NSAC Bob Bennett says Lawler/Condit 'correct decision'

[LilNubi]

It was close, Condit still should of got the nod though.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

because it is

Love this video and I was trying to find it when making this thread. Good stuff. If you made it then thank you! If not, thanks for posting it again. Lawler landed the hard shots in that round, Condit hit air for most of the 3rd.

That was the greatest 5th round ever. When you watch the video, you can't help but think, "man, condit really controlled the 5th almost dominated it," and then you see what Robbie did!! lol!

 

[Agnawedbone]

Can we stop pretending that just because Condit was grossly outlanding Lawler every round he didn't also land just as many hard, damaging strikes? Because he absolutely motherfucking did.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Can we stop pretending that just because Condit was grossly outlanding Lawler every round he didn't also land just as many hard, damaging strikes? Because he absolutely motherfucking did.

Yeah, except not in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th rounds.

 

[TheComputerGuy]

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.

No, then the winner would just run knowing they have the fight if they don't get KOed.

Judges don't want to give a 10 - 8, since there is only 5 rounds. This is what causes the problems. In boxing a knockdown is pretty much always a 10 - 8. In MMA you can knock a guy down 3 times and it will be a 10 - 9.

They need to change MMA to who did the most damage. Nothing else matters.

 

[Agnawedbone]

because it is

All that clip tells us is people who think lawler took round five are grossly exaggerating one minute of him flurrying a lot of glancing and missed shots while getting chewed up in response by Condit just like he was doing for the three minutes before and one minute after.

 

[Agnawedbone]

Yeah, except not in the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th rounds.

Yeah, because Condit landed way more hard shots in the fifth.

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

The "hardness" of a strike is completely subjective, especially when trying to determine it in real time.

You might have a guy with a granite chin who eats and walks through a punch that we'll call a "7", whereas he hits his opponent with the same "7" but that guy gets visibly wobbled by the shot.

Now a spectator or judge can see those two punches and, based only on the reaction of the hit fighter, say the first shot was "non-damaging" but the second shot "did damage". Yet both strikes, if it were possible to measure them on a PSI scale, would be identical. All you're really seeing is the difference in the two fighters' chins.

And this "10 is equivalent to 2" ratio is just something Bobby B. pulled out of his ass. There are no such ratios in the unified rules. That's why the scoring is so ridiculously subjective and so often completely contradictory.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Yeah, because he landed way more hard shots in the fifth.

Condit had a good 5th round, but are you trying to say Lawler didn't have Condit hurt and reeling? You don't think Robbie landed the harder, more effective strikes in the round?

 

[Blayt7hh]

Lmao that is your argument? The athletic commission is not going to admit when they make a bad call. Cmon dude.. That was actually a fairly straightforward fight to call I thought. I guess sitting ringside could make it hard to tell but all the fans at home should know who won that fight

 

[Agnawedbone]

Condit had a good 5th round, but are you trying to say Lawler didn't have Condit hurt and reeling? You don't think Robbie landed the harder, more effective strikes in the round?

I think winning four out of five minutes beats a one minute exchange where you're backed up but still landing counter punches. It was nothing like when Bones hurt Gus, he wasn't turtled up doing nothing, Condit was still completely in the fight till the last bell.

 

[TheComputerGuy]

Yeah, because he landed way more hard shots in the fifth.

Yes he did. If I remember correctly he dropped him in the 5th as well.

 

[TheComputerGuy]

Lmao that is your argument? The athletic commission is not going to admit when they make a bad call. Cmon dude.. That was actually a fairly straightforward fight to call I thought. I guess sitting ringside could make it hard to tell but all the fans at home should know who won that fight

Yep, Robbie clearly won.

 

[IMSAYIN]

Seriously... what the fuck else was buddy going to say ?

" We routinely fuck up about 10% of all decisions. But, it's not like it matters. Nobody loses money on this shit. It doesn't affect ppl's lives in any way... So, it's all good. And 90% is a pretty sweet average... right ? "

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

because it is

Such an awesome fight. Wonder how different the landscape of the UFC would be if more fighters put it all on the line like Robbie does when he's behind? Far too often you see the fighters just wilt and not do anything or they do something stupid like go for a meaningless takedown when they're going to lose the fight on a decision anyway. Robbie goes balls to the wall at the end and puts it all out there. Knock out or get knocked out but at least go down swinging.

 

[Kawlinz]

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.

I'm not disagreeing with the winner of the fight, but I don't trust the NSAC to overturn anything after the fact, even if Condit did win. Jones couldn't get his Hamill DQ overturned.

 

[ngn21]

robbie is the rightful champ...end of the story

 

[Mr. Hammer]

Lol TS finds one person that agrees with his shitty opinion and throws it in everyone's face like "SEE????!!!".

Condit beat the shit out of Lawler and won under both unified and PRIDE rules. Lawler's hail mary comeback in the last couple of minutes of the fight didn't erase the 3-4 rounds he lost.

 

[HUNTERMANIA]

Lol TS finds one person that agrees with his shitty opinion and throws it in everyone's face like "SEE????!!!".

Condit beat the shit out of Lawler and won under both unified and PRIDE rules. Lawler's hail mary comeback in the last couple of minutes of the fight didn't erase the 3-4 rounds he lost.

Robbie won round 2 clearly, round 3 clearly, and round 5. I would say the damage put out was about equal, in total, in terms of who hurt who throughout the whole fight.... under Pride scoring it would be a close decision as well, but they valued finishing the fight a lot and I think Robbie would get the decision under those rules as well.

And that one person just happens to be an executive of the NSAC who works with judges and oversees judging and judging criteria (in which he emphasizes the importance of damage, which so many were trying to say 'it doesn't say that anywhere in the rules, so clearly these numbers mean something!' which he clearly denies). I would say his opinion is pretty important.