Condit knows he lucked out with that fluke win. He surprised Diaz by moonwalking the entire fight, and still needed a robbery to win.
Lets get that rematch.
Don't be scared homie.
209
stlnl2 -orcus - " <span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: small; ">I think part of the reason people are giving condit the fight is because they did not expect Diaz to look like that."
Whereas certainly none of the reason people are giving Diaz the fight is because they spent months saying Condit "literally has nothing for him" and no way to win the fight.<br type="_moz" /></span>
" <span style="font-style: italic; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(238, 238, 221); font-size: small; ">u need to do more in a fight to win than simply not letting your opponent do what he wants."
<br type="_moz" /></span>This is a little confusing. You concede he landed more, and you concede he didn't let Nick do what he wants (i.e. control). So what "more" did Nick do?
Pretty much this. People watched that fight and saw what they wanted to see I think. People who loved Diaz saw him win, people who hate him saw him lose. I like both guys, I saw Diaz get his leg fucked up (he changed stance several times), actually look tired, and was more beaten up at the end of the fight. I dont care for the strategy Condit used, but I did think he won (and sold his soul in doing so) but I have to agree with Orcus here.
Employing strategy in sport aint necessarily selling your soul.
Neither is realizing "styles make fights."
Would Condit have been better off keeping it real like Cowboy and stood in front of Nick and let his head get picked off 50 times a round?
Why do we expect so much from MMA fighters EVERY TIME they compete?
There are no single MMA fighters, athletes or teams in the history of sport that can produce highlight reel shit everytime they compete.
It doesnt happen in sports.
In sports entertainment or the movies sure.
" afraid too exchange he would combo and get out"
Combo and get out, what a shitty thing to do.
I want someone to tell me why they are convinced Nick landed the more damaging shots when Carlos was as fresh as a daisy after 25 minutes of being far more "active" than Nick, with (obviously) busier footwork, with more strikes thrown, and with more energy-sapping kicks thrown, while Nick was panting, bloody, and demoralized after throwing fewer strikes (almost all punches) and taking only plodding steps all night.
" Without question you cannot hit as hard moving back as you do moving forward. "
Moving back and throwing a punch THAT YOUR OPPONENT COMES INTO has plenty of power. We've seen it again and again. From Anderson's KO of Forrest to Nick's own over Lawler, to Seth over Kimbo. Make your opponent come to you and pop him with a short shot.
Wasa-B -stlnl2 -orcus - " I think part of the reason people are giving condit the fight is because they did not expect Diaz to look like that."
Whereas certainly none of the reason people are giving Diaz the fight is because they spent months saying Condit "literally has nothing for him" and no way to win the fight.
" u need to do more in a fight to win than simply not letting your opponent do what he wants."
This is a little confusing. You concede he landed more, and you concede he didn't let Nick do what he wants (i.e. control). So what "more" did Nick do?
Pretty much this. People watched that fight and saw what they wanted to see I think. People who loved Diaz saw him win, people who hate him saw him lose. I like both guys, I saw Diaz get his leg fucked up (he changed stance several times), actually look tired, and was more beaten up at the end of the fight. I dont care for the strategy Condit used, but I did think he won (and sold his soul in doing so) but I have to agree with Orcus here.
Employing strategy in sport aint necessarily selling your soul.
Neither is realizing "styles make fights."
Would Condit have been better off keeping it real like Cowboy and stood in front of Nick and let his head get picked off 50 times a round?
Why do we expect so much from MMA fighters EVERY TIME they compete?
There are no single MMA fighters, athletes or teams in the history of sport that can produce highlight reel shit everytime they compete.
It doesnt happen in sports.
In sports entertainment or the movies sure.
Reason I said selling his soul, I honestly believe he could have landed flush after the first two rounds and possibly put Diaz out with the way he had Nick chasing him had he stood his ground just a bit more. I think he wanted to do this, but had Jackson screaming and just kept rolling. Its still a far cry from standing still like Cerrone and combining putting a hot one down the pipe once in a while, but you already knew this and are just looking to defend Condit's gameplan. I dont blame him for doing it, but it was away from his tendencies, and to be honest I think he could have ended Nick had he changed gears mid fight (while taking the risk of getting ended himself). But he seemed to be in the mood for zero risk, so.......
ok do u know what I do I'n the gym when I'm sparring someone who is better than me and hits hard? I use angles and run only exchange when I have too and try too survive the round! thats what the fight looked like too me. Didnt know that it would win a fight, maybe I will try it next time. 
teamRAZORSHARP - ok do u know what I do I'n the gym when I'm sparring someone who is better than me and hits hard? I use angles and run only exchange when I have too and try too survive the round! thats what the fight looked like too me. Didnt know that it would win a fight, maybe I will try it next time.
