# Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

Before you guys start labelling me as a sour Condit fan, I gave GSP the nod and scored it three rounds to two in a thrilling and competitive fight.

I can't be alone in thinking that top control is just ridiculously over valued in this sport, because it seems like people are just accepting the fact that who ever is on top from the guard(s) position is automatically winning the fight, regardless of what the opponent is doing from the bottom.

Having watched the fight two times now and reading the responses not just on here, but on various online MMA forums and blogs, it really infuriates me to see people label this fight as a dominant and easy victory for GSP and for the judges to score it 50-45 for GSP - how is this even possible?

Why do you rate control over damage? Why is control such an over emphasised aspect of judging criteria?

In a real fight, simply controlling the other person doesn't get you the win. In a real fight, two guys scrap it out until their opponent is either knocked out, submitted or just verbally gives up. Fighting is about breaking the wills of your adversaries, not holding them to the ground for as long as you can.

Do people know that judges were enforced into combat sports to simply stop fights ending in draws. If there were no judges, fighters would have to go for the finish and thus be much more encouraged to inflict real damage rather than simply "control" their opponents.

And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

This isn't a real fight. It's a sporting competition. Hence theirs judges and rules.

GSP clearly controlled the fight, passed guard multiple times. Landed shots from the top, did what he wanted to do as he was in the position to be offensive.


----------



## Sports_Nerd (Apr 23, 2012)

I agree that the top position is over emphasized in MMA.

That wasn't the case in GSP vs Condit though.

Power in striking comes from your core. Muscles that a fighter posturing up from the top can bring into play, but that a fighter throwing elbows off his back generally can't.

I personally scored the fight 49-46, but I can definitely understand a 50-45 score. GSP was winning the striking battle, got caught, took some damage on the ground, got up, got the takedown, and did some damage on the ground. He imposed his skillset for most of that round, despite being put on rubber legs.

Your last 3 paragraphs are too stupid to respond to.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

That and Condit clearly got outgrappled in just about every round, whether it be the takedowns or the submission grappling game where GSP guard passed at least 6 or 7 times.


----------



## NoYards (Sep 7, 2008)

easy answer. Don't get taken down and let some 'lesser fighter' control you like a little girl ... or maybe just hide a knife in your shorts and shive your opponent since there doesn't seem to be any need for rules and it's all just a matter of who can walk out of the ring under their own power.

:ROLLEYES:


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

That's a pretty badly busted up face for some one who spent the large majority of the fight on the ground in the top position.

Condit's ground and pound from the bottom was quite clearly very effective and other than the huge slicing elbow GSP landed at the end of the first round, I'm not so sure GSP's strikes from the top were really that significant at all.

@Roflcopter, GSP passed to half guard very briefly a few times throughout 25 minutes. Condit immediately hip escaped and regained full guard pretty much every time GSP passed.

Condit did a great job of controlling GSP's posture and not allowing GSP much space to land strikes and land short elbows and strikes of his own from the bottom.

@SportsNerd, I don't see how my last three paragraphs are stupid when these fighters are competing in an organisation called the Ultimate FIGHTING Championship. The goal is to fight, not simply control for 3/5 rounds (not having a go at GSP here, but speaking in general terms).


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

That's not effective offense. Guard passing is.

This is like the basics.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

Roflcopter said:


> That's not effective offense. Guard passing is.
> 
> This is like the basics.


GSPS's face seems to indicate that Condits strikes from the bottom were indeed effective.

How did you score the Guida/Pettis fight? (not comparing this fight to Guida/Pettis, just curious)


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

I'm not so certain GSP didn't take the bulk of that damage in the minute that Condit rained down elbow after elbow following the head-kick. You could see the damage that had been inflicted when GSP returned to his corner following the third round. I can't say that Carlos didn't add to that little collection of cuts and bruises as the fight continued, but I do think it likely that the worst was done in his minute or so of ground and pound.


----------



## dsmjrv (Jan 27, 2010)

guida pettis is the perfect example of whats wrong with over emphasizing top control in MMA scoring.. gsp condit, not so much


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Not really, Anthony got nothing accomplished in that fight at all.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

This thread has been done a million times.

Lets go back to the basics - the unified rules of MMA have the following criteria;

1. Effective striking - sub-catergories are first a heavy importance om the quality of strkes, followed by number of strikes, as well as taking into account visible damage (eg, cuts, brusing, as well as stunning & "rocking" or knocking down an opponent)
2. Effective grappling - takedowns, passes, submission attempts, reverals, etc
3. Effective agression - moving forward, or attacking with submission from the guard
4. cage/ring control (UFC calls this octagon control)

out of those criteria, the only criteria that GSP didn't win in every round was arguably criteria #1, in round #3. "Effective agression" does not take into account stikes from the bottom, only submissions. The only catergory that scores points for strikes from the bottom is "effective striking". The strikes that Condit was throwing from the bottom weren't significant/power strikes. GSP landed the better quality strikes in each round, which is what the judges want to see. Condit landed more stikes overall, but the quality of strikes were better from GSP. The other 3 criteria GSP won easily in each round - giving the overall round to GSP.

How did you have 2 rounds for Condit anyways? I believe one of the judges gave Condit the 3rd round - I have no idea how anyone could give any other rounds to Condit. 

The reason GSP won, is because he won in every criteria except arguably "effective striking" in a few of the rounds. Without a doubt he was the agressor, had better effective grappling, and better octagon control.

Make sense?


----------



## BlackManRising (Oct 25, 2012)

Gsp likes dudes, which shows in his "fights". Hes not tryin to hurt his opponents, he's tryin to "get it in".. its all good tho, he won. Don't neg rep me. this forum doesn't let ppl express themselves. Let me live. #blackmanrising


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Top Control might be a little bit overrated BUT not in the Condit/GSP fight. From bottom you dont create nearly as much power as you do from the top. So sure Condit was active but GSP wasnt exactly stalling either. I thought GSP did more damage from the top then Condit did from the bottom. And that picture proves absolutely nothing because GSP got hit in the face standing up also. Just 1 punch to the nose could have created that whole bruise. And the rest does not even look that bad. 

