# Don't Leave it in the Hands of the Judges



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

A tired saying, to be sure, but will remain true until the end of time. 

I'm sure some might disagree, but Lawlor vs Condit is another disappointing case where the vast majority of viewers were shocked at the decision. First, that it was even a split decision, but most important that the decision went to Lawlor (and I'm a huge fan!).

It seems like judges are sometimes daydreaming during a fight or they are scoring by different sets of criteria. In any event, it disappoints because the decision seemed obviously incorrect (although the fight was an outstanding display by both fighters).

Don't leave it in the hands of the judges.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The fight was close. There is literally one close round which is being contested by everyone. It's nothing close to a robbery.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Not a robbery, but it seems like most people that aren't judges thought Condit won. I was rooting for Robbie and though Condit won it by the scoring standards that are supposed to be in place.


----------



## Atilak (Nov 24, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The fight was close. There is literally one close round which is being contested by everyone. It's nothing close to a robbery.


Yeah you are talking about round 3. I would like to see someone explanation how Robbie won that round.

Just rewatched it, trying to write everything down. Break it into segments.

Robbie didnt throw or landed single kick or punch in first minute. Then he had 1 flurry in segment 1:00-2:00, then nothing again 2:00-3:00. Then 3 counter punches and 1 kick in 3:00-4:00. Then one failed takedown attempt, right hand couner and low kick in 4:00-5:00.
Thats incredible inactive round. He basically coasted it.

Condit was active whole round, pressing forward. Landing lot of leg kick, some to the body, few punches. Hit freaking flying knee that landed flush (see replay). 

I had blib from Machida vs Shogun I... I just think that these boxing morons judges just dont register leg kicks at all.....


----------



## MK. (Dec 16, 2012)

Goat Man said:


> A tired saying, to be sure, but will remain true until the end of time.
> 
> I'm sure some might disagree, but Lawlor vs Condit is another disappointing case where the vast majority of viewers were shocked at the decision. First, that it was even a split decision, but most important that the decision went to Lawlor (and I'm a huge fan!).
> 
> ...


This, Condit had 1,2,3,4 won. Yes im scoring 2 for Condit as well, cause that knock down doesn't warren't a round won when its the only thing he did compared to Carlos who was very active in there.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Banner year for Tony Weeks

- Lawler over Condit
- Romero over Jacare
- Faber Saez 30-27
- Pethrad over Howard


----------



## Anteries (Oct 22, 2010)

Atilak said:


> Yeah you are talking about round 3. I would like to see someone explanation how Robbie won that round.
> 
> Just rewatched it, trying to write everything down. Break it into segments.
> 
> ...


I think I know why Condit may have lost the 3rd round. I watched it many times also with the sound off.

Firstly I can fully understand the majority of people would say Condit won the 3rd round. However there was a dynamic between the fighters which I think I have observed before which would favour Robbie.

1. Carlos was throwing good body kicks but also many punches and kicks that were out of range, I remember doing this from when I did karate. He was punching the air in order to keep Robbie at distance. While it may be effective in neutralising Robbie's offence, it really doesn't look good for a warrior to be doing.

2. Almost all of Carlos's strikes were of the Michael Bisping pillow hands and feet variety. It looked like Carlos was in a spirited sparring session rather than fight. It all seemed to be flicking blows. I don't mean to be disrespectful obviously they were powerful but his whole manner seemed skittish, again this is not a good look if you want to come across as a badass fighter.

3. The relatively small amount of offence that Robbie launched on the other hand seemed more terrifying and full of menace, to me they seemed shocking bursts of violence. The whole way Robbie carried himself was a bit like the young Mike Tyson, he had a much more commanding presence.

I'm really glad that Robbie won that round because he seemed more the killer, stalking forward the whole time where is Carlos seem to be throwing a lot of blows to stop Robbie coming in. Obviously did judging is very subjective but the reasons I've outlined may have been in 2 judges minds and if it was I approve their decision.


----------



## rul3z (Jun 27, 2010)

John8204 said:


> Banner year for Tony Weeks
> 
> - Lawler over Condit
> - Romero over Jacare
> ...


Seems the weakest link of the judgement chain!

Hard luck Condit, and wish he doesn't retire


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

The fact that people can say Condit took round 2 should show you why people think Lawler could have taken round 3. Condit landed nothing of significance and got dropped hard in round 2, that's a clearer round for Lawler than 3 was for anyone.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

In a close fight you can't blame the judges, waiting for the scorecards I had no idea who would win. Can't really fault the judges when it's a toss up in a close fight.


----------



## TheNinja (Dec 10, 2008)

This was a super close fight between 2 warriors. Condit deserves that rematch. I think his talking about retirement is to get more money, which he deserves imo.


----------



## systemdnb (Dec 7, 2008)

Why weren't you guys complaining when he literally stole the belt from Hendricks? Boring fight yes. Did he win that fight? Absolutely not! This card should've been a rubber match between the two and a rematch Condit vs Woodley (title eliminator match). Then maybe I would've paid for this card.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Didn't Hendricks back out of a title eliminator against Woodley (who beat Condit) because of weight issues?


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

The judges at this event were clueless twats, I had a bad feeling about it as soon as the scores came up for the Ansaroff vs. Kish fight in the prelims. If you though Condit-Lawler was a bad decision, go look up that fight. Kish got dropped and soundly out struck, and somehow still won the round according to the judges.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

MK. said:


> This, Condit had 1,2,3,4 won. Yes im scoring 2 for Condit as well, cause that knock down doesn't warren't a round won when its the only thing he did compared to Carlos who was very active in there.


