embalmer Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Well, topic says it all. In mma you clearly dont have to just win, you have to do more, there been many examples of this last few years. GSP, Hendricks and the latest, Condit. I say this cheapens the sport, "well he won, but not by enough to get the belt" bullshit. In any other legit sport in the world, a win is a win, but not in mma. In soccer you can defend for 95 min and counter the winning goal with the last kick and be... World Champions. Your team can be NBA champs by losing 3 straight with 150-0 just to win last 4 100-99....still makes you champ etc etc. You get my point... But in mma its different.. I rant on this because Condit won the fight, clear. Doesnt matter if you strike with 65% power or 100%. A strike landed is a point, and Condit landed 170 something vs Lawlers 90. Lawler had a knockdown, Condit had Lawler wobbling. They both were messed up in the end, clearly Lawler didnt do significant more dmg, so why did he won! (15 out of 20 mediasites scored it for Condit). Because there exists a unwritten macho rule in mma that says you need to do MORE than just win to be champ, and to me that lessens the sport. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clydebankblitz Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Nah, you're totally right, this needed it's own thread. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpierrecanada Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Meh, for me it's just the way the fight is scored. 10 point must leads to different scoring than judging the whole fight. I don't really believe in this whole "To be the Champion you have to go above and beyond to dethrone the Champion" stuff, I just believe who wins in the judging criteria of the fight should get the decision, whether they are Champion, or Challenger.. I think GSP beat Hendricks in a 10 point must. Whole fight scoring, Hendricks wins.. I think Gus beat Jones, but again scoring whole fight I might have scored it for Jones.But I see almost half the MMA community all over the internet saying Lawler won..............Arguably, highly, that Lawler edged out 3 rounds. Decisions like Lawler/Condit and these highly debatable decisions shouldn't enrage people so much. If this was a case if lets say clean cut clear ROBBERY, SUCH ASShogun/Machida OR Bisping/Hamill, then you be enraged and have a great reason to be. I understand the frustration but it wasn't a robbery. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPowell Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Meh, for me it's just the way the fight is scored. 10 point must leads to different scoring than judging the whole fight. I don't really believe in this whole "To be the Champion you have to go above and beyond to dethrone the Champion" stuff, I just believe who wins in the judging criteria of the fight should get the decision, whether they are Champion, or Challenger.. I think GSP beat Hendricks in a 10 point must. Whole fight scoring, Hendricks wins.. I think Gus beat Jones, but again scoring whole fight I might have scored it for Jones. But I see almost half the MMA community all over the internet saying Lawler won..............Arguably, highly, that Lawler edged out 3 rounds. Decisions like Lawler/Condit and these highly debatable decisions shouldn't enrage people so much. If this was a case if lets say clean cut clear ROBBERY, SUCH AS Shogun/Machida OR Bisping/Hamill, then you be enraged and have a great reason to be. I understand the frustration but it wasn't a robbery. Done getting personal here. If decision like that are the norm though and aren't robberies, then there is a problem. I thought Condit clearly won 4 rounds and I'm pretty sure 85+ % of people out there thought Condit won at least 3 rounds. Judging has to get better if this fight wasn't a clear cut robbery 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Well, the answer to the thread title is any sport that is subjectively judged by a third party (MMA, Boxing, Gymnastics, Diving etc.), than rather quantitatively measured (Football, Basketball, Golf etc.). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Like Gazz says. Where people are involved making decisions there is contention and mistakes? Argentina 86 World Cup hand of God plus loads of others where the outcome has been influenced albeit accidentally to ensure an unfair outcome. Judges, refs etc people subject to differing opinion, open to bribery, blackmail .... Golf might be a close example at top pro level where it's the sportsmen that purely ensures the outcome: result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyMuchacho Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Any sport with fans is subject to hype. It's not always about being the champ or winning the title. Fan sports require the legend to be cemented with hype usually fed by the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtieBanks Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Well, topic says it all. In mma you clearly dont have to just win, you have to do more, there been many examples of this last few years. GSP, Hendricks and the latest, Condit. I say this cheapens the sport, "well he won, but not by enough to get the belt" bullshit. In any other legit sport in the world, a win is a win, but not in mma. In soccer you can defend for 95 min and counter the winning goal with the last kick and be... World Champions. Your team can be NBA champs by losing 3 straight with 150-0 just to win last 4 100-99....still makes you champ etc etc. You get my point... But in mma its different.. I rant on this because Condit won the fight, clear. Doesnt matter if you strike with 65% power or 100%. A strike landed is a point, and Condit landed 170 something vs Lawlers 90. Lawler had a knockdown, Condit had Lawler wobbling. They both were messed up in the end, clearly Lawler didnt do significant more dmg, so why did he won! (15 out of 20 mediasites scored it for Condit). Because there exists a unwritten macho rule in mma that says you need to do MORE than just win to be champ, and to me that lessens the sport. In MMA you can get beat the shit out of you for 4 and a half rounds and then slap on a triangle and win. You can be beaten down, pretty much crushed and land that hail mary shot which gives you the win. Judges are there because as in most sports fans do not like draws, they like a winner and a loser. In American sports that is paramount, in basketball you get overtime in regular season games, you get overtime in the NFL for regular season games, baseball goes extra innings until one team wins. These are team sports in games which can easily end up in a draw and that is it, but they are expected to go the extra mile to get the win. You get a definitive winner because there are a clear way to win, in football? you score goals, in baseball you score more points than the other team, in tennis you win more sets than the other guy. Combat sports is different because the physical toll is not only tremendous but it can cause serious injury and in some cases death. Boxing found this out the hard way and introduced the system because of the amount of serious injuries and deaths involved with the sport. MMA as much as it claims not to be like boxing has boxing to thank for not having to deal with the shit that boxing did. You do not have a team to rely on, you cannot get subbed out and a new person in or anything like that; it is an individual vs an individual and may the best person win. Combat sports do have ways where you become an instantaneous winner, it does have a clear way to win and if you cannot find that way to win then you have the judges. Dana says it all the time but you don't want to leave a fight in the hands of the judges, that is peoples opinions based on the fight and each person has a different criteria in which they score fights. You get robberies, you always will unless they change it to that if the fight goes the distance they call it a draw, but then you will quickly have a stagnant sport with more draws and not much movement going on. I have not watched the fight yet (i'll catch the repeat tonight on tv). I am just basing this off other robberies I have seen in the past. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacky67 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 In soccer you can defend for 95 min and counter the winning goal with the last kick and be... World Champions. Lots of soccer fan hate their team when they win only "1-0" in almost their game, (not enough show). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clydebankblitz Posted January 4, 2016 Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Is Condit a really popular fighter or something? I'd have thought most people turned on him after the Diaz fight and there wasn't as much backlash for the Sanchez/Pearson fight which was a legit robbery as there is for this pretty much razor close fight. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
embalmer Posted January 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2016 Lots of soccer fan hate their team when they win only "1-0" in almost their game, (not enough show). True but they still get a win and 3 points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacky67 Posted January 11, 2016 Report Share Posted January 11, 2016 True but they still get a win and 3 points Lawler got the win . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Necrocrawler Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Im fine with mma decisions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.