You know what i think is more overrated then top control??? Looking at a guys face post fight to indicate how much damage he took.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

GrappleRetarded said:


> And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.


That is not what octagon control is.

Octagon control is defined as "dictating the pace, place and position of the fight." That criteria would have easily been given to GSP in every round.

Believe it or not, no points are given at all, in any criteria for defense, other than grappling for reverals/sweeps. It is primarly only a method of not losing, not a means of scoring points.

eg. a submission that nearly finishes an opponent scores more points than multiple trivial/weak submission attempts, however no points are scored for defending submissions.

Same idea with striking, and takedowns.

It's all about implementing your gameplan on the other opponent -- being the agressor, with more points awared for quality over quantity.

Again - nobody goes into a fight with the plan to land strikes from the bottom, submit from the bottom, or ending the fight with an upkick. If you do, lucky you -- you get the finish and possibly a KO/sub of the night bonus. But you can't honestly say that was what your plan was going into the fight. You can prepare for those situations, but you don't go into the fight planning to win that way. The only exception may be very skilled BJJ fighters who like to pull guard and try for triangles / armbars etc. The rules don't exactly favour that style, but a takedown is awarded for pulling guard.

This is one of the reasons why you hear people say that wrestling is one of the best base skills for MMA. You score points for grappling (takedowns), control (dictating the pace/place), and you are going to be landing strikes or attempting submissions once on the ground.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

I agree with what most have said here. (RedRocket, roflcopter, etc.) I also agree with CanadianPsycho that most (if not all) of the damage on GSP's face would have been from that head kick + flurry immediately after.


----------



## BlackManRising (Oct 25, 2012)

Woodenhead said:


> I agree with what most have said here. (RedRocket, roflcopter, etc.) I also agree with CanadianPsycho that most (if not all) of the damage on GSP's face would have been from that head kick + flurry immediately after.


Did u agree with what I said? #truth


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

BlackManRising said:


> Did u agree with what I said? #truth


Did you just use a hashtag??

Wow... instant loss off all respect.


----------



## BlackManRising (Oct 25, 2012)

I used a hashtag and u lost all respect for me? Sweet pre judging.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

BlackManRising said:


> I used a hashtag and u lost all respect for me? Sweet pre judging.


Yeah it really does not take alot to lose respect for some online.

I thought people who used hashtags on facebook are dumb. Using it on forums.... i think this is the first time iv seen that.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

The problem is that the judges aren't actually supposed to give it the weight that they do. Damage, effective striking, and effective grappling are the three main criteria. Aggression and control are supposed to be tie breakers not round winners. 

Neither of them should even be criteria in the first place they have nothing to do with winning an MMA fight outside of what would fall under the other criteria and could and should be judged under those criteria. It seriously screws up the sport because you wouldn't have nearly as many lay and prayers or mud fighters without it. Luckily Lawlor wasn't rewarded for his mud fighting the other night and GSP being rewarded for his LNP wasn't relevant to his victory since he outright won 3 rounds with the other criteria.


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

BlackManRising said:


> Gsp likes dudes, which shows in his "fights". Hes not tryin to hurt his opponents, he's tryin to "get it in".. its all good tho, he won. Don't neg rep me. this forum doesn't let ppl express themselves. Let me live. #blackmanrising





BlackManRising said:


> I used a hashtag and u lost all respect for me? Sweet pre judging.


Now why would anyone pre-judge you?


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

osmium said:


> The problem is that the judges aren't actually supposed to give it the weight that they do. Damage, effective striking, and effective grappling are the three main criteria. Aggression and control are supposed to be tie breakers not round winners.


In the unified rules of MMA damage is not it's own criteria - although I believe when the UFC does thier little pre-fight rules thing it makes it look like one.

It's actually a sub-component of effective striking, which takes into account quality of strikes, quantity of strikes, as well as visible damage, "rocking" (stuns) and knockdowns.

This is why the judges saw the fight the way they did - GSP landed more power shots (most important sub-criteria), however condit landed more shots and they were both visibly damaged. GSP maybe a little worse for wear near rounds 4 and 5, *but thankfully the fights aren't scored on what fighters look like at the end of the fight.* Judges score each round as they go. Condit looked a lot worse for the first half of the fight than GSP did. GSP would have won the "damage" category in rounds 1 and 2, probably not 3, and the others were a toss up. It was towards the end of the fight that Condit would have scored points for damage. Plus GSP dominated in every other category the entire fight.


----------



## BlackManRising (Oct 25, 2012)

That's true. I just used it to be funny. Anyways, Gsp won the fight, Condit coulda/shoulda ended it when Gsp dropped. Overall Gsp looked good, do I think he can beat Silva? No. But he will wipe the floor with anyone in the WW division.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

RedRocket44 said:


> In the unified rules of MMA damage is not it's own criteria - although I believe when the UFC does thier little pre-fight rules thing it makes it look like one.
> 
> It's actually a sub-component of effective striking, which takes into account quality of strikes, quantity of strikes, as well as visible damage, "rocking" (stuns) and knockdowns.
> 
> This is why the judges saw the fight the way they did - GSP landed more power shots (most important sub-criteria), however condit landed more shots and they were both visibly damaged. GSP maybe a little worse for wear near rounds 4 and 5, *but thankfully the fights aren't scored on what fighters look like at the end of the fight.* Judges score each round as they go. Condit looked a lot worse for the first half of the fight than GSP did. GSP would have won the "damage" category in rounds 1 and 2, probably not 3, and the others were a toss up. It was towards the end of the fight that Condit would have scored points for damage. Plus GSP dominated in every other category the entire fight.


It is included in effective grappling as well and is viewed separately from the other aspects regardless because it is heavily weighted. It isn't like the fight is scored with a checklist and if you win 3 of 5 or whatever you get the round. It is a matter of relevancy what happened for what amount of time to what degree and how are those things weighted within our criteria.

