Moving Backward

When last night’s UFC 143 fight between Nick Diaz and Carlos Condit finished, I figured the biggest controversy would be about which judge would inexplicably award the fight to Diaz, who had just fought a stubborn and ineffective fight against Condit. When I heard UFC color commentator Joe Rogan say he thought Diaz might have won the fifth round, I figured he must have been playing devil’s advocate. When I saw Diaz raise his arms in apparent triumph after the final bell, I just figured Diaz was either out of his mind, following the (completely useless) time-honored tradition of pretending to have won the fight as if it would sway the judges, or both.

I saw no reason for this fight to result in any sort of controversy, aside from what I felt would be an unavoidably awful scorecard for Diaz. Even as the consistently bad judging in MMA has made me cynical, I was naïve enough to think there was nothing wrong with Condit’s performance and that he had, in fact, fought brilliantly. Little did I know that in MMA, it is apparently a sin to fight while moving backward.

Of course, people don’t see a problem with moving the sport backward, however.

I’m now aware that there is a second cousin of the antiquated line of thinking that “the guy on the bottom is automatically losing the fight.” Indeed, it is apparently impossible to win an MMA fight if you are not moving forward…all the time.

So, we’re not talking about the close split decision victory of Josh Koscheck over Mike Pierce, which I thought was too close to be controversial, but expected to hear complaining about, nonetheless (all close MMA fights result in a “robbery” nowadays). We’re not even discussing the ridiculous two-point deduction that sabotaged any chance of Alex Caceres defeating Edwin Figueroa on the preliminary card.

It’s okay to win a fight because you get kicked a couple of times in the nads. It’s just not okay to win a fight while outstriking your opponent 159-117 while using evasive footwork.

There are two things that strike me about the Diaz-Condit non-troversy. They are:

1) Whether or not it can be successfully argued that Diaz won the fight, and

2) The reason for the uproar itself, what it means about the sport and whether we as fans have evolved as quickly as the sport has (spoiler alert: we haven’t).

The first point is not nearly as interesting, but as a show of good faith I will take a look at this, since this is ostensibly an MMA article and not an exploration of our culture and its interaction with the sport we at least claim to love.

Can you say Diaz won the fight? I suppose you can, in the same way that you can say that Tito Ortiz is the greatest UFC champion of all-time or that Affliction had a real shot at challenging the UFC if Josh Barnett had cycled off the ‘roids a little quicker. What I want to know is if someone can create a truly compelling case for the matter, though. So far, I haven’t seen it.

If your perspective is that “you can’t win a fight by running backwards,” we have little to discuss. There is no such decree in the judging criteria (which, we should all remember, is what judges use to score fights, not the “macho man-laws of combat as written by Drunk Guy in the Stands.” I can understand, I suppose, if you can’t get over the idea of a guy using evasive footwork and controlling distance and occasionally, yes, even jogging away several feet to create space after circling off of the cage to win a fight.

However, when you say that Condit was using this tactic to AVOID the fight, I can’t help but raise an eyebrow. Tell me, if you would, how a person “avoids a fight” while throwing 329 strikes over five rounds? It’s not as if this was a jab-fest, either. Condit threw 73 power punches to the head and another 19 to the body.

Also, when you say he was “running away,” you’re relying on exaggeration as the foundation of your argument. Generally in a fight, one person moves forward and the other moves backward. Was Condit “running away” because he didn’t want to stupidly let Diaz trap him against the cage and throw a couple of dozen punches his way?

Furthermore, is that a cowardly decision, or simply a smart one? Let me tell you, I’ve seen people run away from fights, and they actually run away from fights. They don’t throw over three hundred strikes at the person they are supposedly frightened of.

Rounds one and two can go to Diaz. I split them, personally, giving the first round to Condit and the second to Diaz. I’m okay with close rounds going either way, though. I think fighters should be, too. Scoring is an inexact science, no matter how badly we want it to be otherwise. It’s incomprehensible to me, however, how anyone can score the fifth for Diaz.

