NSAC Bob Bennett says Lawler/Condit 'correct decision'

[HUNTERMANIA]

I came across this article, and it's old but I never saw it posted on here and the search function didn't bring up anything. I'm so sick of reading people discount Lawler and acting like Condit clearly won the fight.

Lawler is a great fighter, a great champion, and he won the fight with Condit using the unified scoring system.

Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director Bob Bennett believes last weekend's UFC welterweight title fight between Robbie Lawler and Carlos Condit was scored correctly...

The three judges agreed on every round except what proved to be the decisive third. Bennett, who evaluates and assigns officials to NSAC-licensed bouts, acknowledged that round was close but said the correct winner was Lawler, based on scoring criteria and NSAC instruction to its judges.

"At the end of the third round, I turned to my assistant and said, 'I'll be surprised if they all agree on that round,'" Bennett said. "Condit unequivocally threw more strikes, but a lot of them missed. At the front end of the round, I thought Lawler landed the harder, more effective strikes.

"In this particular fight, I can understand why Tony Weeks had it the way he did and I can appreciate it -- but the other two judges got it right. I do think there was a correct score, and while I have the utmost respect for both fighters, the way the fight was scored was accurate."

..."Striking stats are a great tool, but it only gives you an indication of who threw more," Bennett said. "Would you rather be barely touched by 10 strikes as opposed to two hard ones? Bottom line, it's really who did more damage. Two out of the three judges thought Lawler did, and I feel they were right."

http://espn.go.com/blog/mma/post/_/id/22825/nsac-lawler-condit-decision-was-correct

The meaningless fightmetric statistics are just that: MEANINGLESS!

Lawler landed the damaging strikes in the 3rd round, he had Condit backing up, and most of Condit's strikes missed and almost none of them were damaging except for maybe a couple toward the end of the round. He didn't do anything for most of the round and when Robbie hit him, he was clearly affected and moving backward.

I understand it was a close fight, but the disrespect toward Lawler is insane on here.

Plus, Lawler/Hendricks II was clearly 1,4,5 Lawler -- how could you give Hendricks the first round? Robbie fucked him up in the beginning and all Hendricks did was get a TD toward the end.

 

[Arm Barbarian]

It was a close fight that could have gone either way. I had Condit winning by one round. I certainly didn't fall to pieces and lose my shit with the decision though.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Also, under Pride Rules, Lawler won the first fight with Hendricks also. I don't disagree with how it was scored under unified rules though.

Watching the ten rounds of lawler/hendricks you see one fighter being able to damage the other and doing so multiple times while the other was just working for control and landing strikes that were not as effective. Hendricks has good strategy for Lawler, 'lulling him to sleep', but he's not a better fighter and didn't deserve the 2nd fight.

Condit and Rory both showed to be tougher fights than Hendricks was, IMO, even if he did get the first decision.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

It was a close fight that could have gone either way. I had Condit winning by one round. I certainly didn't fall to pieces and lose my shit with the decision though.

Good on you. Everyone else is on here a month later acting like Lawler is being gifted these decisions and doesn't deserve the title. Very unfair. I think Lawler finishes his next two opponents and puts these discussions to bed.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

I have no problem with Lawler winning, but no, it wasn't scored correctly. Like Condit/Diaz, the judges arrived at the correct decision by chance.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

I have no problem with Lawler winning, but no, it wasn't scored correctly. Like Condit/Diaz, the judges arrived at the correct decision by chance.

What? How was it scored wrong but they came to the correct decision?

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

What? How was it scored wrong but they came to the correct decision?

Round by round scoring was fucked. Final score when you add them all up was ok.

How does Diaz get round 3 on 2 scorecards, but not 1, 2, or 5?
http://mmadecisions.com/decision/3295/Carlos-Condit-vs-Nick-Diaz

Ignore what I said about Condit/Lawler though, I was confusing controversial decisions and thinking of Weeks' card for Cruz/Dillashaw.

 

[Guld]

Can't they just announce the winner of each round as it happens? Also, if there is a total of 10 point scoring system, then a beat down of a round really should be scored 10-1. Otherwise we are really only using a 3 point scoring system. This whole thing needs a redo.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Can't they just announce the winner of each round as it happens? Also, if there is a total of 10 point scoring system, then a beat down of a round really should be scored 10-1. Otherwise we are really only using a 3 point scoring system. This whole thing needs a redo.

I definitely wouldn't support announcing the scores between rounds... gotta be suspense for the decision.

 

[HelloJapan]

It was a close fight that could have gone either way. I had Condit winning by one round. I certainly didn't fall to pieces and lose my shit with the decision though.