I don't know who is arguing that Condit won the fight because he didn't but that doesn't mean the judges got the scores right.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

GR, you're in a tail-spin. Pull up bruv.

3-2!

Oh dear.

GSP's face was marked up. Condit's was a mask of blood. I'm working on some gifs. Will post later tonight.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

osmium said:


> It is included in effective grappling as well and is viewed separately from the other aspects regardless because it is heavily weighted. It isn't like the fight is scored with a checklist and if you win 3 of 5 or whatever you get the round. It is a matter of relevancy what happened for what amount of time to what degree and how are those things weighted within our criteria.
> 
> I don't know who is arguing that Condit won the fight because he didn't but that doesn't mean the judges got the scores right.


I realize it's not a checklist - it's very much widely arbitrary.

But again - if we are looking at just visible damage alone *it's not scored in a "one-shot" deal at the end of the fight *(like the OP makes it sound). After round 1 - GSP wins in the damage department for the cut he opened near the end of the round. Same after round 2 as I don't recall GSP looking too bad. Lets say Condit wins round 3. If GSP looks no worse after the 4th round, and he opened another cut on Condit, then GSP should win round 4. 

Again - I realize it's not a checklist, but thats how the judges should be approaching it.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

RedRocket44 said:


> I realize it's not a checklist - it's very much widely arbitrary.
> 
> But again - if we are looking at just visible damage alone *it's not scored in a "one-shot" deal at the end of the fight *(like the OP makes it sound). After round 1 - GSP wins in the damage department for the cut he opened near the end of the round. Same after round 2 as I don't recall GSP looking too bad. Lets say Condit wins round 3. If GSP looks no worse after the 4th round, and he opened another cut on Condit, then GSP should win round 4.
> 
> Again - I realize it's not a checklist, but thats how the judges should be approaching it.


I am not talking about cuts and bruises I am talking about the accumulation of power of strikes landed and damage done by attempted submissions.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

osmium said:


> I am not talking about cuts and bruises I am talking about the accumulation of power of strikes landed and damage done by attempted submissions.


well same idea, each criteria / sub critera is socred on a round by round basis, not at the end of the fight.

You could land 100 power strikes in round 1, and if by an act of god the other fighter is still alive you could lose the fight if he lands 5 power shots in each of rounds 2-5, and you landed nothing.

Even though total power strikes were 100-20, you lost rounds 2-5, if all other factors were equal.

You can't just look at the fighters faces at the end of the fight and say Condit did more damage and should have won. If Condit does all that damage in the last round, and GSP opens up 4 cuts spread out over the first 4 rounds, he's going to win the effective striking category in the first 4 rounds.

Hopefully that explains my point better


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Top control

"control"

And I can flick someone's ear with my finger, which will leave a red mark. Guess I did damage.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

The thing is -- it wasn't only top control that won the fight for GSP like in the OP. Control is one of the less important criteria, but still scores points.

However to get top control you have to get takedowns, which GSP scored at least one in each round (7 total), which count towards effective grappling... which is an important criteria. Sort of a little domino effect -- to get (top) control, you need a takedown, which gets you points in a number of areas.

He also scored a lot of passes once he got the fight to the ground, which further helped his grappling and control. Finally, he landed more significant strikes throughout the fight as well.

I think I've beat this to death tonight - time to call it quits.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

I just watched the fight again to make sure I remember it correctly. I was (somewhat ) intoxicated last night.

I was correct in my assessment though. Condit had next to nothing for GSP in that fight. It was a hell of a fight, and Condit is a ******* warrior, but GSP had him beat everywhere.

Condit had a good combo or two, and a good head kick. He had some good sub attempts but GSP was clearly never in trouble. With the exception of the one head kick, GSP landed harder, cleaner, and more overall strikes. Condits strikes from the bottom inflicted damage in the sense that they cut GSP... but if you think any of those strikes were harder than GSP's elbows / punches from on top I question if you have ever been in that position. The strikes from bottom can cut. Do they hurt as bad as from top? Hardly. Which is exactly why it isn't scored as much.

I don't have the time to explain why strikes from the bottom isn't as effective as strikes from in someones guard... or half guard. I didn't think something like that needed to be explained to people who have so many posts.


----------



## RedRocket44 (Sep 18, 2011)

PheelGoodInc said:


> I don't have the time to explain why strikes from the bottom isn't as effective as strikes from in someones guard... or half guard. I didn't think something like that needed to be explained to people who have so many posts.


Pretty simple really -- there's no power/weight behind them when you have somebody's bodyweight ontop of you -- pushing you into the mat. They are more of arm punches than anything of significance. 

They can cut/bruise, just like any other strike though... you're simply tearing the skin when the glove rides along the face. No damage behind them though.


----------



## NoYards (Sep 7, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> And I actually thought Condit did a fantastic job of controlling GSP's posture throughout the majority of the fight from the bottom position.


You need to check out the Gracie breakdown of the fight (there's a recent thread on it,) and listen to Condit himself at the post fight presser.

Condit wasn't controlling GSPs posture, GSP was doing exactly what he should have been doing in order to counter a good JJ practitioner from attempting submissions ffrom his back, while 'bringing the rain' down on Condit.

I was concerned, and stated so in another thread, that GSP wasn't passing any more than into half guard, then I watched the Gracie breakdown and heard Condit explain why he was having problems with GSP in guard, and it became pretty clear who was controlling whom.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)




----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

RearNaked said:


>


What is the point of this? It looks like a bad attempt to take things out of context and show 3 seconds a fight while ignoring everything that happened before and after it.

Ironically, you can see Condits face pouring with blood from DAMAGE done by GSP.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

It is what is it and positions count although they shouldn't. Fact is GSP and a lot of other guys who rely on top control would probably fight very differently if the rules were changed and control didn't matter. In my opinion these rules we have right now are biased to the point where a certain skillset is made almost useless whereas another skillset is absolutely overpowered. That's just not the way it should be. The game is rigged.


----------



## Atras (Sep 12, 2011)

Superficial damage is not a reliable proxy for "real" damage. Some people cut more easily (scar tissue), and some people bleed more profusely and bruise more readily (genetics I believe).

