Robbie Lawler defended his belt against Carlos Condit at UFC 195, in a similar fashion to his fight against Johny Hendricks in their rematch. He poured it on in the fifth round and made a statement to the judges. The final minute of the fight, Lawler imprinted his dominance by finishing strong with a heavy volume of powerful strikes.
Condit outlanded Lawler significantly, but it was Lawler who seemed to land the bigger shots and significantly damage his opponent.
Lawler said in the post-fight interview that both men emerged as victorious that night, but there can only be one champion. Because of the scoring system, either fighter could have had his hand raised, but lack of clarity on the judges part left many fans and media questioning the outcome of the decision.
Once Again, MMA Judges and Public Opinion Collide
The judges need to be clear about their scoring criteria. It isn’t enough that we endorse Dana Whites credo of “don’t leave it in the hands of the judges.”
Some fights will inevitably go to a decision, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The reality is that certain judges weigh “damage” more heavily than the statistics (output, etc).
In other words, some judges use qualitative analysis for scoring rounds, while others use quantitative analysis.
The MMA community needs to have a discussion about judging criteria and whether the rule set adequately serves its purpose.
Fortunately, in Condits case, he gained more praise and respect losing to Lawler at UFC 195 than he did by beating Nick Diaz at UFC 143.
There are good arguments to be made for Lawer winning the fight, and good arguments for Condit. Ultimately, we see the judges erring on the side of the incumbent champion when a fight is close within a certain margin. The prevailing wisdom is, you have to convincingly take the belt from the champion, not simply edge him on the score cards.
We can only hope 2016 bears the fruit of change in MMA judging. Perhaps we can define our own boundaries, instead of simply following the lead of boxing.
Main Image
