Last night, Alan Belcher did what Diaz fans screamed Condit should do, which is to stand in front of your opponent and allow him to back you into the cage and impose his game plan on you. Had Belcher simply continued to circle back to the center of the ring, that fight could have looked very different. But hey, he didn't "run"...
The point being, "running" is a term used by upset fans of the guy who loses to a smart fighter who doesn't allow his opponent to impose his gameplan. The alternative is to do what Belcher did. Condit became an interm champ, while Belcher fell back down the ladder. Again though, at least he didn't "run" right? I'm sure he can take far more pride in that...
Have you seen de la Hoya vs Trinidad? De la Hoya lost, but he easily won the first half of the fight. You could say he was running away for the last few rounds of that, and he ended up losing the majority decision. Slight differences in interpretation from the judges, and de la Hoya would have won that fight. I wonder what people who talk about running away think about de la Hoya's strategy in that fight (ignoring the judges' outcome).
Those who are saying are probably Nick Diaz die hard pot head fans or some people who don't know anything about fighting. They say the same stupid shit about Anderson Vs. Maia as if all Anderson did was run.
I don't call it running, I call it Kiting. John Makdesi did this recently and in fucking awesome fashion. Carlos did it to Nick and it was executed well (this coming from the biggest Diaz fan) It exploits fighters who fight in straight lines, if you cut angles and circle you can stop an opponents offense, look at Dominick, he fights in acute and obtuse angles, never in straight lines. People don't like it but I think it's a viable option, Tim did it to Lombard. In my opinion if the fighter coming straight forward doesn't have the sensibility to NOT fall into a failing perpetual game plan he should get battered while running down his opponent. If nick would have just stopped moving forward in that fight... he could have stifled Carlos's game-plan. But thats not what happened, most fighters who fight in straight forward lines never stop.
Nope, it's called being against the cage with a guy who's really good at battering people in that position, and resetting to the centre of the octagon.
If your dumb enough to let your own game plan be detrimental to your fight game you shouldn't be complaining. Honestly Diaz/Lombard/Stevens ALL could have avoided what Condit/Boetsch/Makdesi did if they would have THOUGHT about what the fuck they are doing. If your being eaten up while constantly moving forward in a single line...STOP FUCKING DOING THAT Why not back up yourself and try countering for once? Why not stand completely still and allow the other fighter to come towards you accentuating your power if you land while they rush in. There are HUNDREDS of ways for fighters to counter this "kiting" effect. Look how Domminick fucked up Faber in his last fight, Faber came forward in straight lines the entire time and Dominick capitalized on it. Fighters need to stop perpetuating their own failing gameplan. Roy nelson is bad at doing that too, he works a failing game plan once he gets into a sinking hole. Instead of replying with three punctual marks why not provide some insight on why you think "kiting" isn't a viable option to beat somebody other than the whiny fault "HE WONT LET ME PUNCH THE OTHER GUY, WHAT A FUCKING TRAGEDY"
The only true MMA-fight was Don Frye vs Yoshihiro Takayama. The rest of the fighters are all running bitches, with their 'thinking' and 'gameplanning'.
After he was the one landing the strikes? Are you saying he was running because he was scared? Scared of what? Hitting Diaz more? DUM
I'm tempted to agree with the point you are sarcastically making, because there was something uniquely awesome about that fight. But I grudgingly concede your point that maybe "strategy" and such have a place in fighting.