Besides, it's a sport, not a gladiator ring.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

RearNaked said:


> GSP's face was marked up. Condit's was a mask of blood. I'm working on some gifs. Will post later tonight.





PheelGoodInc said:


> What is the point of this? It looks like a bad attempt to take things out of context and show 3 seconds a fight while ignoring everything that happened before and after it.
> 
> Ironically, you can see Condits face pouring with blood from DAMAGE done by GSP.


*Sigh


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

RearNaked said:


> *Sigh


That's cute you sigh online. 

You still didn't explain the point of your GIF. GSP wasn't scoring in the judges eyes based on that three second GIF. That was also a fraction of the fight, and in itself had absolutely nothing to do with how the fight was scored.

I am seriously wondering if we are just being trolled at this point.


----------



## rul3z (Jun 27, 2010)

Talked about this yesterday, people thought I'm just a hater!!

Check this fact out: here

See fact #20 

Tell me I'm a hatred again


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

rul3z said:


> Talked about this yesterday, people thought I'm just a hater!!
> 
> Check this fact out: here
> 
> ...


GSP fought a war in which he dominated. People get cut up / bruised up in wars all the time.

You are a hater. That was a hell of a fight. You are more concerned with the fact that GSP didn't finish than the fact that we got to see an amazing fight.

I could understand the hate for GSP if this fight was boring and he didn't finish. But it was a ******* war against a really tough opponent... and all GSP haters care about is that 1. GSP didn't finish and 2. OMG GSP was cut / bruised at the end of the fight.

Good God the amount of trolling on this board lately has been almost unbearable. I feel like sherdog bought this place out and is slowly merging the forums together. God help up.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> It is what is it and positions count although they shouldn't. Fact is GSP and a lot of other guys who rely on top control would probably fight very differently if the rules were changed and control didn't matter. In my opinion these rules we have right now are biased to the point where a certain skillset is made almost useless whereas another skillset is absolutely overpowered. That's just not the way it should be. The game is rigged.


Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this way then.



PheelGoodInc said:


> That's cute you sigh online.
> 
> You still didn't explain the point of your GIF. GSP wasn't scoring in the judges eyes based on that three second GIF. That was also a fraction of the fight, and in itself had absolutely nothing to do with how the fight was scored.
> 
> I am seriously wondering if we are just being trolled at this point.


Jesus man, does he have to spell it out for you. He was proving a point to me that GSP busted Condit wide open (which I've already acknowledged on countless occasions).


----------



## NoYards (Sep 7, 2008)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> It is what is it and positions count although they shouldn't. Fact is GSP and a lot of other guys who rely on top control would probably fight very differently if the rules were changed and control didn't matter. In my opinion these rules we have right now are biased to the point where a certain skillset is made almost useless whereas another skillset is absolutely overpowered. That's just not the way it should be. The game is rigged.


Certain skill sets ARE overpowering, and wrestling right now is one of them.

As much as you might love to see a stand up bare knuckle brawl, stand up striking is one of the least effective of MMA skill sets. Even in an all out street a good wrestler or BBJ practitioner, baring a sucker punch, will have it all over someone good with their fists and feet.

If you want to be a good MMA fighter you need to be good at all the martial arts, not just one of them. 

Control is important, very very important, otherwise instead of raining down fists from full and half guard, GSP would have been tapping out to an arm or leg bar, or swept and suffering a rain of punches from Condit.

Is BBJ important? If so, then preventing a good BJJ practitioner from using their BJJ skills on you is equally important (ie: control)

Is striking important? Then preventing someone from striking is equally important (ie: bringing them to the ground and controlling them.)

This one dimensional evaluation of MMA fighting is getting very tiresome ... the fact that you think top control is over valued simply tells me you don't understand fighting.

If you think a certain aspect of a MMA fight is boring, or you don't understand why it is included in the scoring then the likely problem is not that the MMA rules suck, it's more likely that you are not understanding something about MMA fighting, so go some research on the technique and maybe you will learn that there is something more to the technique than meets the eye.


ETA: I assume you think that because Condit was on his back and actively punching up at GSP that this should have been considered higher in the scoring ratings for Condit ... but that's a misunderstanding of what was going on. Punching from your back is a 'weak' technique. It's a defensive technique that is aimed at preventing your opponent from setting up for much stronger top punches and elbows. You're not going to stop an opponent or even score damage with punches off your back ... the real danger from your back is BJJ, and that's where control comes in and why it is important .... what do you think is more important and should be scored higher? hitting your opponent from your back with some weak punches all the while allowing your opponent to stay on top and rain down hard punches and elbows? or staying on top of your opponent, raining down some pretty good fists and elbows and preventing your opponent from setting up for a submission? 

Even if you though that top control should not be rated high in the scoring, there's no way in hell that you can then claim that laying there with someone on top of you should count for anything.

If top control is over rated, then that should only be because it is not important to the outcome of the fight and can easily be countered ... if it's so 'unimportant', then fighters on their back should counter the technique and that would stop any chance of it scoring. 

When MMA first started, someone though striking was over rated as a fighting technique. To prove it they went in the ring and beat the crap out of strikers twice his size .... that's how you rate an MMA technique. Does it work? Then it's important. When top control stops working and everyone can get out of it or easily turn it into a submission attempt? Then you can claim it as overrated.

Personally, if there is any MMA skill that is over rated, it's striking (but just slightly overrated .. especially in the minds of some MMA fans.)


----------



## Canadian Psycho (Apr 22, 2007)

PheelGoodInc said:


> GSP fought a war in which he dominated. People get cut up / bruised up in wars all the time.
> 
> You are a hater. That was a hell of a fight. You are more concerned with the fact that GSP didn't finish than the fact that we got to see an amazing fight.
> 
> ...