Before I go into it, let me remind you that if you are not using the actual criteria that the judges are instructed to use to score fights, your opinion on who won a round or the fight is invalid. I don’t say that to be a jerk; it is simply true. I’ve seen people say, “I always favor the guy who does x or y,” and that’s great, but it has no place when criticizing the work of a judge who is using completely different criteria. If you want to say that judging criteria should be reformed, I won’t argue, but that’s another topic entirely.

So, we’ve got a fifth round where Diaz is outstruck by Condit for three and a half minutes before taking him down with 90 seconds left. Condit landed 30 strikes to 19. Okay, you say, but he wasn’t landing the harder shots; he was just landing jabs. No, he also landed more power strikes than Diaz, at 25 to 17. Well, you might say, but he inflated the numbers with those “baby leg kicks”, right? Nope, he also landed more shots to the head (16) than Diaz (10) in the fifth.

What about the takedown, though? What about taking Condit’s back and threatening him with a rear naked choke and an armbar?

Let’s look at the scoring criteria and see what it has to say:

“The same rational holds true if 90% of the round were standing. Thus:
-Clean striking would be weighed first (fighter most effective)
-Clean grappling second (any takedowns or effective clinching)
-Octagon control (Which fighter maintained better position? Which fighter created the situations that led to effective strikes?)”

Seventy percent of that last round took place standing up, where Condit was the more active, accurate and powerful striker. Thirty percent took place on the ground, and is weighed thusly. Moreover, what did Diaz do while on the mat? He held a dominant position, which I willingly agree is worth something. However, he never truly threatened with the rear naked choke and the armbar (that he alleged he almost had Condit with) was escaped before the round ended. As the round ended, Diaz was on all fours and Condit was straddling him, striking him. Let’s not forget that judges are to also give credit for submission ESCAPES and being able to reverse position, as Condit did at the end of that round.

What about the other rounds, though? What about aggression and Octagon control?

Here’s the thing about aggression: as it’s spelled out in the judging criteria, it doesn’t necessarily work in favor of Diaz’s performance. Sure, it says that effective aggressiveness “simply means who is moving forward and finding success.” However, does landing a lower percentage of your strikes (45% for Diaz to 48% for Condit) and being out-struck constitute “success”? As it turns out, no. “Throwing strikes and not landing is not effective aggressiveness,” we are told. Most damningly, it is stated that “moving forward and getting struck is not effective aggressiveness.”

As far as Octagon control goes, who dictated “the pace, place and position of the fight”? We could argue all night about whether Diaz was steering Condit around the cage or if Condit was getting Diaz to foolishly chase him. I do know one thing: Diaz wanted the fight right up against the fence, and he tried many, many times to get it there and keep it there. He was unable to. Where did Condit want Diaz? At the end of his kicks and away from the fence. Where did the majority of the fight take place? Where Condit wanted it. Looking at Diaz’s frustration and taunts throughout the fight, do you think he was satisfied with the pace, place and position of the fight?

Finally, there’s a particular thing I’ve been hearing that drives me nuts, and that’s someone saying, “I just don’t think you should be able to win a fight by running away,” followed by, “I gave rounds 1, 2 and 5 to Diaz.”

Wait…so you can win a round by “running away”, but not a fight? So, I suppose there’s simply a two-round limit for running away? You can win two rounds that way, but no more! No more, I say! I mean, where in the judging criteria is that spelled out, exactly? Do we really want judges to be given the opportunity to punish fighters for not being exciting enough by refusing to give them credit for a clearly-won round? Don’t we have enough problems as it is with these people?

So, let’s move on to the more compelling part of the issue, which is why in the world so many fans, fighters and even trainers are mortified that someone would be given a well-earned decision while fighting the way that Condit did.

Sure, there’s the macho, old school approach, which will always be a part of the sport in some way. You’ve heard it before: it’s not right to fight for the judges instead of going for the finish, it’s supposed to be a FIGHT, etc. Everyone from Pat Miletich and Jake Ellenberger to Daniel Cormier and Ronda Rousey seemed disgusted by the judges’ decision. I respect all of those individuals (even Rousey, though she’s better than the Chael Sonnen act she’s been doing lately), but have to disagree.

