Originally Posted by alnorth:
Carlos Condit is talking like he is seriously thinking about retirement. He's only 31 though, and some fighters go through a "damn, enough of this" moment before they sleep on it a while.
Meh. He loves it and will be back. A lot of guys fo througj that after a fight where a decision didnt go the way they thought it should. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Well yeah, it is subjective. I did think Condit was close at the end of the 5th round, but he insists he wasn't (biased obviously), and they were not hooked up to EKG machines during the fight, so there's not a graph or data point you can point to. If he "looks like he was almost KO'd" to you or me, thats by definition subjective.
Most guys are pretty honest about it. They will tell you they dont remember shit from X round on.... win or lose. Then laugh about it. He doesn't strike me as a bullshitter. [Reply]
Last post trying to spell this out. A near KO is when a guys brains fets scrambled for a bit. Its pretty obvious when that happens. Condits head was clear his body just worn the fuck out as was Lawlers. Im sorry if I cant teach you the basics. [Reply]
I came up with an idea for revamping how MMA fights are scored, but I then thought of an obvious fatal flaw right when I was about to post it. I was going to argue that since this is a fight, not a game, we should do away with scores and the judges should each simply vote for a winner at the end based on who would be more likely to win the fight if we had unlimited rounds. The idea here is that the only reason we have judges at all is that we aren't going to wait all damn day for someone to drop, so we should decide who would have won if had had unlimited time.
The big problem with that idea is it would encourage slow, cautious fighting and defense. If you go for it and don't get it, then you don't want to be the fighter who is gassed and beat up. Fighters would probably just focus on not getting hit and not using much energy.
We're probably institutionally stuck with the 10 point system for a while, so I think the best solution is to strongly encourage judges to use scores other than 10-9 more often. If neither fighter did much, just make it a 10-10. You don't get 10-9 anymore unless you clearly won the round. What we would today call a 10-8, make that a 10-7, and lets have 10-8 more often for when a fighter didn't just win, but hurt the other fighter. This would probably result in more draws, but thats fine. [Reply]
Holly Holm signed a new multi-year deal with the UFC. Terms unknown, but I assume the UFC is giving her PPV points so she'll stop complaining about having to wait until UFC 200 [Reply]