Real Discussion - Condit/Diaz - Scoring system

I'm looking for real discussion here... Discussion... not fighting or trolling or whatever.. points of views backed up with logic.

Fightmetric: http://blog.fightmetric.com/2012/02/condit-vs-diaz-official-ufc-statistics.html

Head Shots (combined): Condit (55/196) Diaz (62/182) - Edge Diaz
Body Shots (combined): Condit (36/46) Diaz (49/66) Edge Diaz
Leg Kicks (combined): Condit (78/87) Diaz (6/10) Edge Condit

First off, I combined all the stats as IMO its hard to judge what is a "power" shot or a "jab". Especially with Nick because all his shots look weak. So as you can see, Nick landed more Head and Body shots, had 1/3 takedowns with back control... while Carlos landed more leg shots and overall had better accuracy, landed more "strikes", and had better footwork.

So I ask myself.. who won that fight based on the judging criteria given:

what is "effective striking"? Do leg shots do more damage , than head shots? Yes and no.. Yes if they're Aldo/Alvez thrown leg kicks.. no if they do no damage. Does a face jab do more damage than a shin slap? IMO YES! Not only is it easier to leg slap because of being able to do so from a distance with less chance of a counterstrike landing, the shins/legs are harder to hurt than the face. So IMO Head shots > Leg Shots all day. So given the Fightmetric data listed above, even though Carlos landed MORE shots, i see the effective ones being the head and body. Watching the fight, the leg kicks were more slaps than anything

Next, what Is aggression/octagon control?? Is forcing your opponent to chase you using fancy footwork octagon control? or is the one chasing and making him skip out of harms way the 1 control? IMO.. the guy stalking is the aggressor and the holder of "octagon control".. NOT the guy forcing the fighter to chase. In this fight I saw Nick as having the better octagon control AND aggressiveness.

Now, there are notables such as Chuck and Anderson.. they are king of getting people to chase to enter a counter stiking game. Condit it seemed, had very little intentions of trying to evade to use counterstriking.. mostly, when he evaded he was just looking to get out of the way and reset. Chuck and Anderson evade to open you up for counterstriking.. big difference IMO. Anderson evades while remaining in the pocket for coutnerstriking purposes, Condit was turning his back somewhat and really looked like he was just trying to get away.

Overall, IMO Nick won that fight. I like both Nick and Carlos, ( I rooted for BJ against Nick, and Rooted for Carlos against Hardy) but i was very disappointed in Carlos's fight game He WAS a beast imo, and now i see him like I see Fitch and GSP - point fighters.

Nick Diaz didn't look all that great either.. imo GSP beats both guys with his wrestling.

His leg kicks for the most part did seem like weak slaps just meant for points...



I agree with what you say - I was a big Carlos and Diaz fan coming into this fight....but now I see him different. 



I HATE fighters that just try to win a decision.



Thank God Frankie isn't at Jackson's camp....he would've told him to do this Kalib technique for the Maynard fights and the fans would be robbed of two amazing battles...

I can buy the leg kicks being strategy to stop Diaz forward momentum and disrupt his timing.

With that said, if they are not strong enough to force Diaz to block them or get injured, if he can just walk through them and continue punching, I fail to see how they are scored as helping win a round.

Using those stats, Diaz landed 8 power shots total to the head the entire fight while Condit had 11.

Power shots total (head/body/leg) Diaz had 43 while Condit had 44

If you go by the significant strikes stat, except for round 2 Condit landed the more significant strikes each round.

The majority of Diaz' punches were jabs while Condit's were leg kicks and jabs.

Condit landed more overall strikes and at a greater percentage while landing slightly more power strikes overall.

Aggression was clearly for Diaz as he was gong forward the whole fight.

Octagon control for me is keeping the fight where you want it. Condit did that in just about every round. Just because you are coming forward doesn't mean you are controlling the octagon. Condit would get up against the cage, fight out and go back to the center of the ring. He kept the fight where he wanted the fight to be. Diaz wanted him to pin him up against the cage to land shot but he wasn't able to.

I had Condit winning a 3 rounds to 2.

The stats look pretty close. Does anyone have a breakdown of each round? I think it would be easier to make a valid judgement call that way.
I had condit winning when I watched it. If I were to watch it again, I would pay closer attention to details. It seemed pretty close and I can understand both sides of this on-going argument, so thank you for having a thread that supports a civilized discussion.

