UFC
-
Johnny Hendricks controlled the fight and owned Condit. Okie boy throwin' punches and taken mothers down. Cowboy up.
-
Wrestling is def "part" of the sport. I just think that a TD shouldnt be scored so high if it didnt do anything. If its a big slam, right on. Or if u take someone down and actually beat on them or try subs, good for u. I just hate that the lil cheese TD's that johnny did were what won him the fight. I know guys should be able to stop them but some dudes are just really good at doing them and exploit the point system to get a W. Look at GSP fuck. The guy is a great martial artist but is affraid to actually fight anymore so instead of doing so he "lays and prays" for 25mins and gets wins. Thats not fighting IMO
-
He def landed some good strikes but so did condit. The TDs were weak, didnt do any damage and johnny didnt do anything with them. All in all besides the TDs i think condit fought a better and harder fight. Judging is pretty sad when all 3 went to hendricks. I could atleast see it being a split but def not unanimous for hendricks. Both guys are great but i hate seeing fights won/lost by weak takedowns. Those dont win in the street or the cage as far as im concerned
-
The TDs were weak
The takedowns were great. He took Condit down at will and he controlled a very good grappler trying to be offensive off his back for several minutes during the fight. I would also argue that Hendricks controlled the fight on the feet. He had far more hard hits and rocked Condit several times. I agree completely with this analysis: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1570615-ufc-158-st-pierre-vs-diaz-the-jack-slack-breakdown
-
The TDs were def NOT great lol. Everyone was lazy and slow. Condit was stupid to not stop them i agree. All im trying to get across is that TDs like that shouldnt be worth so much in the eyes of the judges. They didnt do any damage and hendricks didnt do anything once he got condit to the ground, no gnp and no sub attempts. Condit did more damage off of his back then hendricks did on top. He was only taking him down for points and i think that needs to be changed in the rules. I am a long time MMA fan and i appreciate all aspects of the sport but i cant get behind people winning on account of TDs (unless they are slams or are done for a reason eg. set up subs or gnp). At the end of the day the condit/hendricks fight was great, i was just disapointed how the judges scored it 3rds to 0 due to insignificant TDs
-
Already set on the PVR but probably watch on sunday instead
-
What do you guy's think of Mark Hunt? He's a cult hero here in New Zealand.
Good fighter but against JDS, no chance in hell
… he's got a punches chance?
-
What do you guy's think of Mark Hunt? He's a cult hero here in New Zealand.
Good fighter but against JDS, no chance in hell
… he's got a punches chance?
I would say that JDS better not underestimate the striking of Hunt. While JDS is faster, has longer reach, a far better groundgame, Hunt has a more versatile standup-game than JDS (JDS pretty much does two combos, he just does those two very well..) and he can really put the lights out on anyone. Would be an upset though. Considering putting some money on Hunt for old time's sake ..
