Something quite bizarre happened last night: the main event at UFC 143 consisted of Nick Diaz stalking Carlos Condit while the latter spent the entire fight either backtracking or literally running away. One can sum up the bout by saying that Nick Diaz came to fight, and Carlos Condit didn't. Diaz conclusively won rounds 1, 2 and 5 (the 4th legitimately went to Condit, and the 3rd was a close call). Towards the end of the fight, Diaz got Condit to the ground and took his back, had him in a body triangle, and nearly finished the fight via a beautiful arm lock (not common from that position). It was the cherry that topped what should've been an obvious Diaz victory. When it was time for the judges' decision, the words "by unanimous decision" were perfectly expected, but the name that followed them wasn't. The judges had decided that Condit won the fight.
There was a time early on in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) when bad decisions could be blamed on judges' lack of familiarity with the intricacies of MMA (mistaking pulling guard for falling, not recognizing subtle position shifts and submission attempts, etc.). But over the past decade, particularly under Dana White's leadership, the UFC mainstreamed MMA to a point where we should be able to assume that those selected to judge it know what they're actually looking at by now.
Condit explained in the post-fight press conference that the game plan was to strike and run away, because actually coming to really fight would've likely given Diaz the victory (not quite in those words, but listen to it yourself and judge). The judges ignored Diaz's control of the octagon, his near submission of Condit, and decided the strategy of occasional striking and frequent running was a good one.
Following the decision, my friends and I sat there in disbelief at the sports bar where we watched the event, and one of them speculated that granting the victory to Condit may have been a PR decision motivated by seeking to promote better representatives for the sport. With the UFC breaking ever deeper into the mainstream (and recently making it onto Fox), the speculation is that disrespectful trash-talkers like Nick Diaz are not the best representatives of the image the UFC would like to project. It is phenomenal fighters likes George St. Pierre (GSP) and Jon "Bones" Jones, who also carry themselves with class, who project the best image for the sport (and that much is pretty much true).
Of course, the idea of PR decisions influencing bout outcomes is extremely far-fetched, and last night's outcome is particularly so, given the hype that awaited a potential GSP/Diaz fight for the Welterweight belt (the UFC definitely wouldn't have wanted to miss out on that). But the decision to grant victory to Condit was so absurd that even informed MMA fans could not help but wonder about things we knew were very unlikely.
The most likely explanation is, once again, that the judges didn't know what they were doing. This is inexcusable. Because of their incompetence, a great fighter like Diaz said last night that he was quitting the sport (whether that was just venting in a moment of frustration or whether it was a serious decision remains to be seen). Diaz said "I don't need this sh*t, you know what I mean?! I pushed this guy backwards. He ran from me the whole fight... If that was the way they understand how to win in here, I don't want to play this game no more."
Of course, it's not about Diaz or any one fighter in particular, it's about respecting MMA fans' understanding of the sport. We're not just there to watch brawls or fancy spinning back kicks (well, at least many of us aren't there just for that), we're there because we appreciate both the intensity and the complexity of this great sport (I would argue "greatest" sport, but that's a whole other article). That's why a serious effort should be made to get better judges into the sport. I don't have to agree with their decisions 100% of the time. They should just pick a winner for whom a plausible case for victory could be made. Condit's "victory" was nothing of the kind.
As for the fighters, there are two lessons they could've taken away from the fight: the first lesson is that running away is a good way to earn yourself a victory. The second lesson is one that Dana White himself continuously urges: finish fights so their outcome is not up to judges. For the sake of the sport, let's hope their takeaway is the latter lesson, not the first.
Follow Omar Baddar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omarbaddar
Diaz: 111 Condit: 91
If you want to see leg kicks, see Jose Aldo, Anderson Silva, or Thiago Alves. Hitting the opponent with your foot (rather than the shin) is not an effective leg kick.