It's ridiculous. You'd think that 25 minutes of intense and actual fighting was some sort of punishment. This site is becoming unbearable.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

I hear what people are saying about winning on a points system although Saturday wasn't really won by that. I've come to accept it. Edgar doesn't have much KO power so he has to stick and move. GSP does not have KO power either and coupled with a bad experience he has opted with the GJ fight system although he is very active...much more so than say Fitch, Lay Praynard, and definitely more so than Guida. 

Early on people couldn't figure out Royce's technique until years down the road. His time passed.

Tito couldn't be stopped that was until the Iceman came in with the sprawl and brawl technique. Hughes was on a tear til a chubby Hawaiian submitted em and then a Canadian entered the scene who truly dethroned em.

Brock was winning by overpowering and controlling his opponents through sheer power and gnp until Cain learned to reverse through a butterfly guard, and Overeem showed him it was time to pick on someone his own size. 

Chael Sonnen smothers people very similarly to all the other wrestlers, but guess what he got submitted by Maia and Anderson Silva. 

Point is they all FOUND A WAY to win and each eventually were replaced. In the laws of the jungle only the strong survive through* adaptation. * 

Look, I'm an all offensive type of guy in any sports you can think of. I hate the whole (safe) defense wins game strategy although I've come to learn that it's part of the game. 

At the end of the day you can hate it, but you have to respect it.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

PheelGoodInc said:


> That's cute you sigh online.
> 
> You still didn't explain the point of your GIF. GSP wasn't scoring in the judges eyes based on that three second GIF. That was also a fraction of the fight, and in itself had absolutely nothing to do with how the fight was scored.
> 
> I am seriously wondering if we are just being trolled at this point.


I feel the same way. 

I posted the gif because like I said above in the post I later quoted for you (I was trying to make this easier for you), I was working on some gifs from the event and I was going to post them later.

I just thought it was a cool moment in the fight, so I made a gif out of it, and imo that was the best camera shot of the whole fight showing the damage that GSP did to Condit's face. 

But by all means, continue having a tantrum.

And if you watch the fight again, you'll see that the moment I giffed is right after a brief moment where Condit manages to get top position on GSP. For all of about 8 seconds, before being reversed. Which is exactly what the judges scored the fight for: GSP's absolute dominance and control on the ground for 90% of the fight. 

The fact he made a bloody mess out of Condit's face was just icing on the cake.


----------



## anderton46 (Apr 23, 2010)

GrappleRetarded said:


> GSPS's face seems to indicate that Condits strikes from the bottom were indeed effective.
> 
> How did you score the Guida/Pettis fight? (not comparing this fight to Guida/Pettis, just curious)


I thought the MMA world agreed not to do a "he clearly did more damage, look at his face". There are so many people who just cut easier/bruise easier than others etc etc. 

We all get surprised when GSP looks like that because he rarely even gets hit.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

anderton46 said:


> I thought the MMA world agreed not to do a "he clearly did more damage, look at his face". There are so many people who just cut easier/bruise easier than others etc etc.
> 
> We all get surprised when GSP looks like that because he rarely even gets hit.


I didn't say that the cuts and bruises on his face were indicative of Condit doing more damage, I simply said that they were proof that Condit inflicted damage from the bottom position, which he did.

As for Condit doing more damage throughout the fight, that was very evident with the head kick and follow up GNP he landed in round three. By far the most significant and damaging strikes in the entire fight.


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

Not going to read through all the pages but.. top position is overvalued, that's true. GSP most definitely won this fight and it's foolish to say otherwise. Fights like Mousasi/Lawal and Pettis/Guida pretty much prove how overvalued the top position is.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

Rauno said:


> Not going to read through all the pages but.. top position is overvalued, that's true. GSP most definitely won this fight and it's foolish to say otherwise. Fights like Mousasi/Lawal and Pettis/Guida pretty much prove how overvalued the top position is.


Rutten/Randleman is really the only fight I can remember where the guy on the bottom got the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Rauno said:


> Not going to read through all the pages but.. top position is overvalued, that's true. GSP most definitely won this fight and it's foolish to say otherwise. Fights like Mousasi/Lawal and Pettis/Guida pretty much prove how overvalued the top position is.


If King Mo kept gsp pace against Mousasi then the win is deserved ,stalling should be a warning in my opinion. 


Sent from my iPhone using Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> I didn't say that the cuts and bruises on his face were indicative of Condit doing more damage, I simply said that they were proof that Condit inflicted damage from the bottom position, which he did.
> 
> As for Condit doing more damage throughout the fight, that was very evident with the head kick and follow up GNP he landed in round three. By far the most significant and damaging strikes in the entire fight.


It really isnt indicative of that though. Condit landed alot of punches in the stand up portion of the fight too. You are just seeing what you want to see.

And tbh bruises to the face do not equal damage. Iv gotten bruises on my face and i wasnt hurt or damaged. I would actually press on the bruise because i like the feeling lol
And lips swell up fairly easy as well.

The only bruise indicative of damage might be the one on GSPs nose BUT id bet the house that was caused by a punch to the nose when Condit rocked GSP.


----------



## leifdawg (Jan 1, 2008)

BlackManRising said:


> I used a hashtag and u lost all respect for me? Sweet pre judging.


How is that prejudging? You committed an action that caused him to lose respect for you. Seems like pretty timely judging to me.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Before you guys start labelling me as a sour Condit fan, I gave GSP the nod and scored it three rounds to two in a thrilling and competitive fight.
> 
> I can't be alone in thinking that top control is just ridiculously over valued in this sport, because it seems like people are just accepting the fact that who ever is on top from the guard(s) position is automatically winning the fight, regardless of what the opponent is doing from the bottom.
> 
> ...



If you scored GSP v Condit 48-47 for GSP you need to rewatch the fight again for a third time. 

At best, Condit won one round...the 3rd.

There have certainly been fights where the fighter on top does very little while the fighter on bottom is extremely active. For those fights...your argument might have merit. 

Unfortunately for your rant it doesn't apply to GSP v Condit.

Not only did GSP maintain top control for virtually all of the fight, but he also did signifcant damage dropping elbows and punches. 

GSP certainly did more damage while on top than Condit did while on the bottom in guard.

