Robbie/Carlos: ANOTHER Who Won Thread!!!!!

[Wild]

Unless you have other angles than were on the broadcast, IMO (after watching shitty stream again), it's very difficult to know who won round 3 -- for reasons detailed in posts above:

- disproportionate time/volume of offense vs defense
- disproportionate intensity of strikes within offensive combinations and attacks

At crucial moments, the camera angle just sucks for gauging how cleanly and well Lawler's landing -- especially the 1st time he moves forward for a prolonged segment, after Condit's been dictating the distance and staying busy at the start of the round. Whether Condit's head moves or not isn't a good measure, as he's good at absorbing damage AND he is rolling with the punches. His back is to the camera at crucial moments when he's rolling and Lawler's punching, so that it's very tough (to me, not possible) to score accurately. That segment alone could dictate whether you score the round for Condit or Lawler, and unless you had a better camera angle than was on the feed I watched, it's basically not scoreable.

BTW, probably everybody knows this, but this issue is why there are three judges who are supposed to be triangulated around the ring so that they all have different vantage points. From each one, it may be more or less certain that one guy won the round. IMO the "camera flow" judges seat was bad for round 3, and round 3 seems to be the closest round, at least to me. It can be scored either way, depending on how you interpret parts of the fight that were (imo) too poorly presented, due to the live shot angles, to score dependably.

Good post. You gotta take the belt from the champion, and unfortunately, fights so close that they could either way, are not going to get it done most of time.

 

[LurkenLikaGherkin]

I have no problem with the champ getting there with a squeaky-close victory, if not for the shitty judging. It's some weird irony that, because the road to the belt for nearly everybody (with an occasional exception) is likely to already include some questionable decisions that could've gone either way -- or should've gone the other way ("*cough* Bendo") -- it feels like there should be a different standard of expectation for "the challenger" to take rounds from the champ.

It seems like if it weren't for the shitty judging, that wouldn't seem to be as much of a concern. If the judges were really competent, across the board, it would be a lot less tempting to want to expect a challenger to do more to unseat a champ than in a non-championship fight.

They all want to be champ, to have accomplished that, and the only thing a true competitor wants is fair play. Most of the top guys even want to get the best version of their opponent in that championship bout possible, because that is how the life accomplishment means the most.

The status of judging at present really shits all over the whole journey, dedication and noble intent of a fighter over the course of her/his career.

 

[Andrewsimar Palhardass]

This fight really illustrates a weird thing about sports that involve judges. Robbie definitely landed the harder shots in round 3, but Condit landed the big knee and (if I remember correctly) a higher volume of strikes after the big shots that Robbie was throwing. Who knows who should have won it? Watching it live, I had Carlos. If it were Pride rules and the fight was judged as a whole, I think I still would have gone with Condit. I haven't watched it a second time, though. My opinion on the Rory-Lawler fight pre-KO has changed multiple times with multiple watches, for example.