Mighty mouse uncle creepy 1. They couldn't even add right 
Arlovskis Chin -Dirt Dog Sandwiches - Garcia Vs Korean zombie can't get no love???????????Yes! One of my favourite fights but a complete robbery.
Garcia never even hit the guy. just swung at air for 3 rounds.
But he was swinging aggresively!
I agree with this. Although tkz rectified that in the second fight
GregNoActionJackson - Mighty mouse uncle creepy 1. They couldn't even add right
Yeah I'm surprised that hasn't come up yet...
1) what in the fuck happened with adding the scorecards??... That was pretty unacceptable how they got it wrong twice.. I don't even....
2) I thought creepy won that, he's my favorite flyweight though so could be bias..
OGT -GregNoActionJackson - Mighty mouse uncle creepy 1. They couldn't even add rightYeah I'm surprised that hasn't come up yet...
1) what in the fuck happened with adding the scorecards??... That was pretty unacceptable how they got it wrong twice.. I don't even....
2) I thought creepy won that, he's my favorite flyweight though so could be bias..
Seriously, math how does it work?
GregNoActionJackson -OGT -GregNoActionJackson - Mighty mouse uncle creepy 1. They couldn't even add rightYeah I'm surprised that hasn't come up yet...
1) what in the fuck happened with adding the scorecards??... That was pretty unacceptable how they got it wrong twice.. I don't even....
2) I thought creepy won that, he's my favorite flyweight though so could be bias..Seriously, math how does it work?
There is seriously no excuse for that overwhelming amount of fail. Someone should have lost their job after that shit.
de Oliveira/Gholar.
Still to this day the worst decision of all time.
mma interpreter - Condit-Hendricks is the worst decision I can remember in the last year or so. I had Hendricks winning the first and Condit winning the second and third.I agree that it could have gone Condits way, but I really don't think the decision was bad. Any time that the striking is relatively close (94-69 is pretty close), multiple takedowns in rounds will win him the fight. I love Condit and he is a favorite of mine, but I was also impressed with Hendricks cardio and ability to stand with NBK. I would say Carlos had the edge on the feet a little, but the fight was close. I think either way, the fans won that fight and there was no robbery.
The fight was awarded to Hendricks via UD, 29-28 based on takedowns he did absolutely nothing with. In fact, it was Condit who did more damage off of his back (similar to the Condit-MacDonald fight, which would have gone down a similar path of being awarded to the loser had the ref not stopped it).
Overall, Condit outlanded Hendricks 94-69 in total strikes. I really hope this fight is a wake-up call that the scoring system needs to be re-evaluated.
Never really thought about Condit/ Hendricks in terms of control v damage. Hendricks manhandled him the whole fight and definitely lit him up in the first. But, how cool would it be to have some definitive scoring criteria in that situation? A guy like Condit would be hard to handle because he never stops attacking. Maybe the theory is that if he is hurting him that much, the guy on top would be out or have to let go.
MattBFD - Never really thought about Condit/ Hendricks in terms of control v damage. Hendricks manhandled him the whole fight and definitely lit him up in the first. But, how cool would it be to have some definitive scoring criteria in that situation? A guy like Condit would be hard to handle because he never stops attacking. Maybe the theory is that if he is hurting him that much, the guy on top would be out or have to let go.
That just might be the theory lol, which is bullshit. You double my salary if I can hang on and stay on top annnd I go up in rankings? Yeah I'd take some punishment.
Not saying that's what happened in condit vs Hendricks but it has happened plenty of times.
mma interpreter -I say manhandled only because he seemed to get the td fairly easily. Only ever watched it once.MattBFD - Never really thought about Condit/ Hendricks in terms of control v damage. Hendricks manhandled him the whole fight and definitely lit him up in the first. But, how cool would it be to have some definitive scoring criteria in that situation? A guy like Condit would be hard to handle because he never stops attacking. Maybe the theory is that if he is hurting him that much, the guy on top would be out or have to let go.Hndricks didn't manhandle him the whole fight. Hendricks won the first round and was then outstruck in rounds 2 and 3. He got 4/5 of his takedowns in each of the three rounds. At the end of thr fight, Hendricks was fucking exhausted and badly beaten, and Carlos looked ready to go another 2 rounds or more.