Let's bring this TTT Phone Post

 Round 5 is the one people seem to be unable to properly score. Here is my breakdown from another thread:



Starting by posting the actual Scoring Criteri in relation to how valuable EACH of the scoring criteria-



C) Scoring of the above techniques shall be given the most weight as follows:


1) Effective Striking

2) Effective Grappling

3) Octagon Control

4) Effective Aggressiveness/Defense

Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, grappling, octagon control and aggressiveness/defense.




D) Judges should use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the contestants are either standing or on the ground, as follows:


1) If 90% of a round was spent on the ground, then:


a) Effective Grappling is weighed first

b) Effective Striking is then weighed


2) If 90 % of a round was standing, then:


a) Effective Striking is weighed first

b) Effective grappling is then weighed


3) If a round ends with 50% standing and 50% grounded, striking and grappling are weighed more equally.

 Here is a great question posed by "leque" in that thread, since I am showing how Carlos was the more "Effective Striker" in that round, and the criteria clearly shows that "Effective Striking" should be the highest valued criteria in that round:



"ive seen you post this a few times and its a technicality that favors condit, specifically for round 5.  What I want to know is what significance does the order of weighing have in the final score of the round.  For example, if a round is 90% standing, they would compare the two fighters' stand up performance and determine who was better and by what margin.  They then would go to weigh the ground game withdominance and by what margin.  Am I getthing this right?



If so, a 90% standing round with one fighter having slightly better stand up is evaluated and weighed first and given the slight advantage. Then the 10% of the fight on the ground had one fighter get in arguably the most dominating position, that would be determined and weighed second.  Now how does this scenario determine how you score the fight?"


 

 Here is my response to those questions:



 "Short answer(sarcasm):



I haev no fucking idea. The scoring leaves WAY too much subjectivity and does not define clearly how heavily you should favor certain criteria.



I think the scoring system now is too vague, too subjective, and has a bias in it towards wrastling (no shock since Jeff Blatnick was the key player in writting it). 



That said, all I am pointing out is that in round 5:



The vast majority of the fight was standing.

Carlos was clearly the more "Effective Striker" in that round (the stats favor him by a larger gap than most of the rounds). 25 to 17 in significant and 30-19 in total.

The final three categoris are supposed to be weighed less than "Effective Striking/Grappling"



Those final three categories are:



"Effective Aggression" Would have to give this to Diaz for "moving forward" (dumbest criteria to me because it's definition is demented and litterally gives a counter fighter no chance of winning the category)

"Cage Control" is very subjective in this round because Carlos avoided getting pressed to the cage, and kept the fight at range where he wanted it....until the TD.

"Effective Defense" I would have to give to Carlos because he avoided getting hit (only took 19 of 47 of Diaz' attempts[40%] vs. Diaz taking 30 of 49[61%]) and perfectly avoided two submission attempts.



I cannot give the round to Diaz as Carlos won the highest priority criteria, and I consider the final three criteria a wash.

 



EDIT: I want to thank you for having a serious discussion about this. These kind of talks are why I love this site. 95% of the time I have tried to break down this fight I get "Condit was scared and running!!! 209 bitches!!!!!"



:-)"

 "Aggression was clearly for Diaz as he was gong forward the whole fight."



100% wrong.   The key to scoring points for aggression is for the aggression to be EFFECTIVE.  Moving forward doesn't mean shit if you're getting tagged in the process and aren't hitting your opponent. 

 TTT



for a logical discussion of the fight breakdown instead of the constant hyperbole and fighter bashing

He was being effective going forward. he was landing, Condit was able to land more often while countering hence him winning more rounds and the fight.

Like it was stated by LayandPrayNinja. It is a stupid category that can hurt counter punchers but Diaz was the more aggressive fighter just by forcing Condit backwards and to retreat back to the center of the cage. Its not like he was going forward and not throwing punches, he just wasn't landing as many as Condit.

Good points, and thanks for a true discussion.

I kinda see it, as "leque" explained it.