2. "Look at Diaz's Face!" I guess these commenters have never watched a Diaz Fight. If you look closely at his face, it looks like a scratch (toenail?) not some major damage
3. "Condit was in and out/had great footwork" Backpedaling 80% of the fight while not throwing effective strikes is not footwork. Effective footwork is taking a stepor two avoiding the strike and countering; not backing away 15 feet and making the opponent chase you.
4. "Diaz didn't land anything/he couldn't take him down. When your opponent is backing away constantly, how is he supposed to land? What if Diaz just decided to stand in the middle of the cage and not CHASE Condit? If Diaz didn't "stalk" "walk down" Condit, there wouldn't have been a fight.
I was a big Carlos Condit Fan before this fight. You watch any of his previous fights and listen to his Primetime/Countdown interviews (saying how he'll die in the cage, blah blah) and you can only conclude that he fought to win, not finish. Thanks Greg Jackson!
Condit has fought more dangerous strikers (Hardy) and seemed to have no problem engaging, so why now?
If this is the way MMA is going (going for points and decisions) I'll go watch my old UFC/Vale Tudo Fights.
Finishes are what made MMA exciting. If now fighters will tap and run, "lay n' pray," why bother?
Dan Hardy is not a more dangerous striker. He is more powerful, but he is not very good. He merely wings shots. Anybody with decent speed and footwork can take him out. Diaz, on the other hand,is very hard to put down and has insane cardio matched only by a few other fighters. And if Diaz was trying to finish the fight so much, why was he plodding around so slowly?
Fighters in modern MMA have been going for points AT LEAST since the era of Marco Ruas, who deliberately exerted as little energy as possible in fights to outpoint people. You know...UFC and Vale Tudo champ Marco Ruas? There were plenty of non-finishes in that era and many of the finishes there WERE came due to a lack of grappling or overall fight knowledge on the part of the competitors.
Fighters are IMPROVING, that's why they're becoming harder to finish. I can point to literally any UFC title fight ever that went to a decision and show you 10-100 points where oldschool UFC and vale tudo fighters would have been finished. Remember when the guillotine was an automatic fight-ender? Now we have guys who can't be guillotined like Ebersole because THEY FIGURED OUT HOW TO DEFEND. Your sort of complaints have been heard after every fight which goes to a decision, ever. This is tiresome.
2. What's your point? Condit's face still looked better than Diaz's. And Diaz had surgery so his face wouldn't bleed as easily. Condit hasn't.
3. 15 feet? Do you know how long a foot is? The only time they were 15 feet apart was befor the bell rung each round.
4. Yes, he should have stood there or chased him. Had he just stood in the center, Condit would have changed his gameplan. The difference between them is Condit can change from round to round. Diaz can't.
But he went backwards and sideways, so he loses? Pfffft.
4. Like everyone has already tried to tell you, CUT OFF THE CAGE. Read the transcript of Diaz's corner literally BEGGING him to do that in the last couple of rounds. If Diaz stood in the center of the cage and did nothing Condit would land leg kicks on him the same way he did when Diaz stood still and tried to taunt him into a punching exchange that no technical striker would fall for. Duh.
FTW,Diaz 209..
As far as being incompetent goes, isn't the pot talking to the kettle when a political science blogger is sounding off on something he has a clearly rudimentary understanding of?
Diaz did not "conclusively win" Rounds 1 and 5 as he was so confident to say.
This was an extremely close fight. Not an "obvious victory"
If we're making implications about things, please find my implication in this quote: "Following the decision, my friends and I sat there in disbelief at the sports bar where we watched the event"
I do agree with the author on a few choice statements. Intensity and Complexity are both amazing reasons why MMA is such an incredible sport. I would recommend Mr. Baddar take some time to do some intensive research into the complexity he mentioned prior to making any further articles about the sport.
If landing more strikes doesn't win rounds and winning rounds does, then writing articles about judging doesn't make you a judge. Nor does being a former or current fighter (who the author is quick to bring to his defense). I am a certified judge. I've paid my money, studied my ass off, passed the courses and have the certificates to prove it. Condit won that fight.