Had that fight been five rounds, there would've been no question as to who won, as Condit would've finished him or easily won the last two. But EVEN WITH the fight being only 3 rounds, I thought Condit was more dominant for 2/3 rounds in all areas classified as to how a round is scored under the Unified Rules of MMA scoring system.
But again, I like your assessment of the fight and wish we had a more definitive way to score the fight when it's on the ground. It would be awesome to see guys flurry like Condit every time they get taken down, knowing it was scoring major points. It would also make lnp far less viable. Look at how many guys ride out the bottom position waiting for a standup or an escape opportunity instead of wasting energy attacking. You could essentially make an ineffective td nothing more than an opportunity to lose points and get hit. Dictating position is still octagon control I guess.
Mikey Burnett vs Pat Militech
Rampage vs Machida
bisbing vs Hammil
are my top 3. None of them made any sense.. many fights I disagree on close rounds, but these stand out in foolishness.
Genki vs Bang doesn't qualify as it was the stand up that ruined it, the close decision to bang was fair given the circumstances.
Well fuck my attempt at editing ill just try that again...
mma interpreter -MasterofMartialArts -mma interpreter - Condit-Hendricks is the worst decision I can remember in the last year or so. I had Hendricks winning the first and Condit winning the second and third.I agree that it could have gone Condits way, but I really don't think the decision was bad. Any time that the striking is relatively close (94-69 is pretty close), multiple takedowns in rounds will win him the fight. I love Condit and he is a favorite of mine, but I was also impressed with Hendricks cardio and ability to stand with NBK. I would say Carlos had the edge on the feet a little, but the fight was close. I think either way, the fans won that fight and there was no robbery.
The fight was awarded to Hendricks via UD, 29-28 based on takedowns he did absolutely nothing with. In fact, it was Condit who did more damage off of his back (similar to the Condit-MacDonald fight, which would have gone down a similar path of being awarded to the loser had the ref not stopped it).
Overall, Condit outlanded Hendricks 94-69 in total strikes. I really hope this fight is a wake-up call that the scoring system needs to be re-evaluated.Multiple takedowns that a guy does nothing with are the problem. Yes, Hendricks was successful with 12/15 takedowns (4/5 for each round), but he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with those takedowns, at least in rounds 2-3.
He took Condit down in rounds 2-3 because he was exhausted (not sure how you could have been impressed by Hendricks' cardio btw, because he fucking gassed big time after that first round) and he was losing the stand-up exchange. He didn't pass guard once in all 12 takedowns. It was Condit, a very active guy off his back, doing the majority of the damage once the fight hit the mat. Also, 94-69 is a significant advantage in strikes connected, at least for me.
My problem is how the fight was scored according to the Unified Rules of MMA. How should rounds be scored - striking, grappling, aggression, and octagon control, right? Forgive me if I'm missing something. Anyway, Condit had more effective striking in rounds 2-3, had more effective grappling because he did more damage on the ground in rounds 2-3, was more aggressive in rounds 2-3 and was basically walking Johny down and landing punch after punch in round 3, nearly finishing him, and he controlled the Octagon space more imo.
29-28 Condit, and yes, I think it was a robbery. A travesty is actually a better description.
Agreed with everything here.
Unfortunately...
Being on top > everything else
If you could win fights from being on your back it would DRAMATICALLY change the game. The only way that would happen would be to completely clean house with judges and insert judges who understand how jiu jitsu works AS WELL AS wrestling. If this were the case then:
Condit beats hendricks.
Diaz loses FAR less fights before he went to strikeforce.
Mighty mouse FOR SURE loses to Torres.
(obviously countless other fights would change)
I think fights would be far more exciting, because you actually have to consider if being on top is in your best interest, knowing if you go there you have to be better on top than the other guy is on bottom.
If guy on top is holding and LnPing the guy on bottom could essentially do the same (which hypothetically should be scored evenly), forcing the guy on top to either pass or try to submit.
Takedowns should still be good points, but what happens after will be more important.