No... this is fighting, when you land a punch so effective it hurts and floors a guy, you generally deserve the round. Neither had landed much, there is no scoring criteria for "activity" its clean effective strikes that score, i didn't see anything effecting Lawler in round two.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Didn't Hendricks back out of a title eliminator against Woodley (who beat Condit) because of weight issues?


He ended up in the hospital with kidney issues during the weight cut. That's what happens when you look like this in between fights.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

aerius said:


> He ended up in the hospital with kidney issues during the weight cut. That's what happens when you look like this in between fights.


And everyone thinks he should get a title shot over Woodley?


----------



## Old school fan (Aug 24, 2011)

IMO the fight could have gone either way, but I did think Lawler won the fight.


----------



## systemdnb (Dec 7, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> And everyone thinks he should get a title shot over Woodley?


He should've got a rematch in the first place. The fight wasn't close at all. I only had Robbie winning the 5th. Now that is what a "robbery" really is. The irony here is if his fight with Matt Brown was a title fight and then his next defense was Woodley would he be the first champ to not make weight for a defense? I doubt it. Pretty sure after losing to Robbie like that he got a case of the "**** it's"

At this point I don't think he deserves anything considering he has a upcoming fight against Thompson. If he wins it though yes he does. Robbie got another shot after beating a now un-ranked Jake Ellenberger and Brown. really if you ask me it should've been Woodley fighting last night and not Condit.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

systemdnb said:


> He should've got a rematch in the first place. The fight wasn't close at all. I only had Robbie winning the 5th. Now that is what a "robbery" really is. The irony here is if his fight with Matt Brown was a title fight and then his next defense was Woodley would he be the first champ to not make weight for a defense? I doubt it. Pretty sure after losing to Robbie like that he got a case of the "**** it's"


It's just that I see everyone saying Hendricks deserves it over Condit and Woodley, but for me....if you duck out of a fight because of weight problems, the guy you were supposed to face leapfrogs over you.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

Lawler did more damage, controlled the octagon more, and is the champ. He won that fight.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

"shocked at the decision"

lol. what are people smoking? At very least it was a close ass fight that came down to the 3rd round which was close....

QUit with saying it was a robbery......my god...


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

HexRei said:


> Not a robbery, but it seems like most people that aren't judges thought Condit won. I was rooting for Robbie and though Condit won it by the scoring standards that are supposed to be in place.


Same here.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

If Condit won round 3 clearly with pitter patter volume then Robbie won round 5 10-8.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Rygu said:


> Lawler did more damage, controlled the octagon more, and is the champ. He won that fight.


I can see it being a draw because that last round might have been a 10-8. You can make a case that Condit won those first four rounds. Then again he didn't earn that title shot to begin with.

Regardless, this is three fights for Robbie that he won by the skin of his teeth. He'll never go down as one of the greatest welterweights of all-time but this run is legendary.


----------



## Atilak (Nov 24, 2009)

John8204 said:


> I can see it being a draw because that last round might have been a 10-8. You can make a case that Condit won those first four rounds. Then again he didn't earn that title shot to begin with.
> 
> Regardless, this is three fights for Robbie that he won by the skin of his teeth. He'll never go down as one of the greatest welterweights of all-time but this run is legendary.


Based on judging we have now. Maynard vs Edgar wasnt 10-8. So this 5th round is not 10-8 also. 

On the other hand, should it be 10-8? Propably. So should 4th round for Condit.

Btw why in the hell cant judges give 10-10 or 9-9 rounds? Its beyond me. 

Or is this system retarded overall? There should be different point system and not based on rounds. 

Anyway "pitty patty, point style" flying knee landed in 3rd round for Condit


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

John8204 said:


> He'll never go down as one of the greatest welterweights of all-time but this run is legendary.


Who will then? 

Hughes and GSP but then who? 

I think you should review the history of the division as far as champs go, Robbie is sitting at third best of all time right now. Also the skill level of the opposition Robbie has faced should matter IMO.














If not him then its Pat.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Yeah watching it again I thought Robbie was tagging him throughout the fifth and it culminated in Condit looking out on his feet. But Condit was doing well for himself for the first half of the round.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Yeah watching it again I thought Robbie was tagging him throughout the fifth and it culminated in Condit looking out on his feet. But Condit was doing well for himself for the first half of the round.


Condit fought great, and his chin in my opinion is now in legendary status along with Lytle/Hunt. A shame anyone had to lose such a fight but I just think Robbie did more damage, plus being the champ Condit would have had to clearly beat him. As for greatest WWs, another defense or two he's clearly #3 under GSP/Hughes. If he dominates his next few fights and fights top 5 guys he's creeping right up on Hughes.

Edit: For the record, Condit landed some nice knees and elbows as well, and Lawlers chin is incredible too. A lot of brain cells were lost between those 2 beasts.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

HexRei said:


> I was rooting for Robbie and though Condit won it by the scoring standards that are supposed to be in place.





MK. said:


> This, Condit had 1,2,3,4 won. Yes im scoring 2 for Condit as well, cause that knock down doesn't warrant a round won when its the only thing he did compared to Carlos who was very active in there.


I agree. Wasn't much of a knockdown, either; he was standing flat & close and wouldn't have went down otherwise. meh.

