with an exception of round 2, all other rounds were pretty clear imo. condit was not only the busier guy, but he landed more and actually hurt lawler on several occasions. didn't think lawler-hendricks II was a robbery since rd 1 was close and i thought lawler won rounds 4 and 5, but i just can't see how he won 3 rounds vs. condit.
He didn't just Outland Lawler, he significantly outlanded him. The punch stat Numbers were extremely lopsided. Also, people are trying to act like a Lawler dominated the fifth round. That is bull. Both fighters did major damage in that round. While I agree that lawler win the round, it was not dominate
DIsagreed on the last part. I think that Lawler dominated the last round. Imo, it could have been a 10-8 rounds (which are not used nearly enough in MMA imo). Still, even if I was rooting for RObby, I can't really see how he managed to win that fight
Doesn't mean anything. YOu can get a 10-8 round even if you get floored. It all depends on what you do in-between. In the last round, Condit was a lot more hurt than Lawler, anf he was hurt repeteadly. I wouldn't score it personnaly a 10-8 round, but I can see the case for it.
no. You can't get a 10-8 if you have been repeatedly hurt in a round. 10-8 is pure domination where the fighter is in control the whole time. This is mms not boxing. No way anyone gives condit an 8 in that round. No judge did last night.
We were not talking about a fighter being hurt numeroulsy getting a 10-8 round, but of a fighter getting hurt (and he wasnt that hurt) once. Not to mention that judges are routinely criticised for not giving enough 10-8 round.
Either way. It ain't the case. And he was stunned by seclveral shots. Both fighters beat the fuck out of each other that round. The 5th round isn't even the round that's in dispute. It's the third round that judges gave him, which they should not have. Condit easily one that they're around. It was not even close. Condit was landing so many combinations in that round that by the time that was 50 seconds left, Lawler, was running. Lawler even attempted to take down because he was getting outclassed on the feet in the third.
The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round: a round is to be scored as a 10-10 round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round; a round is to be scored as a 10-9 round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers; a round is to be scored as a 10-8 round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round. a round is to be scored as a 10-7 round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round. By this definition I'd say that a fighter could definitively get a 10-8 round, even if he gets hurt in the round
This I don't disagree with. As said previously, I think Condit won that fight, and I was heavilly rooting for RObbie
I just think that Condit did some good damage on RL in that round. Yes RL landed some hard strikes, but so did Condit. I could never ever justify a 10-8 round.
Well to be honest, these "objective" rules are a mess. It says that a round is 10-9 when a fighter wins it by a close margin, and that a round is 10-8 when a fighter dominates it over overwhelmingly. If a fighter confortably and clearly wins a round (it's neither a close round, nor an overwhelming domination), what should it be scored ? By these rules, it's impossible to tell. The rules are so badly written, that arguing what is a 10-8 round is as pointless as arguing over how many angels can stand on the point of a pin
