Damage should heavily outweigh aggression and control

[adam199]

After watching Diaz-Condit, it's become clear that the rules need to be changed (redundant, I know). It seems that most of the controversy surrounding this fight rests on the often-debated idea of who was really in control:

Diaz came forward and forced Condit backwards, sideways, and all around, BUT

Condit effectively employed a kind of matador-type strategy, having the bull run through his cape over and over again.

In a bull fight who is really in control, the matador or the bull? The answer is neither the bull or the matador. If the matador fucks up once, it's obviously the bull. If the bull can't get the matador, then obviously the matador wins. There is no control, only success or failure, and a fight works in a surprisingly similar way.

What I'm trying to say is that control is an illusion that is too complex and insignificant to use as a factor in judging a real fight. The only thing that matters is effective striking and the creation of danger for your opponent. In any real fight, who honestly gives a shit about control? If I beat you half to death 5 seconds after you controlled me for 4:55 seconds, isn't the "controller" worse for wear, which is really what a fight is all about?

Ultimately, control is just a tool used to create opportunities to damage your opponent while minimizing your own damage, and it should be seen for what it is: a means for success, not success itself.

It's because of this that fights should be scored on damage, with volume of strikes being the decider in fights where both fighters are damaged seemingly equally. This way, control goes back to being what it really is: a means to achieve the ultimate goal of a fight. The emphasis on control and aggression only serve to allow fighters to skirt the true meaning of a fight: Who dun got fukked up worse, yo.

Thank you to all who took the time to read this.

To the rest of you: Post UFC-relevant hot chicks to make yourself useful.

[isor]

I think control is relevant in itself, but what Diaz did wasn't control, it was attempting to control the fight unsuccessfully.

[spaghettisauce]

I think it is... hence Condit winning

[emperor]

Decent assessment...

...but you may want to edit that last line - I got dubs a while back for saying the same thing. Just a protip.

[gs23**]

what about guys like fedor who get murked up with a breeze of wind?

what about guys like anderson who for some reason can't bleed?

[adam199]

Originally Posted by isor

I think control is relevant in itself, but what Diaz did wasn't control, it was attempting to control the fight unsuccessfully.

I agree that control is relevant, but NOT towards judging criteria. It should be relevant solely in terms of allowing a fighter to cause more damage than his/her opponent. This way, fighters will still use control, but they will be more inclined to do something with it.

[BluntTrauma21]

I'm a boxing fan and this debate goes on all the time within the boxing community. In boxing, you score by clean punching, effective aggression, ring generalship, and defense. Some people totally disregard effective aggression and ring generalship and others give alot of attention to them.
In MMA, the judging criteria is effective striking, grappling, and octagon control so naturally people are going to give more credence to octagon control than others. You're right in the sense that damaging you're opponent is the most important aspect of a fight but I tend to give more credit than others to controlling where the fight takes place.
That's the great thing about sports like Boxing and MMA. They are subjective. If there's a robbery then everyone knows it's a robbery. If it's a close fight, then it depends what you prefer when it comes to scoring a fight. Nobody's right or wrong, it's a personal opinion. Good thread, I like talking about how people choose to score fights.

[Skrilth]

Originally Posted by gs23

what about guys like fedor who get murked up with a breeze of wind?

what about guys like anderson who for some reason can't bleed?

I was going to say something like this.

So if Anderson/Sonnen went to the judges Silva would have won?

If this is the case then Diego Sanchez may never win a fight again.

Good post though TS, I just don't think it will ever work.

[bcrowther]

Damage doesn't work as a criteria , some guys cut and bruise far easier than others .
The Matador analogy was a good one .

[J4m3s]

Yea diaz didn't really have control though because condit didn't play into his game and stand toe to toe.