Essentially, all you need to do to win these fights is look like the meaner guy. If the judges think you look more threatening (as in, look like a biker rather than a doctor, or "throwing with bad intentions") then you'll win rounds you probably shouldn't. Look mean, not smart.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Joabbuac said:


> No... this is fighting, when you land a punch so effective it hurts and floors a guy, you generally deserve the round. Neither had landed much, there is no scoring criteria for "activity" its clean effective strikes that score, i didn't see anything effecting Lawler in round two.


It may have never been scored a knock down in boxing if thats the logic you're using, Ive seen punches like that be considered a shove, a trip. 

I think in MMA we need to be specific about scoring. If a fighter collapses due to injury it should score, if the fighter losses balance due to the impact of a blow but not due to compromised cognitive or bodily function the it should be scored as a TD not a KD.


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

While the saying is true, I don't think their objective was to leave it in the hands of the judges at least for Robbie for sure. Condit is from the GJ camp and they fought the ideal strategy landing a high volume of shots keeping Robbie at bay to wait for strong counters which he did at times. It was evident Robbie was waiting patiently and conserving energy. Condit is a stud. His head was getting blasted left and right like a pin ball game. Yet he was firing back with everything he had.

There's really two ways of scoring it. Damage vs strikes landed. In boxing I'm pretty sure the latter would win all day. Fortunately mma judges and myself most of the times view it differently. While everyone can dispute various aspects of the fight, I think everyone agrees that the 5th round was the decisive one that made the biggest impact.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

slapshot said:


> Who will then?
> 
> Hughes and GSP but then who?
> 
> I think you should review the history of the division as far as champs go, Robbie is sitting at third best of all time right now. Also the skill level of the opposition Robbie has faced should matter IMO.


My personal all-time WW rankings would be

3# Jake Shields
4# Jon Fitch
5# Hayato Sakurai
6# Johny Hendricks
7# Pat Miletich
8# Robbie Lawler
9# Nick Diaz
10# Carlos Condit
11# BJ Penn
12# Karo Parisyan
13# Rory Macdonald
14# Sean Sherk
15# Josh Koscheck

I think we rank this generation of fighters a little bit too highly. Robbie is barely winning some awesome fights. And my biggest issue is the level of competition, he's fighting guys that will stand with him because the guys that can beat him, the UFC dumped. I would bet on Palhares, Sheilds, and maybe Askren over him because stylistically those are bad fights for him.

He is a sure fire Hall of famer but there is a reason I won't put him and several other champs on the p4p list. Dana watered down the division and now I don't think I can trust his legacy.


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

After thinking about it I think the decision came down to octagon control. In those close rounds Lawler did tend to take the middle of the cage, it's kind of silly from a power puncher versus technical combos perspective. If you try to pick your opponent apart at range you better not get hit much.


----------



## halifaxdonair (Aug 27, 2011)

Initially I gave Condit 1,2,4. Rewatching the fight I give Robbie 2,3,5. It's a hard one to score because 2, 3, and 5 were actually pretty close and Condit threw so many things that were blocked.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

Just rewatched the fight. Very close fight. First time watching I thought Condit won. Second time I don't think it was a robbery at all. I think Lawler edged out the 3rd, but it was razor close, might even score it as a draw. First one was very close as well. In the end I think Lawler won, but man what a fight, one of those fights you wish were draws because both guys deserved it.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

John8204 said:


> My personal all-time WW rankings would be
> 
> 3# Jake Shields
> 4# Jon Fitch
> ...


Stylistically Condit was a bad fight for him, stylistically Hendricks was a bad fight for him. He's not being protected thats for sure. 

I dont think Fitch or Shields should be given more credence for fighters they faced, I dont see any of them beating Condit BigRig and McDonald. Most of them couldn't beat any of the three, you can make an argument for Shields but it falls short IMO. 

Jon Fitch would get punished by Lawler, most of the guys on your list never claimed the title because they couldn't beat GSP and Hendricks did and Robbie beat him twice. Truth be told if anyone is geting a bad deal its Hector Lombard.

PS my original comment was about UFC title holders and I was correct, only GSP and Hughes can be given more merit as champions.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Jake Shields already beat Carlos Condit and Robbie Lawler, he FINISHED Robbie Lawler and he beat Carlos Condit the same night he beat Yushin Okami.

Robbie's on a hot streak right now and it's awesome but their is no reason to hype him up to something that he's not. Especially when every champion over 170 fought for the competition.

GSP and Matt Hughes had two of the greatest runs of all-time they were true undisputed champions


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

John8204 said:


> My personal all-time WW rankings would be
> 
> 3# Jake Shields
> 4# Jon Fitch
> ...


$50 fine for having Shields at number 3!!! Also I feel like your list is racist because Carlos Newton isn't there :hug:


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Jake Shields already beat Carlos Condit and Robbie Lawler, he FINISHED Robbie Lawler and he beat Carlos Condit the same night he beat Yushin Okami.
> 
> Robbie's on a hot streak right now and it's awesome but their is no reason to hype him up to something that he's not. Especially when every champion over 170 fought for the competition.
> 
> GSP and Matt Hughes had two of the greatest runs of all-time they were true undisputed champions


Shields beat Lawler back in 2009 when he isn't even close to what he is now. Sobral beat him back then, Kennedy beat him back then too, do you think they beat Robbie now as well? Robbie is an entirely different animal than what he used to be.