My question to you is why do you underrate top control? 

Condit had no intentions of being on the bottom all night. He said so himself. He was only on the bottom because GSP put him there against his will. Sorry, but in every reality that counts. 

Why do you over emphasize the damage from 1 shot while ignoring the rest of the fight?

Sure of all the punches, kicks and elbows in the fight Condit's HK in the 3rd round delivered the most damage. 

The reality remains that the damage from that HK only allowed Condit to control GSP for less than a minute before getting put on his back to be punched and elbowed in the face again.

Sorry, but if all that "damage" only amounts to controlling the fight for less than a minute it doesn't count for much.


----------



## zarny (Mar 4, 2007)

GrappleRetarded said:


> I didn't say that the cuts and bruises on his face were indicative of Condit doing more damage, I simply said that they were proof that Condit inflicted damage from the bottom position, which he did.
> 
> As for Condit doing more damage throughout the fight, that was very evident with the head kick and follow up GNP he landed in round three. By far the most significant and damaging strikes in the entire fight.



LMAO.

You need a course in logic.

That's like saying a baseball team had more offense because they scored 5 runs in 1 inning despite losing the game 9-5.

The fact Condit's head kick and 1 minute of GNP were the most significant and damaging strikes of the fight doesn't actually mean he did more damage over the course of the entire fight.

Entire being the operative word.

But here is what really flies over your head. Even if you say that over the course of the entire fight Condit did more damage...that isn't the only criteria a fight is judged on.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

SideWays222 said:


> It really isnt indicative of that though. Condit landed alot of punches in the stand up portion of the fight too. You are just seeing what you want to see.
> 
> And tbh bruises to the face do not equal damage. Iv gotten bruises on my face and i wasnt hurt or damaged. I would actually press on the bruise because i like the feeling lol
> And lips swell up fairly easy as well.
> ...


You press against the bruises because you like the feel. Now you're just talking shit. No one, no one, likes pressing against bruises on their face/body because it feels good. Stop talking utter nonsense.



zarny said:


> If you scored GSP v Condit 48-47 for GSP you need to rewatch the fight again for a third time.
> 
> At best, Condit won one round...the 3rd.
> 
> ...


Here's thing, people keep going on about how GSP landed a volume of huge punches and elbows from the top position, but I guess I didn't see them. Most of the shots GSP tried to land from the top position were grazing or partial blocked from Condit. Condit did a great job at limiting the space for GSP to utilise and posture up to reign down heavy blows.

Other than at the end of the first round with the slicing elbow which busted Condit wide open, and I think it was in the fourth round where GSP landed a solid clean elbow on the bridge of Condits nose, I didn't see many of these clean, heavy blows from GSP's top positon, really I didn't. As I said, it looked like the majority of them were grazing or partially blocked.

GSP got his ass kicked in that third round. He didn't put Condit on his back and start punching and elbowing him in the face again. After he regained his composure in that round, he got the take down, buried his head in Condits chest and ate a shit load of elbows and fists to the head from the bottom, he didn't really land any thing on the ground in that round.



zarny said:


> LMAO.
> 
> You need a course in logic.
> 
> ...


Or maybe you need a course in reading comprehension, seeing as though this is the second time you've made sentences up out of....nothing.

Where did I ever say that damage is the only criteria the fight is judged on, any where? It hasn't flew over my head, I simply believe that damage should be by far the most emphasised aspect of judging criteria.

Over the course of the entire fight, the stand up exchanges were relatively even (third round aside). Both fighters landed their fair share of clean shots on the feet. Then the third round came and Condit landed a nasty head kick and followed up with a barrage of clean elbows to GSP.

On the ground, people keep saying GSP lit Condit up with punches and elbows, but as I said earlier, I didn't really see many clean shots actually land, Condit defended well from the bottom.

I'd like to see more gifs from Rearnaked actually showing GSP landing some good, clean punches and elbows from the top position, other than the big elbow he landed n round one and the one he landed to Condits nose in think round 4.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

No one that is held down against his will for most time of the fight shall be the winner. 
Is that so hard to understand? :confused02:


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> No one that is held down against his will for most time of the fight shall be the winner.
> Is that so hard to understand? :confused02:


I don't think that was ever part of the debate. Who said Condit was the winner?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

GrappleRetarded said:


> I don't think that was ever part of the debate. Who said Condit was the winner?





> Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA


Is that the title of the thread, which, btw, you wrote?
Just checking.


----------



## osmium (Mar 6, 2007)

Gegard was awarded the first round by every judge I believe. He didn't deserve the rest of them because he gassed badly and couldn't keep up his attack from the bottom.

I don't know what it is about GSP but his hardcore fans are apparently the same people who were fans of Fedor. Just crazed and delusional making posts all over this forum arguing against statements that they imagined themselves and have no bearing on the reality of what is being posted. Not to mention pretending that GSP won the striking in every round somehow even though he was wrecked in the third standing and threw almost no strikes in the fifth because he didn't want to blow the fight once he had it won.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Is that the title of the thread, which, btw, you wrote?
> Just checking.


I don't understand your point.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

GrappleRetarded said:


> I don't understand your point.


Ok. I'll help you step by step.

Thread title(You created):


> Hugely over emphasising top control and why it's become the norm in MMA


My two cents about the topic:


> No one that is held down against his will for most time of the fight shall be the winner.
> Is that so hard to understand?


So you come...


GrappleRetarded said:


> I don't think that was ever part of the debate. Who said Condit was the winner?


So I answer your question with another: Did I say anything about Condit?
I did simply respond to the topic you created.
Did it help?


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

All this thread tells me is that the OPs screenname is more than a clever moniker.


----------



## HellRazor (Sep 24, 2006)

GrappleRetarded said:


> I can't be alone in thinking that top control is just ridiculously over valued in this sport, because it seems like people are just accepting the fact that who ever is on top from the guard(s) position is automatically winning the fight, regardless of what the opponent is doing from the bottom.


You aren't alone, but I've studied Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Wing Chun, Wrestling and a couple flavors of Kung Fu, and to me, it comes to this. All other things being equal, Gravity wins.