So you mean the session doesnt end with their leg fucked up, them worn out and with a busted face? Or it does?
I think Carlos won that fight. He won it in a very unimpressive fashion that surprised me given his toughness and finishing percentage over the years, but nonetheless I felt he won that fight.
Greg Jackson and Carlos Condit employed a strategy that they deemed "smart" but they know it sucked to see a high level fight go like that given how much these guys had on the line. I agreed Diaz should have done more to get the fight to the ground and perhaps catch Carlos in a sub or something. He let Carlos run around all night, IMO.
therefore, IMO, here are some facts.
1. Carlos Condit won the fight.
2. It was still a close fight despite Carlos running and outpointing Diaz
3. Smart strategy by Carlos and Jackson but lost a few fans in the process.
I totally agree with you sultan I think it was just not what everyone was expecting, so it left a bad taste I'n alot of people's mouth except for the Diaz haters.
The Sultan - I think Carlos won that fight. He won it in a very unimpressive fashion that surprised me given his toughness and finishing percentage over the years, but nonetheless I felt he won that fight.
Greg Jackson and Carlos Condit employed a strategy that they deemed "smart" but they know it sucked to see a high level fight go like that given how much these guys had on the line. I agreed Diaz should have done more to get the fight to the ground and perhaps catch Carlos in a sub or something. He let Carlos run around all night, IMO.
therefore, IMO, here are some facts.
1. Carlos Condit won the fight.
2. It was still a close fight despite Carlos running and outpointing Diaz
3. Smart strategy by Carlos and Jackson but lost a few fans in the process.
I respect this. Too bad you have 1000 guys on this board making it sound like Condit toyed with Diaz a la Silva/Griffin. If that mess last night impressed you, you have low expectations.
orcus - " u have to focus on control and aggression which nick won."
So Nick won "control" even though you said yourself Condit didn't let Nick do what he wanted to do? What did Nick do to keep Condit from doing what he wanted? Because as far as I can tell Condit did it all night long.
Kalib didn't let quarry do what he wanted to do either. Control means causing your opponent to do something. Diaz was causing condit to move backwards and away the while fight Condit was not causing Diaz to anything Any other interpretation of control is an absurd stretch
goku -Kalib didn't let quarry do what he wanted to do either. Control means causing your opponent to do something. Diaz was causing condit to move backwards and away the while fight Condit was not causing Diaz to anything Any other interpretation of control is an absurd stretch
plus one
And even if u want to rationalize some crazy interpretation of control and we agree to disagree, then we look at aggression which Diaz Clearly won.
ILoveWatchingJonesBoneShogun - If a football team has a great defense they better do something more then score 3 more points then their opponents. They have to win by about 21
If it were a football game Carlos would have had negative yardage with about 10 safeties.
goku - And even if u want to rationalize some crazy interpretation of control and we agree to disagree, then we look at aggression which Diaz Clearly won.
Aggression isn't criteria, so what do you mean? If you mean EFFECTIVE aggression (which is criteria) one guy had a smashed leg, was visibly tired, and a busted face,so......
stlnl2 -goku - And even if u want to rationalize some crazy interpretation of control and we agree to disagree, then we look at aggression which Diaz Clearly won.
Aggression isn't criteria, so what do you mean? If you mean EFFECTIVE aggression (which is criteria) one guy had a smashed leg, was visibly tired, and a busted face,so......
U honestly don't believe that condit won effective aggression? Do u?
goku -orcus - " u have to focus on control and aggression which nick won."Kalib didn't let quarry do what he wanted to do either. Control means causing your opponent to do something. Diaz was causing condit to move backwards and away the while fight Condit was not causing Diaz to anything Any other interpretation of control is an absurd stretch
So Nick won "control" even though you said yourself Condit didn't let Nick do what he wanted to do? What did Nick do to keep Condit from doing what he wanted? Because as far as I can tell Condit did it all night long.
Condit "caused" Nick to ineffectively chase him, giving him no opportunities to attack. Carlos had no problem MAKING opportunities for HIMSELF to be able to attack, which is why, contrary to what you guys have convinced yourself of, Carlos actually threw and landed MORE "significant strikes" per round in this fight than in ANY of his other UFC fights. Crazy, huh?