Shields also beat Condit back in 2006. It's pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes that both Condit and Robbie are far, far, far superior fighters than they were back even 3-4 years ago, much less 10 years ago when Shields fought him. As it is right now, Shields lost to Palhares, a guy who lost his last two fights in the UFC via first round KO, one of which was against Alan Belcher for crying out loud. 

Shields/Palhares are good fighters, but they aren't these world beaters that you are making them out to be. The best you can argue is that they have styles that match up well with Robbie, but so does Hendricks who is a top flight wrestler (who has far superior striking than both Shields and Palhares) and we've seen the result of that match up.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Shields-Lawler also not at 170... Lawler never was all that at mw and makes the win irrelevant when talking about 170lbs rankings.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

M.C said:


> Shields beat Lawler back in 2009 when he isn't even close to what he is now. Sobral beat him back then, Kennedy beat him back then too, do you think they beat Robbie now as well? Robbie is an entirely different animal than what he used to be.


Well you can't just throw out the first half of his career, and those first 29 fights don't count. Lawler might beat Shields or Palahares right now but you don't know that. He's won three split decisions, he beat Rory in the fifth when he was down on the cards. What happens if Woodley or Maia come in and throw him on his butt for 25 minutes. It is way to soon to start hyping the guy up as an all-time great, for me he's got to have two more strong years before I would rank him ahead of Fitch.



> Shields also beat Condit back in 2006. It's pretty obvious to anyone with two eyes that both Condit and Robbie are far, far, far superior fighters than they were back even 3-4 years ago, much less 10 years ago when Shields fought him. As it is right now, Shields lost to Palhares, a *guy who lost his last two fights in the UFC via first round KO, one of which was against Alan Belcher for crying out loud.*


No he didn't he took Mike Pierce out for two years, and Hector Lombard is a scary dude but he got busted for cheating so I take that with a grain of salt. 

As for Jake Shields not being good anymore, I don't know he beat Demian Maia and Tyrone Woodley in 2013, and the Palhares fight he suffered 6 or 7 eyepokes and he was still winning those first three rounds.

Regardless when discussing all time rankings we don't judge guys based on what they did during any one year we judge them based on their primes and careers as a whole. 



> Shields/Palhares are good fighters, but they aren't these world beaters that you are making them out to be. The best you can argue is that they have styles that match up well with Robbie, but so does Hendricks who is a top flight wrestler (who has far superior striking than both Shields and Palhares) and we've seen the result of that match up.


Hendricks is a blown up lightweight, Shields and Palhares are guys that dropped down from middleweight. When Jake Shields beat Dan Henderson, Robbie Lawler lost 30-27 to Lorenz Larkin. Robbie Lawler is great, he's fantastic but when it's all said and done the next best generation of fighters will lap him in my eyes. Right now this is like the LHW division was between Liddell and Jones except Robbie has been lucky enough to hold onto the belt in place of it being hot potatoed to five other guys.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Joabbuac said:


> Shields-Lawler also not at 170... Lawler never was all that at mw and makes the win irrelevant when talking about 170lbs rankings.



Doesn't matter to me, half the top ten in the UFC was at one point guys that dropped down from middleweight championship level.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

John8204 said:


> Well you can't just throw out the first half of his career, and those first 29 fights don't count. Lawler might beat Shields or Palahares right now but you don't know that. He's won three split decisions, he beat Rory in the fifth when he was down on the cards. What happens if Woodley or Maia come in and throw him on his butt for 25 minutes. It is way to soon to start hyping the guy up as an all-time great, for me he's got to have two more strong years before I would rank him ahead of Fitch.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can absolutely completely throw out his fight against Robbie from 7 years ago. Both fighters have changed a great deal since then, with Robbie making far more improvements and impressing far more than Shields has. 

Oh right, He lost twice in a row by 1st round KO (again, to Alan Belcher which is...yeah, exactly) and then he beat Pierce (yay...?), who since that loss has done nothing but lose to Ryan LaFlare. Palhares would get *destroyed *by Robbie, quickly. 

I didn't say Shields wasn't good, in fact I said he is good. He's just not a world beater. Robbie has fought people better than him, he's beaten people better than him, Condit right now in 2015 is better than him. 

You are right, the "next generation" of fighters will beat him, as every "next generation" of fighters end up beating the previous generations. Weidman KO'd Anderson twice, Conor just destroyed Jose, Hendricks beat GSP to hell and was robbed, Jones took out Shogun, etc. Shields and Palhares isn't the "next generation" of fighters, however, and Robbie eats both of them alive.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

To think Alan Belcher was often touted as a top 3-5 middleweight not too long ago. Now he's used as an example of how shit someone is :laugh:


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> To think Alan Belcher was often touted as a top 3-5 middleweight not too long ago. Now he's used as an example of how shit someone is :laugh:


Was he? If he was that just goes to show how bad that division is (or was at the time, rather). The guy's best streak he's *ever* had was a 4 fight win streak that included Cote, Jason MacDonald and Wilson Gouveia. These guys are alright fighters, and if you get 4 in a row that's all well and good. But in this particular discussion, we're talking about Shields/Palhares beating or competing with Robbie and Alan Belcher stopping Palhares isn't a good indicator of Palhares being able to shine Robbie's shoes, much less beat him in a fight. 

