You say ''diehard Diaz fan or not'' but then also say only a Diaz hater fan could disagree...come on man. Don't do this ''anyone that doesn't like ____ or disagrees with the decision must be a hater'' because that's ******ed Sherdog poster logic.
No, that was just a copy and paste from other sites that I purposely put to get under people's skin and bait them to argue with me. I put something similar here without that sentence since I respect the posters here.
Octagon Control: Diaz tried to push the fight up against the cage and failed. The fight was fought mostly in the center of the Octagon, where Condit put it. How would that be ''control'' by Diaz? Sounds like the exact opposite to me. Had Diaz successfully put him against the cage THAT would indicate control, not allowing his opponent to slip out of harms way every fucking time while also outstriking him.
Diaz pushed Condit back the entire fight... that's octagon control to me and seems to be the case with most people who watched the fight. What if Diaz didn't move forward? There would have been no fight. Diaz controlled where the fight went since he was the one willing to engage.
By your logic, man, Bisping had octagon control in the Sonnen fight because he defended Chael's takedowns nicely and kept the fight from going to the ground the first 2 rounds. That just doesn't make sense.
Aggression: This is one of the dumbest aspects of winning a fight that the unified rules has because it means fucking nothing. So coming forward and swinging...no matter how much you are out struck by...wins you this category? Because that's what Diaz did...he came forward. He didn't land as much, he missed much more than Condit.
No matter how dumb you think it is it's in the unified rules so it must be counted. So, looking at round 1 since that's the toss up round, the striking is pretty much even (even though I still personally give Diaz the edge for it), octagon control is apparently debatable to you so that goes either way, there was no grappling... that leaves it to aggression, and Diaz UNQUESTIONABLY takes that. He wins round 1 based on aggression, because it IS a factor whether you like it or not.
And again, if aggression doesn't matter, then by your logic on octagon control, Bisping beat Sonnen 2 rounds to 1 in their fight on Fox. Yet, I bet you won't make that argument, will you?
If you say Sonnen beat Bisping then you're completely contradicting yourself here. Just because Diaz/Condit was a stand-up battle and Bisping/Sonnen was a grappling struggle, it doesn't make it a difference with what your saying. A fight's a fight, and if we were arguing about the decision in the Sonnen/Bisping fight, you'd be arguing for Bisping with your logic when it comes to Diaz vs. Condit.
Offense: I laugh so God damn hard at ''baby leg kicks''. Diaz had slowed down quite a bit towards the later rounds because of those ''baby leg kicks''. Condit is one of the most potent strikers, and finishers obviously, in entire division and even MMA as a whole. There is nothing about his offense that is ''baby''. Diaz is KNOWN as a volume striker who doesn't possess a lot of power, he's even fucking said it himself. That sounds more like ''baby'' strength offense to me.
Whether they "slowed" him down by the end of the fight (which I don't agree with anyway since Diaz was able to get a takedown in the final round) or not, that doesn't take away from the fact that punches to the head and body > leg kicks, period. And Diaz should get the edge in the striking department for the first two rounds because of that.
Again, Shogun beat Machida with ''baby kicks'' and if I remember correctly you agreed before that Rua got robbed in that first fight. Watch boxing if you don't credit leg kicks.
Shogun moved forward that entire fight and threw much more than just leg kicks. Bad comparison.
The myth that Diaz outlanded Condit by a huge margin in power strikes is pretty weak as well: The margin that Diaz outlanded Condit in terms of body shots wasn't that large as it was 6 (for jabs to the body) and only a 2% difference in body power shots. Condit actually outlanded Diaz percentage wise for power head shots. So what was that about baby kicks to earn points? If Condit's ''baby kicks'' shouldn't be scored for much, than neither should Nick's ''baby jabs''. And if neither are scored, than Nick loses because of less landed power head shots.
I saw Condit land one good punch on Diaz and even that was goofy looking and it was in Round 4 I believe, but that was it, whereas I saw Diaz's punches knock Condit's head back multiple times, so yeah... edge: Diaz.
Moreover, Condit is medically suspended because of damage to his face, whereras Nick didn't get medically suspended at all. That tells me everything I need to know when it comes to "significant striking" in this fight.
Fighting to Finish: The fact that people are saying Condit, a man who has finished 26 of 28 wins, didn't try to or wouldn't have tried to finish Diaz had the opportunity aroseis absurd. They love giving credit to Diaz for everything else, why isn't his known toughness a factor in why Condit didn't get a finish? People didn't give Condit shit for not finishing Ellenberger who is also known as a very tough guy to put down. The funniest part is Diaz himself saying ''I would have finished the armbar had I known I was behind on the cards'' is the fucking DEFINITION of points fighting. He's saying he could have finished but didn't go for it because he thought he was ahead on points. Fact is, Condit has more finished than Diaz has total wins.
I don't know why you said this because I didn't bring it up. Going for the finish has nothing to do with winning a fight under American MMA rules.
And I also said Diaz was full of shit in that armbar comment.
I'll never understood how Diaz fandom can turn an otherwise unbiased thinking guy (not speaking of just you in particular jmt) into someone who can't put aside their feelings and see shit for how it went down. So Condit didn't win because he was smart enough to not fall into Diaz's trap? The one that so many illogical fighters have fallen for? He didn't buy into Diaz's talk, did what he wanted it to do, did it with a finesse and strategy that Diaz couldn't deal with. Credit to Diaz for a tough fight, but he didn't change his game up at all and his one dimensional mentality (striking wise) cost him the fight. Had he taken down Condit sooner he could have subbed him, which was my official pre-fight prediction.
Dude, all I'm saying is that if you break down the fight round-by-round, Diaz should win rounds 1, 2, and 5 based on American MMA judging criteria, with round 1 being the only one that's debatable. And I gave my reasons why I gave the edge to Diaz for that round, and they make complete and total sense. And many professional fighters and analyst agree that Diaz won, so it's not just "nuthuggers."
You can't say I'm not thinking logically about this. My points are all valid.