" And even if u want to rationalize some crazy interpretation of control and we agree to disagree, then we look at aggression which Diaz Clearly won. "
Unless of course we look at "aggression" as it's actually defined in the rules the fight is scored under, which requires the aggressor to actually land something or get a takedown. "Moving forward" in itself isn't worth shit. Chasing your opponent isn't worth shit. Not to mention, this criteria is below "effective striking" and "control", so if Carlos already won those two categories, Nick "moving forward" wouldn't do shit to give him the rounds.
" If it were a football game Carlos would have had negative yardage with about 10 safeties."
lol, great argument.
goku - You better significantly outpoint your opponent like a mayweather, machida or Gsp
If your entire strategy is to avoid engagement you can't expect to win the fight by touching your opponent a few more times
I think part of the reason people are giving condit the fight is because they did not expect Diaz to look like that. They are used to seeing Diaz back his opponents to the fence and battering the shit out of them. When Diaz wasn't able to do that, somehow this got translated into condit winning, because he wasn't letting Diaz do what he wanted to do. But I'm sorry u need to do more in a fight to win than simply not letting your opponent do what he wants.
Condit did enough. If you want to win by being aggressive, don't get hit more. You got it backward. If one is forward and one is backward and they are equally landing, forward wins. Not the case here. Move on and learn.
goku -Drunkie -U control by proactively causing your opponent to do things. That is what Diaz was doing. He was the one that was constantly pushing condit back to the fence. You don't control or dictate by being reactive. Condit was reactive 96% of the fight. <img src="/images/phone/apple.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>goku - Controlling where the fight takes place really? How do u control by running away <img src="/images/phone/apple.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>
he controlled it the whole fight. was diaz able to hit him when he wanted? was diaz able to force him into doing anything? no diaz wasn't, so yes condit did control it.
What the hell are you talking about? Octagon Control doesnt mean what YOU want it to mean dummy.
J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities
If octagon control meant only being the one acting and not reacting, they would not have specifically written in the part of a striker fending off a grapplers takedown wich is reacting
Gokudamus stole my name -perhaps english is not your first language, so i will be gentle...goku -Drunkie -U control by proactively causing your opponent to do things. That is what Diaz was doing. He was the one that was constantly pushing condit back to the fence. You don't control or dictate by being reactive. Condit was reactive 96% of the fight. <img src="/images/phone/apple.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>goku - Controlling where the fight takes place really? How do u control by running away <img src="/images/phone/apple.png" alt="Phone Post" border="0" style="vertical-align:middle;"/>
he controlled it the whole fight. was diaz able to hit him when he wanted? was diaz able to force him into doing anything? no diaz wasn't, so yes condit did control it.
What the hell are you talking about? Octagon Control doesnt mean what YOU want it to mean dummy.
J. Octagon Control
1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight.
2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control.
3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control.
4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities
If octagon control meant only being the one acting and not reacting, they would not have specifically written in the part of a striker fending off a grapplers takedown wich is reacting
there was not much ground work or takedown attempts in the fight, so the key to analyzinig octagon control is who "dictates the pace and place" of the fight...to dictate means to impose or to lay down authoritatively or preemptorily or to command unconditionally...by its very definition, in order to dictate something, you must be the one in control, using your authority to cause someone or something to do something you want
condit did notthing in the fight to cause nick to do what he wanted...
nick was the one that was setting the pace..if he stood there not advancing, no pace would be set....
nick was also the one that was forcing the location of the fight...he was the one moving condit back and away..where is the last place that condit wanted to be in the fight? against the fence...how many times was he against the fence? he was there CONSTANTLY during the fight...yes, diaz couldnt keep condit there because condit would run away, but you have to understand that ESCAPING control is not hte same thing as DICTATING control...
yes, its true that nick's control was not PERFECT - he was not able to KEEP condit there...but he was still the one that was controlling condit's movements, not viceversa...
you do not have octagon control only if you have perfect control and your opponent never escapes...you win octagon control by having more control than your opponent, which nick did...for example, lets say its striker v. grappler...grappler is able to take striker down constantly, but striker is able to escrape...this happens over and over...do you really believe that the striker wins octagon control in this instance? no...because the striker is not DICTATING anything...the grappler doesnt have perfect control, but he has more control between the two..
and if you still cannot grasp this concept, lets extrapolate your logic out....you are trying to contend that condit is the one in control because he was able to not let nick fight where he wanted to fight 100% of the time...well if that is the case, then anyone that tags someone who is advancing forward and then runs away is winning octagon control...this makes absolutely no sense and if that were true, then mma would turn into a glorified game of tag...i touch you a few more times than you tough me and then i turn into usain bolt or barry sanders avoiding contact at all costs and i will win because i am winning octagon control