Everyone has a take, as is clear from the 446 (and counting) comments in my most recent blog post, in which I asked whether aggression and Octagon control are even counted any more when judges render their decision.
There were a lot of interesting points raised by the readers, and I think some of them were worth highlighting. (Here's a hint for future feedback posts: Notice that people who made cogent points got mentioned here, and those who resorted to personal insults were ignored).
Let's have at it:
Commenter Moore says: "I agree aggression should be taken more into account so we don't have fighters going for points rather that fighting. But Diaz has beat his last ELEVEN opponents by pushing them to the cage and unloading on them. What did you expect Condit to do?"
That's a great point. It obviously would have been pretty dumb of Condit to just stand in front of Diaz. The question is whether his game plan did enough to earn him the victory. I still maintain Condit came up just short.
@evolution1085 on Twitter says: @davedoylemma has never seen lateral movement in a fight before.
Frankie Edgar, for one, has tremendous lateral movement and his fights are among the most compelling in MMA. One thing you don't see Edgar do is turn form his opponent and run to safety, which we saw once too often from Condit against Diaz. Again, running is a foul under MMA rules, for which points can be deducted.
KD says: So under the criteria that Doyle laid out, Roy Nelson should have been tabbed the winner in his fight with Werdum as he was constantly moving forward and being the aggressor?
Ummm ... no. Did you see the pictures of Nelson's face after the fight? I'm not in any way implying that aggression and Octagon control be the only factors considered in the fight, just pointing out that they're actually listed in the Unified Rules and seem to be too often ignored.
Pa-boy says: You don't like the judge's decisions then end the fight yourself.
Can't argue with that one, amigo.
Wb says: Thank GOD! I thought after some of the other articles I'd read (and comments I'd received) I was one of the few who thought that fight was judged incorrectly!!! Let me state, I do NOT have a problem with Condit getting the nod (personally I scored it 3/2 for Diaz but could see how it might have been judged 3/2 Condit). Still after having seen the judges scorecards its hard to understand what fight they were scoring or more specifically by what criteria. 2 of the 3 gave Condit the second round!? For the record that was the only round that Diaz out-struck him. To say that Carlos won 4 of the 5 rounds on judges sheets seems to indicate they have no concept of octagon control or aggression and were simply counting strikes.
Eddie, via Facebook, says: absolutely agree with your article on the Diaz/Condit fight. the judges' criteria include ring aggression and generalship: basically who's bossing the fight. this isn't boxing where you can dance and outpoint your foe with jabs.
Wb, Eddie, you guys are clearly smart people with bright futures.
- Nick Diaz
- Carlos Condit