Keep in mind, I thought Robbie lost against Condit and I'm actually not some big fan of his. The reality is that Shields and Palhares are just not that impressive in 2015, they are good fighters, they are fine fighters, but honestly I don't even see either of them getting a title shot in the current 2015 (or 2016 now) UFC WW division, much less beating Robbie.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

John8204 said:


> Doesn't matter to me, half the top ten in the UFC was at one point guys that dropped down from middleweight championship level.


It shouldn't contribute to a welterweight ranking because the fight might not go the same way at their natural weight. 

Do you think Diego Sanchez-Kenny Florian would have been so one sided at 145 or 155? I don't think anyone in there right mind would consider crediting Sanchez's 145lb resume with a win over Florian.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

M.C said:


> Was he? If he was that just goes to show how bad that division is (or was at the time, rather). The guy's best streak he's *ever* had was a 4 fight win streak that included Cote, Jason MacDonald and Wilson Gouveia. These guys are alright fighters, and if you get 4 in a row that's all well and good. But in this particular discussion, we're talking about Shields/Palhares beating or competing with Robbie and Alan Belcher stopping Palhares isn't a good indicator of Palhares being able to shine Robbie's shoes, much less beat him in a fight.
> 
> Keep in mind, I thought Robbie lost against Condit and I'm actually not some big fan of his. The reality is that Shields and Palhares are just not that impressive in 2015, they are good fighters, they are fine fighters, but honestly I don't even see either of them getting a title shot in the current 2015 (or 2016 now) UFC WW division, much less beating Robbie.


I admit back then i always considered Belcher a dark horse at 185. He had solid striking, and his BJJ was good too, so was his chin. When he handled Palhares on the ground that was pretty impressive. He just never fought very aggressive, given his skillset I still don't know how he lost to Bisping.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

1.) The UFC WW belt right now is not legitimate. Lombard, Maia, Condit, Shields, Palhares, Woodley, Hendricks, Macdonald and Lawler are all very close in competition. Most people scored that fight for Condit. GSP never lost the belt he's still the real champion in my eyes, the #1 spot is up for grabs and nobody has taken it yet. On the other hand the fights have been awesome.

2.) Just because you have the UFC belt doesn't automatically mean you are the undisputed champion in the world. Pride, WEC, Strikeforce, Cage Rage even the WW F'nE had guys walk into the company and take the title.

Rich Franklin vs Anderson Silva
Chuck Liddell vs Rampage Jackson
Chris Weidman vs Luke Rockhold
Frankie Edgar vs Benson Henderson
Tim Sylvia vs Bog Nog
Cain Velasquez vs Fabricio Werdum
Randy Couture vs Brock Lesnar

Anything can happen in a fight, an undisputed champion is the *rare* thing not the _common_ thing. Jon Jones at LHW, Jose Aldo at FW, Fedor at HW, Hughes at WW, GSP at WW, Johnson at fly. The UFC has one undisputed champion right in Demetrius Johnson and that's how the sport should be.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

John8204 said:


> 1.) The UFC WW belt right now is not legitimate. Lombard, Maia, Condit, Shields, Palhares, Woodley, Hendricks, Macdonald and Lawler are all very close in competition. Most people scored that fight for Condit. GSP never lost the belt he's still the real champion in my eyes, the #1 spot is up for grabs and nobody has taken it yet. On the other hand the fights have been awesome.


The Lawler-Condit decision was certainly less controversial than St. Pierre-Hendricks.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Joabbuac said:


> It shouldn't contribute to a welterweight ranking because the fight might not go the same way at their natural weight.
> 
> Do you think Diego Sanchez-Kenny Florian would have been so one sided at 145 or 155? I don't think anyone in there right mind would consider crediting Sanchez's 145lb resume with a win over Florian.


You should, not at 145 that would be silly they've had three fights. But was Sanchez better than Florian at 155, you could make a case for that.

Sanchez W - Gomi, Guida, Stevenson, Pearson
L - BJ, Melendez, Jury

Florian W - Gomi, Guida, Stevenson, Huerta, Lauzon, Thomas
L - BJ, Sherk, Maynard

The resume's are practically identical when it comes to the talent they beat vs lost to.

But you have two distinct differences, historically Diego is considered a WW while Florian is considered a LW. When both guys were in the division at the same time I thought Sanchez was better.

Shields and Lawler are both considered WW's and they've been in the division for significantly longer. They are both in the WW top ten they are more contemporaries.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Voiceless said:


> The Lawler-Condit decision was certainly less controversial than St. Pierre-Hendricks.


Because GSP was the real champ, but GSP did much more in RD 1 than Lawler did in RD 3. People forget GSP almost finished Hendricks in that round with a submission. Some people would give Carlos Rd2 as well, nobody questioned who won the four other rounds in that fight.

That might have also been his last fight, Robbie at his best had to comeback in all of his last three title fights.

Once again, awesome his handy work is my avatar. But all-time great is a reach.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

John8204 said:


> Because GSP was the real champ, but GSP did much more in RD 1 than Lawler did in RD 3. People forget GSP almost finished Hendricks in that round with a submission. Some people would give Carlos Rd2 as well, nobody questioned who won the four other rounds in that fight.


I'm just saying, many more people thought Hendricks won the fight against St. Pierre than Condit won against Lawler.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

The only way to keep a Condit and Lawler fight out of the judges hands would be to give them sledgehammers.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

John8204 said:


> Y*ou should, not at 145 that would be silly* they've had three fights. But was Sanchez better than Florian at 155, you could make a case for that.
> 
> Sanchez W - Gomi, Guida, Stevenson, Pearson
> L - BJ, Melendez, Jury
> ...


heh, i meant to write 155. 