I don't know, ending my rant. In summary... I hope someday the playing field evens out. 9/10 decisions with BJJ vs Wrestling go to the wrestler, unless its someone like Maia.
GSP24 - Bisping vs. Hamill
Nothing comes before that, nothing. That was a bad one.
Looking at bispings record on here I see the issue with that one...
Chris Watts scored the fight twice!
ajm42766 - Henderson vs Edgar. by far.
Although I think Edgar won the second fight, I wouldn't say by far...
Machida Shogun I was one of the worst ever.
Nog vs Ricco was also pretty bad.
Diego Sanchez has been awarded a few that really grind my gears.
Garcia Phan was the worst I've ever seen. Garcia Zombie one was pretty bad. There's been a lot.
Kyung ho Kang vs caceras
OGT -Basically this was my point about takedowns.mma interpreter -MasterofMartialArts -mma interpreter - Condit-Hendricks is the worst decision I can remember in the last year or so. I had Hendricks winning the first and Condit winning the second and third.I agree that it could have gone Condits way, but I really don't think the decision was bad. Any time that the striking is relatively close (94-69 is pretty close), multiple takedowns in rounds will win him the fight. I love Condit and he is a favorite of mine, but I was also impressed with Hendricks cardio and ability to stand with NBK. I would say Carlos had the edge on the feet a little, but the fight was close. I think either way, the fans won that fight and there was no robbery.
The fight was awarded to Hendricks via UD, 29-28 based on takedowns he did absolutely nothing with. In fact, it was Condit who did more damage off of his back (similar to the Condit-MacDonald fight, which would have gone down a similar path of being awarded to the loser had the ref not stopped it).
Overall, Condit outlanded Hendricks 94-69 in total strikes. I really hope this fight is a wake-up call that the scoring system needs to be re-evaluated.Multiple takedowns that a guy does nothing with are the problem. Yes, Hendricks was successful with 12/15 takedowns (4/5 for each round), but he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with those takedowns, at least in rounds 2-3.
He took Condit down in rounds 2-3 because he was exhausted (not sure how you could have been impressed by Hendricks' cardio btw, because he fucking gassed big time after that first round) and he was losing the stand-up exchange. He didn't pass guard once in all 12 takedowns. It was Condit, a very active guy off his back, doing the majority of the damage once the fight hit the mat. Also, 94-69 is a significant advantage in strikes connected, at least for me.
My problem is how the fight was scored according to the Unified Rules of MMA. How should rounds be scored - striking, grappling, aggression, and octagon control, right? Forgive me if I'm missing something. Anyway, Condit had more effective striking in rounds 2-3, had more effective grappling because he did more damage on the ground in rounds 2-3, was more aggressive in rounds 2-3 and was basically walking Johny down and landing punch after punch in round 3, nearly finishing him, and he controlled the Octagon space more imo.
29-28 Condit, and yes, I think it was a robbery. A travesty is actually a better description.
Agreed with everything here.
Unfortunately...
Being on top > everything else
If you could win fights from being on your back it would DRAMATICALLY change the game. The only way that would happen would be to completely clean house with judges and insert judges who understand how jiu jitsu works AS WELL AS wrestling. If this were the case then:
Condit beats hendricks.
Diaz loses FAR less fights before he went to strikeforce.
Mighty mouse FOR SURE loses to Torres.
(obviously countless other fights would change)
I think fights would be far more exciting, because you actually have to consider if being on top is in your best interest, knowing if you go there you have to be better on top than the other guy is on bottom.
If guy on top is holding and LnPing the guy on bottom could essentially do the same (which hypothetically should be scored evenly), forcing the guy on top to either pass or try to submit.
Takedowns should still be good points, but what happens after will be more important.
I don't know, ending my rant. In summary... I hope someday the playing field evens out. 9/10 decisions with BJJ vs Wrestling go to the wrestler, unless its someone like Maia.
And I wasn't necessarily impressed with Hendricks cardio, but he looked alot better against a guy like Condit (with great pace and cardio) than I thought he would. Very close fight. I think you should rewards that fight MMAinterpreter, it was closer than you are remembering.
Larkin vs Carmont was bad. Bobby Volker got robbed vs. Cote.
Worst of all time was bisping/hamill.