Octagon control/aggression out of the equation... i dont see that the leg kicks and teeps condit threw were enough to say "He was winning the standup" (in the 5th rd) except that he made more contact by the numbers. I guess thats where "effective striking" differs among us. I dont see those legs slapkicks being as effective as jabs to the face. Now legs kicks from Alvez or Aldo or the ones threw by Forest against Page, they are obviously effective. But it really didn't look like they bothered diaz one bit.. Jabs to the arms imo = legs slaps that condit was throwing.



Good points, and thanks for a true discussion.

I kinda see it, as "leque" explained it.

Octagon control/aggression out of the equation... i dont see that the leg kicks and teeps condit threw were enough to say "He was winning the standup" (in the 5th rd) except that he made more contact by the numbers. I guess thats where "effective striking" differs among us. I dont see those legs slapkicks being as effective as jabs to the face. Now legs kicks from Alvez or Aldo or the ones threw by Forest against Page, they are obviously effective. But it really didn't look like they bothered diaz one bit.. Jabs to the arms imo = legs slaps that condit was throwing.



Moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.
&&
The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight. (Octagon Control)

One could argue that while Diaz was advancing, he wasn't being "effectively aggressive" if Condit was landing more shots and better shots.

You could continue to argue that moving forward is not octagon control if you can't prevent your opponent from evading you and allowing them to dictate where each confrontation occurs.

Watching is live, I had Condit winning it 4-1 or possibly 3-2 because while Diaz was moving forward he wasn't able to do anything to prevent Condit from getting away from him and he (Diaz) wasn't out striking Condit.

There's a good vid posted here of the Joe Rogan podcast where Joe mentions that while watching it live he thought Condit edged out a win. However, when he went back and watched the PPV he felt Diaz won. Unless I'm mistaken the judges have a similar view to what Joe sees during the live event. That shows how based on the viewing angle, the judges can see something differently then if they were watching the PPV broadcast.

People will continue to argue this, though I'm kinda surprised it's still going on this long. However, I actually disagree that there should be a Condit/Diaz 2 before Condit fights GSP. Quite simply, that's unfair to say he has a title shot and then to say he has to beat the man in front of him twice before getting it. Yes, people might be unhappy with the decision, but everyone agreed to abide by the outcome prior to the fight, and nothing illegal/questionable was done, it's just a controversial decision. Let Condit have the GSP fight, and Condit/Diaz 2 can take place another time.

Just my 2 cents though, and this being the internet, let the flaming begin

surf2live - Using those stats, Diaz landed 8 power shots total to the head the entire fight while Condit had 11.

Power shots total (head/body/leg) Diaz had 43 while Condit had 44

If you go by the significant strikes stat, except for round 2 Condit landed the more significant strikes each round.

The majority of Diaz' punches were jabs while Condit's were leg kicks and jabs.

Condit landed more overall strikes and at a greater percentage while landing slightly more power strikes overall.

Aggression was clearly for Diaz as he was gong forward the whole fight.

Octagon control for me is keeping the fight where you want it. Condit did that in just about every round. Just because you are coming forward doesn't mean you are controlling the octagon. Condit would get up against the cage, fight out and go back to the center of the ring. He kept the fight where he wanted the fight to be. Diaz wanted him to pin him up against the cage to land shot but he wasn't able to.

I had Condit winning a 3 rounds to 2.

A Phone Post

jooyoonit - Good points, and thanks for a true discussion.



I kinda see it, as "leque" explained it.



Octagon control/aggression out of the equation... i dont see that the leg kicks and teeps condit threw were enough to say "He was winning the standup" (in the 5th rd) except that he made more contact by the numbers. I guess thats where "effective striking" differs among us. I dont see those legs slapkicks being as effective as jabs to the face. Now legs kicks from Alvez or Aldo or the ones threw by Forest against Page, they are obviously effective. But it really didn't look like they bothered diaz one bit.. Jabs to the arms imo = legs slaps that condit was throwing.









 There were well over a dozen of those 68 leg kicks that "dug in" and landed with the chin. Diaz cisibly slowed by the 3rd round. More than  we have seen Diaz slow in his last fights that went that long. 



To argue that jabs to the face do as much damage as those "dug in" leg kicks is not rational. Unless a jab is blinding the opponent (GSP on Kos), or breaking their nose making it hard to breath, there arae no negative effects from a jab that compare to slowing down the lead leg of an aggressive opponent.



I am sorry, I just cannot agree with that.

 ttt