Good yeah, some good points. One question though... is Shields more of a welterweight or middleweight, in terms of how well he fought at each weight? I think there is a case to make that he was a better MW.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Maybe in the Strikeforce middleweight division Shields was a better fighter. However, remember that aside from Dan Henderson he never really fought a solid middleweight fighter. All of his opponents were bloated welterweights.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

John8204 said:


> What happens if Woodley or Maia come in and throw him on his butt for 25 minutes.


I wanna know that as well. I wish they would give Demian a shot at Lawler next. Old man is running out of time.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah it amazes me how he's been at welterweight as long as he has without a title shot.


----------



## John8204 (May 13, 2010)

Joabbuac said:


> heh, i meant to write 155.
> 
> Good yeah, some good points. One question though... is Shields more of a welterweight or middleweight, in terms of how well he fought at each weight? I think there is a case to make that he was a better MW.


Well as a middleweight he beat the former Pride welterweight champion, and the future UFC welterweight champion. He could have walked into any company and been champion at WW during his prime years. 

Dan Henderson - Pride Welterweight Champion 

Mike Pyle - WEC Welterweight Champion
Carlos Condit - WEC Welterweight Champion

Carlos Condit - UFC interim Welterweight Champion
Robbie Lawler - UFC Welterweight Champion
David Menne - UFC Middleweight Champion

Hayata Sakurai - Shooto Welterweight Champion
Akira Kikuchi - Shooto Welterweight Champion

Then you have

Tony Imada - Bellator Lightweight finalist
Paul Daley - Strikeforce title contender
Demian Maia - UFC title contender
Yushin Okami - UFC title contender
Jason Miller - Dream title contender
Tyron Woodley - Strikeforce WW title contender

And finish that up with tough fights like
Martin Kampman
Brian Foster
Yoshiro Akiyama
Ed Herman

Some of those guys fought at middleweight, but *all of them fought at welterweight*. You may not like how he won, but he did win and he fought the guys that came before him, contemporaries and some of the next generation guys.

I could maybe look past the Lawler fight if he beat Condit, Macdonald, and Hendrick's decisively..but he didn't. And Jake Shields still in that top five.


----------



## Glothin (Jun 8, 2010)

I'm not a fan of fighters out of GJ'GJ'S camp, but who cannot like Condit and Cowboy. 

One thing I have not seen mentioned is aggression. It is a scoring metric. Condit pretty much led that, except for the 5th. Was he effective with his striking? Not really, but 500 strikes or whatever is definitely aggressive.

I was rooting for Lawler, but think Carlos won. You really gave to beat the champ to be the champ. I sure hope the dude doesn't retire.

How awesome would a Rory/Condit fight be? I don't like Rory and don't like Greg Jackson fighters but I'd love to see that fight!


----------



## sucrets (Jul 8, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> The fact that people can say Condit took round 2 should show you why people think Lawler could have taken round 3. Condit landed nothing of significance and got dropped hard in round 2, that's a clearer round for Lawler than 3 was for anyone.


That's a terrible argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah his win over Lawler kind of makes his premature cut look even more rubbish all things considered.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

M.C said:


> Was he? If he was that just goes to show how bad that division is (or was at the time, rather). The guy's best streak he's *ever* had was a 4 fight win streak that included Cote, Jason MacDonald and Wilson Gouveia. These guys are alright fighters, and if you get 4 in a row that's all well and good. But in this particular discussion, we're talking about Shields/Palhares beating or competing with Robbie and Alan Belcher stopping Palhares isn't a good indicator of Palhares being able to shine Robbie's shoes, much less beat him in a fight.
> 
> Keep in mind, I thought Robbie lost against Condit and I'm actually not some big fan of his. The reality is that Shields and Palhares are just not that impressive in 2015, they are good fighters, they are fine fighters, but honestly I don't even see either of them getting a title shot in the current 2015 (or 2016 now) UFC WW division, much less beating Robbie.


I'm not saying he was good or bad, it was just not long after I joined the site. Alan was ranked right up there with Bisping and Weidman. I'm sure if I looked back he'd even be getting top 3 mentions and stuff. He was injured though and I don't think he won again before retiring.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

sucrets said:


> That's a terrible argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.


What I meant was that if someone can say "You are stupid if you have round 3 to Robbie, I have 1,2,3 and 4 for Condit". 2 was clearer for Robbie than 3 was to anyone you know?

I'm surprised actually more people don't give Condit a bit of round 5. I thought 2 and 5 were fairly close, it was just Robbie did more destruction. I gave 3 to Robbie as well cause I felt like Condit had his least impact in that round, even with the flying knee which didn't look like it landed at the time.


----------



## Anteries (Oct 22, 2010)

Going back to the controversial 3rd round, it is my observation that virtually none of the offence that Carlos threw had a visible effect on Robbie. Whereas the few brief attacks from Robbie seem to at least throw Carlos off balance.

It is true that Carlos definitely landed more and his kicks were flicking up under the armpits of Robbie, it's just that Robbie did such a good job of walking through them like nothing. There was also a bit of the Garcia looping punch effect, Robbie swings seemed terrifying and got Carlos flustered.

