- Joined
- Dec 30, 2015
- Messages
- 18,460
- Reaction score
- 0
@chinarice and I have been debating back and forth who won Lawler vs Condit and I need your opinions.
My opinion:
I think the judges got it right, it was 48-47 Robbie Lawler, winning rounds 2, 3 and 5.
I believe that Carlos Condit won the first round due to volume and partially knocking Robbie down. I also believe that Robbie took Round 4 off and his activity was so low that Carlos definitely took Round 4.
I believe that there is also zero argument that Robbie lost Round 2 or 5, purely because Robbie landed the harder, cleaner shots in those rounds and he even dropped Carlos in Round 2. Round 5 was literally Carlos in survival mode, being hunted by a zombie who was walking through shots and landing harder ones of his own.
Chinarice has attempted to debunk my angle of Robbie landing harder shots by stating that "I don't have damage meters on my TV so I don't know what a hard strike is and how much damage it does", I personally think that approach is asinine. We as long-time combat sports fans know what a clean, hard shot is and we also know when strikes are more "scoring shots" than shots intended to do damage.
The fight came down to Round 3 and that was not much different to other rounds, Carlos landed more volume, and Robbie threw a whole lot less but when he landed it was cleaner and harder. People also never talk about how much Carlos missed in that fight, missing strikes left, right and center just to "stay busy" doesn't score on my card. Carlos only landed 35% of his shots, whilst Lawler landed 51% of his.
I genuinely think there is something to be said for being more accurate and throwing when it counts. I don't believe in throwing at air and every now and then you land a leg kick or a jab. Robbie was landing meaningful shots throughout the fight and squeaked out the third round in my opinion.
If you think Carlos won, I can live with that, it was close. But if you scream robbery, you have no idea what you're watching.
What do you guys think?
My opinion:
I think the judges got it right, it was 48-47 Robbie Lawler, winning rounds 2, 3 and 5.
I believe that Carlos Condit won the first round due to volume and partially knocking Robbie down. I also believe that Robbie took Round 4 off and his activity was so low that Carlos definitely took Round 4.
I believe that there is also zero argument that Robbie lost Round 2 or 5, purely because Robbie landed the harder, cleaner shots in those rounds and he even dropped Carlos in Round 2. Round 5 was literally Carlos in survival mode, being hunted by a zombie who was walking through shots and landing harder ones of his own.
Chinarice has attempted to debunk my angle of Robbie landing harder shots by stating that "I don't have damage meters on my TV so I don't know what a hard strike is and how much damage it does", I personally think that approach is asinine. We as long-time combat sports fans know what a clean, hard shot is and we also know when strikes are more "scoring shots" than shots intended to do damage.
The fight came down to Round 3 and that was not much different to other rounds, Carlos landed more volume, and Robbie threw a whole lot less but when he landed it was cleaner and harder. People also never talk about how much Carlos missed in that fight, missing strikes left, right and center just to "stay busy" doesn't score on my card. Carlos only landed 35% of his shots, whilst Lawler landed 51% of his.
I genuinely think there is something to be said for being more accurate and throwing when it counts. I don't believe in throwing at air and every now and then you land a leg kick or a jab. Robbie was landing meaningful shots throughout the fight and squeaked out the third round in my opinion.
If you think Carlos won, I can live with that, it was close. But if you scream robbery, you have no idea what you're watching.
What do you guys think?
