Especially with the position the judges see the fight. When CC gets hit, he is a lot more animated. Robbie? Nope. He is like a zombie. This is where announcers ( especially rogan ) can sway people ( unintentionally )
UFC 195 Condit vs Lawler Live Discussion - 1/2/16
- Thread starter Wild
- Start date
soundI'm sure he's a nice guy, but@ChaosOverkill is right that he watches his own fight.
WAR CONDIT!
1
1372
Guest
Damn....
Missus said she has loads of tin foil...we
But here we can have at it about stupid decisions without that nasty ban bug..Gonna go make a joint then post some stupid shit in a minute...Need more phone charge...missus is in the pool and after 17 years I still act like a 14 year old.
If you don't think the 3rd round was a toss up than I don't know what to tell you. That's the total argument. It was 2-2 no question with the 3rd being the deciding factor. I said it should have been a draw. But no way you could make a absolute argument for either on that round.
Ha..I just said hockey too
Yeah. I was surprised by the decision. .it gets funny how people get invested. This is one of the rare times that I was a fan of both fighters. Glad for robbie..looking forward to the next one
1
1372
Guest
No, the right hook was much more damaging than Condit's knockdown in the first. But Condit's short left hook followed by a sharp right that gave Robbie the stanky leg was just as damaging if not more-so than Robbie's right in my opinion. It was a good fight by both guys but Robbie was cruising for 4 rounds looking for a one shot knockout while Condit was picking him apart and hitting him with a multitude of shots that kept Lawler from doing much of anything until the 5th round. No disrespect meant towards either fighter as both fought their asses off and deserve nothing but respect.
the problem with no stat counters is, none of us are there either. You can say that one guy's punches are harder, but you can't actually qunatify the amount or line that determines significant. From a TV screen I can say yes or no, and it is probably different from the judges table.
The stat counters, if can be a consolidated number among like ten different people ringside and plus tv and reliable is a useful tool. How much damage a person takes from significance is not quantifiable. The whole thing is still all over the place to me.
PUmmeling Arlovski with Volume seems entirely significant where as Mark Hunt it wouldn't be.
The stat counters, if can be a consolidated number among like ten different people ringside and plus tv and reliable is a useful tool. How much damage a person takes from significance is not quantifiable. The whole thing is still all over the place to me.
PUmmeling Arlovski with Volume seems entirely significant where as Mark Hunt it wouldn't be.
1
1372
Guest
I disagree. From my knowledge the stat counts are done by 1 guy who runs FightMetric, and you absolutely can see what are the harder shots.
For sure and that punch Carlos landed was highly effective and visibly did damage, and was a big reason why he won the 4th round.
What I'm saying is when you look at round 3 and who landed the big shots in that round, it was Robbie
1
1372
Guest
I hate to disagree with you as you have a special place in my heart and you Definitely have good knowledge but being next To the cage rather than on a 13 second delay might change your thoughts?
No?
Ah well...More beer.
That's still not what I mean, it doesn't take into account the difference man to man on what the same punch does to one vs the other.
You can pummel Mark Hunt and get nowhere and pummel Arloski with the same thing and he's half dead if not finished.
I'm not saying you can't tell who hits hard I'm saying the factor of what it is worth is arbitrary and isn't clear because it assumes everyone takes damage the same exact way if Damage is to matter in the equation.
If it's just who even slightly hits harder then there are other fights that need to be re-judged. That would slant brawlers as having the ultimate striking advantage I don't think is intended to exist.
Ringside is a worse view than whats on TV. So yes it could change your view for the worse.
You look for reactions to a strike and judge from that. Some people have better chins and will react better and some won't. I get what you are saying, kind of, but still disagree that you can't tell who hurt who more.
Also, Robbie is a knockout fighter with devastating power. Condit does not have devastating power but instead, incredibly sharp technique and variety in his attacks. Not everyone is a KO artist so people have to fight to their strengths. Yeah Robbie hits harder but if those don't KO the other guy then what difference does it make when he's outstriking you 2-1? If it was just about who punches harder then we should just be watching two guys stand in front of each other taking turns giving each other haymakers with no defense until one guy falls over.
I know what you are saying too, but like others have said that's not easily consistent either. But for the most part I don't think it is necessarily a solvable entity either, but if you judge this fight that way they should stick to this in all striking matches and I think Frankie Loses Maynard 1 and The First BJ fight too easily on the same criteria likely.
If it's simply the "Gotta beat the champ..." dynamic then it's a bad seatbelt they use for this too.
I agree, Frankie lost both of those fights.