If two guys are damaging each other on the ground, the one on top isn't carrying the other guy's weight.

All things being equal, the guy on top is gonna win 8 out of ten times, because he won't get tired as fast.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HellRazor said:


> If two guys are damaging each other on the ground, the one on top isn't carrying the other guy's weight.
> 
> All things being equal, the guy on top is gonna win 8 out of ten times, because he won't get tired as fast.


This and the guy on top has the control, while the one on the bottom is being kept there against his will. When the GNP is weak and little action occurs through most of the match that sucks, but unless a sub comes from the bottom, top guy is the winner.


----------



## RearNaked (Jul 20, 2012)

Rewatching this event and this moment was just too good.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

MMA-Sportsman said:


> Ok. I'll help you step by step.
> 
> Thread title(You created):
> My two cents about the topic:
> ...


Ok, but there's no need to be a condescending, patronizing prick about it.

I think my main gripe with "fighters" who look to grind out decision victories, content to control their opponents and score points rather than look for the kill is the fact there are set rounds. I always find myself asking; what if there were no round limits? Jon Fitch may very well be capable of beating Nick Diaz in a three/five round contest, but if there was no limit to the rounds, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Diaz would at some point finish Jon Fitch and make him wilt under the pressure.

To me, the essence of Martial Arts and fighting has always been about making your opponent buckle under your pressure and giving up in some form, whether it be by KO, submission or verbally giving up. I get that this is a sport with rules, but I will always respect the true "fighters" for their warrior spirit over the sportsmen looking to play the points game.


----------



## mastodon2222 (Feb 4, 2010)

HellRazor said:


> You aren't alone, but I've studied Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, Wing Chun, Wrestling and a couple flavors of Kung Fu, and to me, it comes to this. All other things being equal, Gravity wins.
> 
> If two guys are damaging each other on the ground, the one on top isn't carrying the other guy's weight.
> 
> All things being equal, the guy on top is gonna win 8 out of ten times, because he won't get tired as fast.


I agree. All things equal, top position is always the better place to be. The only position where it's almost equal is full guard. The only time I'd score it for the bottom guy is if he's actively trying subs and keeping the top guy so busy/worried that he can't effectively use his top advantage.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> You press against the bruises because you like the feel. Now you're just talking shit. No one, no one, likes pressing against bruises on their face/body because it feels good. Stop talking utter nonsense.


Lol i know alot of people who like doing that. Its almost a habit like biting your fingernails or something.

I also press on pimples that pop up. It hurts but kinda feels good.

And its funny how the only thing you responded to is a side comment about something I enjoy doing. Lmao

Nice deflector Retarded.


----------



## Bonnar426 (Jul 18, 2006)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Before you guys start labelling me as a sour Condit fan, I gave GSP the nod and scored it three rounds to two in a thrilling and competitive fight.
> 
> I can't be alone in thinking that top control is just ridiculously over valued in this sport, because it seems like people are just accepting the fact that who ever is on top from the guard(s) position is automatically winning the fight, regardless of what the opponent is doing from the bottom.
> 
> ...


Hoped I answered some of your questions


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

> In a real fight, simply controlling the other person doesn't get you the win. In a real fight, two guys scrap it out until their opponent is either knocked out, submitted or just verbally gives up. Fighting is about breaking the wills of your adversaries, not holding them to the ground for as long as you can.


Sorry GR, but this isn't a "real fight". This is Mixed Martial Arts, a sport wth rules and limitations. Opinion and philosophy of sport is all relative. I know some people who play sports for legacy. I know some who play sports due to their competitve nature. I know people who play sports for fun. But we can all agree that in a sport, there is a winner and a loser. The winner is the one who meets the criteria of the rules and completes them effectiely, or more so than his/her opponent and that is exactly what GSP did (as you've acknowledged).

I also have to disagree with your scorecard. I personally have watched the fight now about four times and I would have scored it 50-46, with round three being very close. Yes, Condit landed an awesomehead kick followed up by some heavy ground and pound, but St. Pierre controlled the contest in that round outside of that sequence. I don't know how anyone could score any of the other rounds for Condit. He was outstruck, beat up, and taken down at will. He was competitive, but still outclassed.

However...
Everyone knows me as someone who espouses the antithesis of the testosterone "true fighting" philosophy. I hate it. But, while I believe that this is a sport, it is also a combat sport. Damage should be the primary criteria, regardless of the position. I was livid after the Johnson/Torres fight because Johnson literally just layed in Torres' guard and did nothing while Torres completely wrecked him from the bottom. Yeah, Johnson had positional control and that should count for something but he did absolutely nothing with it while Torres was pounding away. This wasn't the case Saturday night with St. Pierre/Condit.


----------



## kritter (Apr 22, 2007)

I think the annoying thing isn't that the guy who gets top control usually wins, it's more that that judges seem to think that the guy who gets top control ALWAYS WINS. This rewards the takedown and top control too much and ignores how comfortable the guy on the bottom is and what he is doing. While GSP clearly won the fight, there is no way that he won every round.

The UFC markets itself as being "as real as it gets" and mixed martial arts get their legitimacy from how effective they are in real combat situations - therefore, the judging should be as close as possible to what would win a real fight - damage and closeness to getting the finish.

That said, I don't think lay and pray is that big a problem, just because guys who do it don't get many fans and therefore don't make much money.


----------



## NoYards (Sep 7, 2008)

mastodon2222 said:


> I agree. All things equal, top position is always the better place to be. The only position where it's almost equal is full guard. The only time I'd score it for the bottom guy is if he's actively trying subs and keeping the top guy so busy/worried that he can't effectively use his top advantage.


^^^^ This.

If you are on the bottom and want to win the round, then you better have pulled guard and are actively getting decent sub attempts all the while staying away from the GNP.

If you are a known skilled BJJ practitioner, put on your back against your will,and are not getting hardly any chances to hook a sub attempt, and on the rare occasion when you do you end up having your sub attempts easily shrugged off, then you have lost the round.

