robj55;1079684 wrote:When did you become the end all be all when it comes to decisions? Just curious.

Raw Dawgin' it;1079723 wrote:and some people say this decision was a mistake, what's your point?

Just watch the damned fights. Damage done is what I'm looking at.

This fight has a lot of controversy because there are a ton of people who think Diaz won because he was walking forward. That's not how that works.

Anyway, I'd be all for a rematch as it would surely be exciting. We'll see if Diaz agrees.

So what happens if Diaz win the rematch? gonna be a part 3??

Enforcer;1079737 wrote:So what happens if Diaz win the rematch? gonna be a part 3??

if it's decisive then no and the ufc will have their dream match with gsp and diaz.

Raw Dawgin' it;1079523 wrote:Not much different than Rua and Machida.

Disagree Rua was robbed, Diaz lost!

Fab1b;1079772 wrote:Disagree Rua was robbed, Diaz lost!

pretty sure being robbed goes down as a loss and then gives the fight some controversy. Diaz lost and a lot of people believe he didn't, this also gives the fight controversy and sets it up for a re match. They were both close decisions, how is your opinion that rua was robbed different from someones opinion that diaz was too?

Raw Dawgin' it;1079777 wrote:pretty sure being robbed goes down as a loss and then gives the fight some controversy. Diaz lost and a lot of people believe he didn't, this also gives the fight controversy and sets it up for a re match. They were both close decisions, how is your opinion that rua was robbed different from someones opinion that diaz was too?

But the people who thought Rua lost noted things like "he landed more strikes and did more damage". The people who thought Diaz won note things like "HE WAS MOVING FORWARD". Not quite the same argument.

I Wear Pants;1079789 wrote:But the people who thought Rua lost noted things like "he landed more strikes and did more damage". The people who thought Diaz won note things like "HE WAS MOVING FORWARD". Not quite the same argument.

i'm not arguing why they lost, i'm just saying that the Rua Machida fight had a lot of controversy and there was a rematch. This fight has a ton of controversy and now there is a rematch. Am i speaking chinese? I know the reasons why people argue one way or another, but with a decision so close that has this many people split about it, plus the gact GSP is out until november, it makes sense to have a rematch.

i'm not trying to argue who won the diaz condit fight. personally i'd rather see condit ellenberger, but i get why they're doing a rematch

I just can't compare the Rua/Machida result to the Diaz/Condit result, one was a clear robbery and controversy and the other was clear to me that Condit won with no controversy!

Fab1b;1079815 wrote:I just can't compare the Rua/Machida result to the Diaz/Condit result, one was a clear robbery and controversy and the other was clear to me that Condit won with no controversy!

except there is controversy whether you see it that way or not.

Only reason theres controvery is because Everyone thought Diaz was gonna walk through Condit, Now they are making Excuses for the loss.

Enforcer;1079829 wrote:Only reason theres controvery is because Everyone thought Diaz was gonna walk through Condit, Now they are making Excuses for the loss.

yeah i never heard anything like that.

That and the bigger money fight is Diaz/GSP.....that is the only reason there is controversy here $$ and ratings!

Fab1b;1079857 wrote:That and the bigger money fight is Diaz/GSP.....that is the only reason there is controversy here $$ and ratings!

I agree ufc wants that fight. Personally i think Condit v Ellenberger would be awesome, if Ellenberger beats Sanchez.

Raw Dawgin' it;1079801 wrote:i'm not arguing why they lost, i'm just saying that the Rua Machida fight had a lot of controversy and there was a rematch. This fight has a ton of controversy and now there is a rematch. Am i speaking chinese? I know the reasons why people argue one way or another, but with a decision so close that has this many people split about it, plus the gact GSP is out until november, it makes sense to have a rematch.

I get that there is controversy.

I'm arguing that the decision wasn't that close.

I Wear Pants;1079868 wrote:I get that there is controversy.

I'm arguing that the decision wasn't that close.

"On press row, it seemed that journalists were about 50/50 on who they scored the fight for ... maybe a bit of a lean towards Condit." - Brett Okomoto, ESPN MMA analyst.

