1/10/2016 8:59:20 PM
|Photo credit: Bleacher Report|
I saw the main event of UFC 195 last week. It’s been a very long while since the last time I have seen a very good fight at the MMA world.
Perhaps, a good fight; but with a ‘disgusting’ result. A split decision was awarded to Robbie Lawler; thus making his title defense successful once again despite his opponent Carlos Condit (the fourth contender for their division) dominating on majority of the fight.
Like seriously, when I saw the replays, it was quite clear that Rounds 1, 3 and 4 went in favor of Condit; while 5 were for Lawler, and the second period was quite a fair-odds game.
And especially when the statistics were flashed at the screen for few seconds, it’s very obvious that Condit were striking hard and performing very well.
But more than just numbers game, I think what happened to this fight was similar to the other clashes in combat sports. Take for instance, Pacquiao-Marquez III where despite the dominance laid down by the latter, it was still the Filipino top boxer who emerged victorious in a controversial decision. This is where every viewer was figuring out what happened and what went wrong (and even right upon understanding everything).
I guess, judges score based on not just every statistical and efficiency categories. It’s more than that. It can even be considered a different thing.
It’s as similar to a basketball game: it doesn’t matter if you’re outnumbered on other categories, be it rebounding, assist, defensive stuff (steals and blocks), or even by the number of players and efficiency ratings . At the end, it all boils down on how many points you have scored; and if it’s barely enough to win over your opponent.
Yes, it’s all about out-pointing your opponent.
So perhaps, that already speaks a lot. Though I think both fighters are agreeing with the sloppish decision. Lawler found a classical fight in Condit so he wanted to do it again. Condit, on the other hand, dropped a word that he though his effort was enough to dethrone Robbie. But no, even if he thought he had three out of five rounds.
Now, what could be the factor here? Is it because of “championship rounds” where it was a 1-1 despite an established dominance early in the contest?
But fuck it. Sports science can be really a complicated subject. It's not just about the numbers. It also has physicality, efficiency, and whatsoever technicalities that has yet to be understood in a layman's term. And being an instant analyst will not make you a legitimate expert even for a short while.
Just let the rematch happen.
Author: slickmaster | © 2016 september twenty-eight productions