Just how bad WAS the Condit/Lawler decision?

http://mmajunkie.com/2016/07/ufc-20...nds-title-as-most-hit-fighter-in-recent-years

"Lawler’s significant strike disadvantage of -82 against Carlos Condit at UFC 195 marked the largest disparity in UFC history for a fighter that won a decision."

One of the worst in history...

Robbie does absorb some serious punishment in his fights. According to this article, he absorbs 5.5 significant strikes per minute, which is second highest in history for title fights, behind only Frank Mir (and a lot of his were Brock and Carwin hammerfists...)

Starting to think that Condit might have a point about Woodley/Lawler.

 

I just remember I was as pissed about that result as I have been about any other result in MMA barring Ross Pearson vs Diego

 

not bad at all

 

Before they read the score cards I thought it was a lock for Condit.

 

The 5 round of course does a lot.

GSP won the 5 round of the Hendricks, however, he was getting wrecked in the others.
Hendricks won the 5 round of the Lawler fight, but the others 4 was close.
Lawler won round 5 of the Hendricks rematch, and won a fight that Hendricks kinda of dominated during round 2 to 4.
Lawler won round 5 of Condit fight.

So if the fight is close, it looks like they will go with who ever wants it more.

 

I thought it was a good decision.

Thats what Condit gets for the bs win over Nick. He won rounds 1,2 and 5 ya know.

 

It was pretty bad, I thought Condit won the match. It was close yes, but I could not see it going for Lawler.

 

I believe Condit won. So I thought it was bad.

 

Condit didn't do enough running to get this decision too.

 

Yeah, Condit is one of my all-time favorites, so this one stung extra bad for me.

Machida over Shogun drove me nuts, too. It was the first time I ever bet on a fight, and I did it just for the hell of it because Shogun was too much of an underdog imo. I didn't really even expect him to win...

It was also my last time betting.

 

I was in disbelief when Lawler was announced as the winner and I still think Condit won clearly. It was a close fight though and I know people who gave it to Lawler. We need a rematch.

 

An 8/10

 

But he did enough striking.

 

More of a robbery than Edgar vs Henderson I

Less of a robbery than Machida vs Rua I

 

GSP arguably won 3 of 5 round so how did he get wrecked in all of them but round 5, exactly?

Explain to me how he was wrecked in round 1, the only round up for debate.

 

It was pretty bad. Again...time and time again we see these title fights go the way of the champion as a result of a strong finish by either winning the final round or by doing some serious damage late in that round. Robbie did it in this fight and also did vs. Hendricks to steal that fight as well.

Right or wrong that has just been the case in a good number of these fights.

Each round is to be judged individually, mutually exclusive from each other....but it just doesn't seem to happen.

 

I've only watched that epic fight one time. I remember being pissed that Condit lost the fight. I thought he clearly won. Either way it was a top 10 fight of all time. So to answer the TS question, it was a pretty bad decision.

 

not very.

 

That's not how it works. They write the score down after each round and can't change it.

 

He missed 2/3 of his strikes, and many of his strikes were half power strikes designed to look busy. He was Jake Shields like out there.