Clearly enough people did. The only reason i'd be against the rematch is if Diaz wins a close decision, other than that it makes sense to me. I'd also rather see these guys fight before november.

Carlos Condit vs. Nick Diaz II already a no-go, says Cesar Gracie

http://mmajunkie.com/news/27345/carlos-condit-vs-nick-diaz-ii-already-a-no-go-says-cesar-gracie.mma

Enforcer;1079829 wrote:Only reason theres controvery is because Everyone thought Diaz was gonna walk through Condit, Now they are making Excuses for the loss.

QFT

The fact the we are even having this conversation shows that there is a clear need for a better understanding of what wins rounds.

robj55;1079962 wrote:The fact the we are even having this conversation shows that there is a clear need for a better understanding of what wins rounds.

I would say if the round is standing the whole time, if one guy lands more total strikes, and more power strikes, then having to hear the fans from the other guy whine about "but he was walking forward" is bull crap.

If I'm circling away but beat the snot out of you in a fight, would anyone watching the fight besides your buddies think you won the fight just because you were walking forward?

If striking was equal then you start to look at "octagon control" which still doesn't say anything about "walking forward". In a strict definition of the phrase, Condit could be said to have controled the Octagon just as much as Diaz as he made Diaz play HIS game instead of letting Diaz corner him and press him into the cage.

I honestly don't know how ANYONE could give Diaz the rounds where he was outstruck and the whole round was on the feet. That makes zero sense to me.

jmog;1079975 wrote:I would say if the round is standing the whole time, if one guy lands more total strikes, and more power strikes, then having to hear the fans from the other guy whine about "but he was walking forward" is bull crap.

If I'm circling away but beat the snot out of you in a fight, would anyone watching the fight besides your buddies think you won the fight just because you were walking forward?

If striking was equal then you start to look at "octagon control" which still doesn't say anything about "walking forward". In a strict definition of the phrase, Condit could be said to have controled the Octagon just as much as Diaz as he made Diaz play HIS game instead of letting Diaz corner him and press him into the cage.

I honestly don't know how ANYONE could give Diaz the rounds where he was outstruck and the whole round was on the feet. That makes zero sense to me.

Just remember Roy Nelson was moving forward the whole time against Werdum!

jmog;1079975 wrote:I would say if the round is standing the whole time, if one guy lands more total strikes, and more power strikes, then having to hear the fans from the other guy whine about "but he was walking forward" is bull crap.

If I'm circling away but beat the snot out of you in a fight, would anyone watching the fight besides your buddies think you won the fight just because you were walking forward?

If striking was equal then you start to look at "octagon control" which still doesn't say anything about "walking forward". In a strict definition of the phrase, Condit could be said to have controled the Octagon just as much as Diaz as he made Diaz play HIS game instead of letting Diaz corner him and press him into the cage.

I honestly don't know how ANYONE could give Diaz the rounds where he was outstruck and the whole round was on the feet. That makes zero sense to me.

A counter point to that is what is worth more, leg strikes or shots to the body and head? Also, you cannot have octagon control walking backwards the whole fight, that makes no sense. Machida lost to Rampage basically because of that. As far as your point about the rounds being equal in striking and octagon control and aggression making the difference in who won the round, I made that argument the other day. Carlos outstruck Nick by 2 in the first round but Nick controlled the pace and was by far the aggressor. Second round Nick otustruck Carlos and again had octagon control and was the aggressor. That's 2 rounds. The 5th round almost everyone gave Diaz too because of the takedown and the dominant position and sub attempts. That's 3 rounds, 3 out of 5 is winning. What's crazy is that the judges gave Nick the 3rd round on the two 49-46 cards, which was a close round but I though Carlos stole near the end.

There is a rumor that Nick can't take the rematch because he tested positive for marijuana, all speculation at this point though.

robj55;1080180 wrote:There is a rumor that Nick can't take the rematch because he tested positive for marijuana, all speculation at this point though.

Wouldn't be surprised there as it has happened before, or was that Nate, heck both?