 2 with little to no damage but a little more aggressive but Machida won the fight - Dominating Rampage in the 3rd with big shots and dropping him.
-Edgar vs Maynard II - Edgar won based on the round system (I thought) but Maynard dropped him 4 times and had bigger moments, I thought he won the actual fight.
-Diaz vs Condit - (I'm not one of those "Diaz 1 2 5" fanboys but after rewatching it Diaz clearly got rounds 1 2 and 5, but I still think Condit won the actually fight doing more overall damage and opening up, imposing his will more overall.

This is what has a lot of fans arguing and confused... If there's 3 rounds and one guy BARELY wins 2 of them and the other guy absolutely smashes him in 1 of them the best it can be is a 10-8 round and a draw... Otherwise the guy that barely won the 2 (Maybe just on octagon control in those 2 rounds) will win the MMA match.

Scoring a fight on a whole is how it should be done and it will encourage people to really go for it at the end of the fight instead of coasting when you know you're up. You want the judges to see you dominating near the end to show you won that fight.

MMA doesn't need to follow boxings structure... The 10 or less is a broken structure... Especially for 3 and 5 round fights, and will continue to confuse and cause debates amongst fans forever.

[David Rosado]

mma could consider getting rid of the judges and losing the decsions all together.

MMA has gotten to it's highest popularity using this fan friendly format. Judges and scoring are familiar ideas. There's a bigger audience for that format than there is for "pure" no time limit/judges type of events. Do you recall the old UFC's? The ones where two exhausted guys would lay on eachother. Not very fan friendly. I think that if someone wanted to do it, there would be an audience willing to give it a shot. But it wouldn't be big. And it wouldn't be big enough to attract elite athletes. And so the competition would not be the highest level. So the entertainment wouldn't be at its highest level.

I think an alternative is fights being scored as a whole instead of on rounds..

I agree wholeheartedly. In MMA there are way more variables than just punching. Plus, there are way fewer rounds. Boxing accounts for basically one variable. Punches landed. Going round by round makes sense. In MMA you have take downs, kicks, submission attempts, guard control, guard passing. Not just that, but with only 3 rounds, there's little room for error. And if a guy rallies in the 3rd round nearly finishing his opponent after a close fight, he won that fight IMO. That's why I liked Pride judging. They judged the fight as a whole, not just by rounds. I think that for this style of combat, it makes more sense to do it this way.