 

[sonhow]

As he always. I dont think there is one decision that he has said was plain out wrong. They also wont change eypoke ko's to no contests or other shit like that easily.

 

[GordaoPreguico]

Good on you. Everyone else is on here a month later acting like Lawler is being gifted these decisions and doesn't deserve the title. Very unfair. I think Lawler finishes his next two opponents and puts these discussions to bed.

This is Sherdog where a champ sucks if he doesnt finish every challenger.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

This is Sherdog where a champ sucks if he doesnt finish every challenger.

I hate it because Robbie is such an exciting fighter and a great champion and everyone just shits on him every day on here, it's ridiculous. I understand the Wonderboy hype after seeing the Hendricks fight and seeing his power vs. Brown and Cote, but people make comments like 'he should fight Condit for the real belt' --- like, are you kidding me? It's as if Lawler isn't even a top fighter worth considering WHEN HE'S THE FUCKING CHAMP! I can't stand it, especially when we finally have a fighter who comes out when he knows he's down and has to win a round and DOES IT. That's so rare, it's rare get to see epic fights and we've already gotten several from Robbie since he's come back to the UFC.

 

[Davemeddlehed]

Can't they just announce the winner of each round as it happens? Also, if there is a total of 10 point scoring system, then a beat down of a round really should be scored 10-1. Otherwise we are really only using a 3 point scoring system. This whole thing needs a redo.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

 

[chinarice]

I came across this article, and it's old but I never saw it posted on here and the search function didn't bring up anything. I'm so sick of reading people discount Lawler and acting like Condit clearly won the fight.

Lawler is a great fighter, a great champion, and he won the fight with Condit using the unified scoring system.



http://espn.go.com/blog/mma/post/_/id/22825/nsac-lawler-condit-decision-was-correct

The meaningless fightmetric statistics are just that: MEANINGLESS!

Lawler landed the damaging strikes in the 3rd round, he had Condit backing up, and most of Condit's strikes missed and almost none of them were damaging except for maybe a couple toward the end of the round. He didn't do anything for most of the round and when Robbie hit him, he was clearly affected and moving backward.

I understand it was a close fight, but the disrespect toward Lawler is insane on here.

Plus, Lawler/Hendricks II was clearly 1,4,5 Lawler -- how could you give Hendricks the first round? Robbie fucked him up in the beginning and all Hendricks did was get a TD toward the end.

Condit should have won. TJ should have won (Draw being understandable). I don't care what Fight Metric says either.

 

[TobikanJudan94]

Condit won round 1,3 and 4 without a doubt. And I'm a fan of both Condit and Lawler.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I understand it was a close fight, but the disrespect toward Lawler is insane on here.

"I understand it was a close fight... But will sum up the contest in a way that would indicate Condit got has ass handed to him."

And anyone who says that Fightmetric is "meaningless" (even putting the word IN CAPS) in deducing the victor in a close fight does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Fightmetric stats, alone, are not determinative in declaring a winner. But they are highly, highly informative.

Also looking forward to the Bobby B. interview in which he tells us the judges got it wrong in Cruz/Dillasnake, based on the same "more landed strikes don't equal the W" argument.

But I won't be holding my breath.

 

[DaffodilMcWoozy]

because it is

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

"I understand it was a close fight... But will sum up the contest in a way that would indicate Condit got has ass handed to him."

And anyone who says that Fightmetric is "meaningless" (even putting the word IN CAPS) in deducing the victor in a close fight does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Fightmetric stats, alone, are not determinative in declaring a winner. But they are highly, highly informative.

Also looking forward to the Bobby B. interview in which he tells us the judges got it wrong in Cruz/Dillasnake, based on the same "more landed strikes don't equal the W" argument.

But I won't be holding my breath.

I didn't frame it in a way that said Condit got his ass-handed to him. I said it was a close fight, but I'm sick of the Lawler hate on here and I thought Round 3 was clearly Lawler's. Just because I think all 5 of the rounds had a clear winner, doesn't mean I think Condit didn't fight a great fight and win 2 of them and give us a wonderful show of heart and determination.

No, they're not highly informative. The fucking executive of NSAC specifically says it's about damage, not about strikes landed. He specifically says 2 hard strikes landed counts more than 10 that don't land solid.

Cruz landed hard shots on Dillashaw, too, although it was a close fight. I had it 3-2 Cruz.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I definitely wouldn't support announcing the scores between rounds... gotta be suspense for the decision.

If it were possible I would like to see the round by round scores given only to each fighter's corner.

This would leave the suspense intact for the spectators but allow the competitors to know exactly where they stand on the scorecards each time they get up off the stool to reengage.