Some people who complain about GSP and the ground game need to rewatch the GSP/Shields fight, then come back and tell me how much more exciting a stand up game can be ... the ring girls will pillows would have been more exciting. That's a fight where a good ground fight was much needed.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

In the eyes of the judges, the guy in top position is in the dominant position. End of story. If the fighter on top stays busy and inflicts damage then this is justified even more. 

The only fighter that comes to mind which is dangerous and succesful off their back is Anderson - he will throw elbows, inflict damage and actually GETS submissios. 

Usually if a fight goes to the ground and there is not much action it gets stood up anyways. 

Is top position over emphasized? Not if it is done properly. A guy like GSP is probably the best at it.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

SideWays222 said:


> Lol i know alot of people who like doing that. Its almost a habit like biting your fingernails or something.
> 
> I also press on pimples that pop up. It hurts but kinda feels good.
> 
> ...


Biting your finger nails doesn't hurt, what are you talking about? Popping pimples hurts, but that has a purpose, to try and reduce the size of the pimple by getting rid of all the crap inside of it. What purpose does pressing on bruises have? It doesn't feel good and it certainly doesn't help reduce the size of the bruise. Stop talking rubbish.



Ari said:


> Sorry GR, but this isn't a "real fight". This is Mixed Martial Arts, a sport wth rules and limitations. Opinion and philosophy of sport is all relative. I know some people who play sports for legacy. I know some who play sports due to their competitve nature. I know people who play sports for fun. But we can all agree that in a sport, there is a winner and a loser. The winner is the one who meets the criteria of the rules and completes them effectiely, or more so than his/her opponent and that is exactly what GSP did (as you've acknowledged).
> 
> I also have to disagree with your scorecard. I personally have watched the fight now about four times and I would have scored it 50-46, with round three being very close. Yes, Condit landed an awesomehead kick followed up by some heavy ground and pound, but St. Pierre controlled the contest in that round outside of that sequence. I don't know how anyone could score any of the other rounds for Condit. He was outstruck, beat up, and taken down at will. He was competitive, but still outclassed.
> 
> ...


See my earlier post. At the end of the day it all boils down to opinion on how you value this sport and it's competitors. Whether you take the sportsman approach and appreciate that this is a sport with set rules and criteria to win contests (your view) or whether you appreciate the guys who go out there and fight for the finish every time they step into the ring, trying to completely break their opponents (me)



GrappleRetarded said:


> I think my main gripe with "fighters" who look to grind out decision victories, content to control their opponents and score points rather than look for the kill is the fact there are set rounds. I always find myself asking; what if there were no round limits? Jon Fitch may very well be capable of beating Nick Diaz in a three/five round contest, but if there was no limit to the rounds, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Nick Diaz would at some point finish Jon Fitch and make him wilt under the pressure.
> 
> To me, the essence of Martial Arts and fighting has always been about making your opponent buckle under your pressure and giving up in some form, whether it be by KO, submission or verbally giving up. I get that this is a sport with rules, but I will always respect the true "fighters" for their warrior spirit over the sportsmen looking to play the points game.


There is no right or wrong answer here, just a difference of opinions.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

GrappleRetarded said:


> Biting your finger nails doesn't hurt, what are you talking about? Popping pimples hurts, but that has a purpose, to try and reduce the size of the pimple by getting rid of all the crap inside of it. What purpose does pressing on bruises have? It doesn't feel good and it certainly doesn't help reduce the size of the bruise. Stop talking rubbish.


Did i say popping a pimple???

No..

I said pressing on a pimple.

I dont understand how you dont get this. I find it hard to believe you have never pressed on a bruise or a pimple. 

You are the one talking rubbish.

Or maybe you really havent cause you cower from a little pain.


----------



## deadmanshand (Apr 9, 2008)

kritter said:


> I think the annoying thing isn't that the guy who gets top control usually wins, it's more that that judges seem to think that the guy who gets top control ALWAYS WINS. This rewards the takedown and top control too much and ignores how comfortable the guy on the bottom is and what he is doing. *While GSP clearly won the fight, there is no way that he won every round.*


You are wrong, sir. The only round that is even in contention is the third round. GSP clearly dominated every other round. Please go back and watch the fight again.


----------



## Kin (May 22, 2007)

I think that top control is over emphasized, but not hugely. 

As others have stated, the person on top is automatically ahead. The top fighter's strikes will deal a higher baseline of damage, and he will usually already have scored points of landing a takedown that brought him to that position. Excluding incidents where the bottom fighter is tearing an inactive top guy apart with elbows, it totally makes sense to favor the latter.

In regards to the GSP-Condit fight, no one is saying Condit won. I would, however, argue that someone who gave Rd 3 to GSP is scoring takedowns too heavily. CC dropped GSP and attacked with a flurry of punches and elbows to a downed opponent. For a few moments, GSP was in danger of being finished; that is worth way more than any takedowns and meager GnP that happened later that round. 

Conversely, GSP dominated the rest of the fight. He was very active on top with his punches and elbows -- many of which got through pretty clean, despite what some say. I wouldn't give GSP much credit for passing into half-guard, though. That won't get you any points at a grappling tournament, nor should they in an MMA fight.


----------



## GrappleRetarded (Jun 22, 2012)

SideWays222 said:


> Did i say popping a pimple???
> 
> No..
> 
> ...


Over 8000 posts and you still post like a 12 year old kid who's just discovered an internet forum. Good lord.


----------



## killua (Mar 4, 2012)

The only part of top control that is over emphasised is the rewarding of takedowns, as compared to TDD, used to get top position. But the GSP-Condit fight is not the basis to be having this kind of discussion.


----------



## Chileandude (Jan 17, 2008)

I don't see how can you give GSP the third round, he almost got finished and he mounted no significant offense after he managed to get on top.


----------



## SideWays222 (Sep 9, 2008)

Retarded said:


> Over 8000 posts and you still post like a 12 year old kid who's just discovered an internet forum. Good lord.


Guess what you post like.


----------

