Before I begin, I just want to say that I have never written one of these before, so take it easy on me, will you? And if there has been posts like this before, then my apologies.
When a fight in MMA goes to a decision, we all know that the judges have scored rounds for fighters based on effective striking, grappling, aggression and control. It seems easy enough to understand. Or so I thought.
I always thought that when two fighters are standing, the fighter that is inside the octagonal line (or is in the center) was the fighter "in control".
Condit vs Diaz changed my understanding of the scoring system. While I was watching the fight, I had been scoring it for Diaz, as he was the aggressor, and was controlling the center of the octagon. There were very little grappling exchanges until the last round, and Condit was edging him out with the striking. I figured Diaz was meeting two of the requirements to win the fight, so he should win the fight. when the judges scorecards were revealed, I was a little bit shocked, a little bit angry, but mostly confused. I didn't understand.
As I was going through it in my head, and as I watched the fight again, I realised that because Condit was beating Diaz standing, he was controlling the fight. Now I understood, but I also disagree.
Control should not be a criteria for scoring a fight, because control is effective striking or grappling, which are already criteria for scoring a fight.
Another example comes from the Guida vs Hioki fight that was on FOX last night. Guida was controlling the fight through his grappling, which is two of the four criteria being looked for. However, while Guida was controlling the fight, Hioki was being the aggressor, attacking with submissions and strikes from his back (he also had a few other big moments in the fight) which some fans felt was enough to win him the fight.
My last example is probably going to cause major disagreements.
GSP vs Condit is my best example of why control should not be a criteria for winning a fight. I will admit, GSP for the most part was schooling Condit. However, when GSP would take Condit to the ground, Condit would land many elbows and punches from the bottom, as well as going for sweeps and submission attempts, but GSP would just shrug them off.
Right there, Condit is showing aggression, while GSP is using effective grappling and control. In the third (I believe) round of the fight, Condit hit GSP with a head kick that came all the way from the fiery depths of hell, which actually rocked the champion. Eventually Georges re-gained his composure and came back to control the rest of the fight.
Take one look at GSP after that fight and tell me he looked like a winner.
There is a point to my rambling! I know that it will probably never happen, but I believe control needs to be removed from the scoring system, or at least replaced with "damage" (this would be based on knockdowns, a knockdown from fighter A would result in fighter A winning the round, no matter who was in "control").
That's all I've got to say for today. I hope my post was satisfactory for a first try.