It’s great to finish your opponent. I think that when he had the chance, Condit tried to do so. However, to expect Condit to play Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots with Diaz even after watching Diaz destroy opponent after opponent who fell into that trap is silly. So, in the biggest spot of Condit’s career, he’s supposed to beat his chest and go bravely into a type of fight that he is much less likely to win rather than using a rather intelligent strategy that Diaz won’t expect and that could lead to a better future for himself and his family?

Probably not a big fan of the Diaz-Condit fight

In terms of the fans, I’m tempted to lump a lot of these characters in with the classic “Just Bleed” guy. Look, not every fight is going to be a blood bath. I enjoy a good brawl as much as the next person, but are there really fans out there who don’t look forward to seeing how someone will finally solve Jon Jones’ reach? Or who didn’t want to see how someone would counter Diaz’s volume striking? To me, seeing a perfectly-executed strategy may not make for an endlessly-rewatchable classic bout, but is just as compelling during the first viewing itself.

Many, including myself, have wondered why MMA fighters are held to standards that other athletes are not. Nobody in LA was pissed that the Lakers won the title in an almost unwatchable Game 7 in the 2010 NBA Finals. Most people weren’t expecting the New York Giants or New England Patriots to do anything other than try to win tonight. Entertainment is secondary in most other sports.

In the past, I’ve thought that maybe it’s due to the fact that as an individual sport, fans often don’t have the emotional ties to a fight’s participants that they do to professional sports teams. However, that doesn’t stop NASCAR fans or golf fans from enjoying races or tournaments where a) their favorite participant does not win and b) nothing particularly memorable happens.

I think we’re all on the wrong track, though. The problem is two-fold, and one aspect is what I touched upon earlier: “these are supposed to be fights, damn it!” What’s the first thing we often hear when we show someone their first MMA fight? “It looks like they’re humping!” or whatever predictable comment someone comes up with to sum up the (admittedly awkward-looking, at first) ground game. Furthermore, can anyone ever remember a schoolyard fight (or YouTube fight, if your school was relatively conflict-free) that didn’t feature onlookers who impatiently called for more action while themselves staying safely away from the activity itself?

The second part of the problem is overlooked, and it’s the pay-per-view business model. If we had to pay $44.99 to watch the Super Bowl every year, you can bet that people would start complaining if the games themselves were stinkers. For our time, we don’t ask much. For our money, we demand entertainment. By placing a large price sticker on MMA events, the UFC implicitly promises that you will be entertained by the fights you are paying for. While Dana White is quick to point out that not every card can be the best one ever, he’s just as quick to defend the stinkers by saying that most of the time, you’re going to get great fights for your money. When he says “great fights”, he’s not talking about title implications or intriguing strategies. He’s talking about highlight-reel finishes, intense brawls and so forth.

Which brings me back to the beginning of all this. The sport has evolved, but many of the fans haven’t. Most MMA fighters understand that while being in an exciting fight is better than being in a boring one, and finishing your opponent is better than eking out a decision, their job is first and foremost to WIN. Why do so many fans struggle with that reality? Furthermore, while many of us are first captivated by the sport due to the spectacle and yes, the brutality, why haven’t more of us come to appreciate the skill and technique involved? Why is “strategy” still a bad word? Why are great coaches in other sports worshipped, while Greg Jackson steadily becomes a symbol of what is supposedly wrong in MMA?

I’m not going to tell you what should entertain you. Only you know your specific tastes. I’m not going to admonish you for not enjoying Diaz-Condit, either. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it. However, the sport is not going to move backward, even if many fans yearn for the balls-out brawlers of days past instead of the hyper-athletic strategists we have today.

In other words, while I can’t make you appreciate a fight like Diaz-Condit, you will enjoy MMA a lot more if you can learn to do so.

E-Mail Jon Hartley
Follow Jon Hartley on Twitter

Tags: Carlos Condit, Nick Diaz, non-troversies, UFC, UFC 143