In the 3rd round all eyeballs were Ron Robbie because he was definitely the menacing figure


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Glothin said:


> *How awesome would a Rory/Condit fight be?* I don't like Rory and don't like Greg Jackson fighters but I'd love to see that fight!


pretty awesome actually


----------



## oordeel (Apr 14, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> And everyone thinks he should get a title shot over Woodley?


Nope, definitely not everyone!


----------



## The Best Around (Oct 18, 2011)

This was the first time in a year that I went out to watch a UFC pay-per-view. Awesome main event, but a disappointing result. It just shows the broken system that UFC has. I don't know how a single person (round-by-round) aside can watch that whole fight and say that Lawlor won. Condit landed so much more, and even if he missed a ton, he was pushing most of the fight. But in terms of round-by-round, I scored it 3-2 in terms of Condit, and technically 4-1 can be argued too. However, I think you can also make an argument for 3-2 Lawlor, especially with the idea that the champion will always get the benefit of the doubt since you have to "come take the title". But it shows the broken, dumb, 10-9 round-by-round system that is in place.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Landing more does not equal victory... and you should be glad it doesn't unless you want less knockouts.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I wanna know that as well. I wish they would give Demian a shot at Lawler next. Old man is running out of time.


I would be pretty confident Maia would win that... Don't see Lawler defending Maia's takedowns, and he has dominated better on the ground.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Didn't Maia get rocked pretty badly off of Alexander Yakovlev though?


----------



## Anteries (Oct 22, 2010)

The Best Around said:


> This was the first time in a year that I went out to watch a UFC pay-per-view. Awesome main event, but a disappointing result. It just shows the broken system that UFC has. I don't know how a single person (round-by-round) aside can watch that whole fight and say that Lawlor won. Condit landed so much more, and even if he missed a ton, he was pushing most of the fight. But in terms of round-by-round, I scored it 3-2 in terms of Condit, and technically 4-1 can be argued too. However, I think you can also make an argument for 3-2 Lawlor, especially with the idea that the champion will always get the benefit of the doubt since you have to "come take the title". But it shows the broken, dumb, 10-9 round-by-round system that is in place.


Anyway, what's wrong with Robbie winning the 3rd round, why not reward the tougher seeming fighter who is advancing the whole time. Do we really want to reward high volume pillow handed point fighters that go backwards a whole time flicking out nothing punches and kicks?


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Anteries said:


> Anyway, what's wrong with Robbie winning the 3rd round, why not reward the tougher seeming fighter who is advancing the whole time. Do we really want to reward high volume pillow handed point fighters that go backwards a whole time flicking out nothing punches and kicks?


Ahhh now Carlos was hardly on his Nick Diaz fight there. He was in there to fight and did a fantastic job in every round.


----------



## HitOrGetHit (Jun 29, 2009)

As if Robbie wasn't going backwards multiple times in this fight.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Watched it again, scored it 3-2 Lawler... again. All about the 3rd round, i liked Lawler's aggression and more forceful strikes in the round.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

I had it 3-2 Lawler as well. Condit clearly landed more shots. Lawler landed the harder shots and stole the rounds with it.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

Not why this fight is getting people up in arms more than others. It was a damn close fight, there were 3 far more questionable decisions on this card alone! 

The thing that is annoying me most about it all is the guys who think Lawler won trashing Condit and labelling him as a boring point fighter... If a guy who has finished 28 out of his 30 wins is a point fighter than sign me up to watch more point fighting please!


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah I honestly think this was a closer fight then people are making it out to be and I'm not surprised it was ruled that way. And no Condit is not a point fighter. Neither is Lawler, especially considering all his second tenure UFC fights.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

John8204 said:


> Jake Shields already beat Carlos Condit and Robbie Lawler, he FINISHED Robbie Lawler and he beat Carlos Condit the same night he beat Yushin Okami.
> 
> Robbie's on a hot streak right now and it's awesome but their is no reason to hype him up to something that he's not. Especially when every champion over 170 fought for the competition.
> 
> GSP and Matt Hughes had two of the greatest runs of all-time they were true undisputed champions


Robbie almost finished him too..

Its a fact Jake Shields is a hell of a fighter but he's not accomplished as much as Robbie has and today if they inked a fight Robbie would put him out IMO. 

Robbie will go down as on of the greatest champions and shields will be remembered for being an alternate who got popped for peds. Ive always been a fan of Jakes and he is a great but I dont see him as more accomplished inside the cage.


----------



## Goat Man (Oct 19, 2007)

HitOrGetHit said:


> As if Robbie wasn't going backwards multiple times in this fight.


Exactly!


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

People complaining about Condit point fighting are weird...

Take away Condit's activity... and he still wins rounds 1 and 4 based on the fact he landed the cleaner harder shots, he dropped Lawler in the first then rocked him in the last. 

Same with Lawlers rounds... dropped Condit in 2, rocked him in 5. 

Based on the scoring criteria (which people should actually give a read to understand how to score a striking contest) all 4 of these rounds were very clear. the only round that people should focus on is the 3rd... who landed the cleaner more effective strikes in round 3.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I'd LOVE Maia to get a title shot, but I think people are overrating him a bit.

He struggled big time with Yakovlev if I remember right. I think he might have got hurt at one point and basically followed him around the ring diving for takedowns with little successes in most attempts. Could be remembering this wrong.

The Ryan LaFlare win was really solid.

Neil Magny is a great fighter but Maia is his absolute to the pin point weakness.

Gunnar Nelson is an amazing win, but a fight where Gunnar tried to use his BJJ to match Maia's BJJ and he just isn't at Maia's incredible level.

But I think when you bring in the likes of Carlos, Woodley, Lawler, Hendricks etc. I don't give Maia too much chance. Obviously he did great against Rory but I don't see that happening again. Maia still lacks a little bit in the wrecking compared to guys like Hendricks and Woodley and I think someone like Carlos and Lawler can keep it on the feet. After that, all 4 of them have a really big advantage on Maia on the feet so I don't really see him doing too much.

Also, Maia has 2 submission wins in 6 years. That is in NO way a negative reflection on his BJJ, but I think if he makes that jump in competition then he'll be facing an even higher calibre of sub defence than Yakovlev and LaFlare so he'll have trouble finishing those fights.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Kind of hard using your top Karate with Maia hanging from your leg.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Its a match up thing for me, i would pick Maia to beat Lawler or Condit... but never Woodley or Hendricks and MacDonald would beat him again.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Hence why he will probably never face either Lawler in a title fight or Condit. Maybe Condit but yeah he wouldn't be able to take the guy down.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> Hence why he will probably never face either Lawler in a title fight or Condit. Maybe Condit but yeah he wouldn't be able to take the guy down.


You think he would struggle to take Condit down? Why???


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Because Condit is long, lanky and a striking specialist who would make that difficult. Remember that Maia isn't exactly the tallest welterweight whereas Maia has fought several tall guys and had trouble. Makes me wonder how he survived at middleweight.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> Because Condit is long, lanky and a striking specialist who would make that difficult. Remember that Maia isn't exactly the tallest welterweight whereas Maia has fought several tall guys and had trouble. Makes me wonder how he survived at middleweight.


Have you seen Condit fight? As an MMA writer you should know Condit has always had trouble defending takedowns. 

Your logic really confuses me sometimes.... how does Condit being long help him defend takedowns? Did this help Neil Magny? I can give you a decent sized list of lanky ****ers Maia has taken down.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Depends on the situation and what not.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Thanks for the detailed response.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I'm not really 100% here right now.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

I actually think Maia has a good chance against both Condit and Lawler, more so Condit who's TDD is mediocre and made up by his attacking ground game, which wouldn't help him against Maia. 

Maia's nightmare matchup at the high levels of WW is Hendricks, a wrestler with solid TDD and bricks for hands, the type of guy he has always struggled with.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Yeah Condit would be the one for Maia to get. I don't see him beating Lawler though. Maia would just have so little on the feet that every takedown would be seen a mile off. Lawler has defended plenty of takedowns in his time as well and at least has "above average" TDD.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Maia would get torched by both guys IMO.

Condit's TDD is not bad that's just a perception because of the GSP fight. If Maia cant drag either down he better just drop trow and lube it up because he's fu**ed. The Kampmann fight was in 09 I dont think Maia can GSP him.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Yeah Condit would be the one for Maia to get. I don't see him beating Lawler though. Maia would just have so little on the feet that every takedown would be seen a mile off. Lawler has defended plenty of takedowns in his time as well and at least has "above average" TDD.


But other fighters with above average takedown defense like Story, Fitch, Kim, Rory, LaFlare all knew exactly what Maia was doing also and still ended up on the floor. Its not like Maia shoots a takedown and then he is done, he is dogged, determined and will just hang on to people, wrap him self around them until they end up on the floor. 

I think it has a lot to do with why he tends to gas when he faces a lot of resistance. I think there is a decent chance Lawler loses the first 3 rounds clear and picks up a late tko, kinda going back on my earlier statements already.... I often go back on my gut reactions, but i still won't count Maia out.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Joabbuac said:


> But other fighters with above average takedown defense like Story, Fitch, Kim, Rory, LaFlare all knew exactly what Maia was doing also and still ended up on the floor. Its not like Maia shoots a takedown and then he is done, he is dogged, determined and will just hang on to people, wrap him self around them until they end up on the floor.
> 
> I think it has a lot to do with why he tends to gas when he faces a lot of resistance. I think there is a decent chance Lawler loses the first 3 rounds clear and picks up a late tko, kinda going back on my earlier statements already.... I often go back on my gut reactions, but i still won't count Maia out.


There's a reason Lawler is champ and none of them are though. Lawler is able to make most of a Hendricks fight a stand up fight. I don't see Maia being able to do much of that.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well also remember that the first Hendricks fight he was going up against Lawler with a torn bicep. The second fight it seems like he just wanted to stand up and Hendricks has since said he's going back to more of a wrestling based style. Personally I think that would work more for him.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> Well also remember that the first Hendricks fight he was going up against Lawler with a torn bicep.


I didn't know Hendricks was Brazilian.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Um where did you get that? No he is not Brazilian he's registered Wala Wala native American if I recall correctly.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)




----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> I didn't know Hendricks was Brazilian.


You mean that for the excuse or because he used VIAGRA to repair his torn biceps? :confused02:


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You mean that for the excuse or because he used VIAGRA to repair his torn biceps? :confused02:


That would be Uber-Brazilian!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

kantowrestler said:


> Well also remember that the first Hendricks fight he was going up against Lawler with a torn bicep.


Meh, Lawler always fought with a torn bicep...


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah but Lawler doesn't fight with a style of fighting that requires he use complex commands with his arm. A take down requires use of your bicep whereas a punch doesn't require as much complexity. If that all makes sense.


----------

