Carlos Condit vs. Tyron Woodley Official For UFC 171

Posted on December 17, 2013, 07:55 PM by Mike Drahota
> Cool 13
|
> Poor 1

When it was announced that Johny Hendricks would be fighting Robbie Lawler for the vacant UFC welterweight title at UFC 171, many thought that number two-ranked Carlos Condit had received the slight.

Even though he was still busy discussing former champion Georges St. Pierre’s decision to leave the sport, UFC president Dana White was quick to say that “he had something else planned” for Condit.

And tonight that “something else” has been named.

After texting White countless times and campaigning for the bout on twitter, Tyron Woodley has been signed to fight “The Natural Born Killer” at UFC 171. The bout will most likely be a title eliminator with the winner facing the titleholder down the line.

Despite initially turning Woodley down, White spoke up about his enthusiasm for his go-getter attitude:

“If Tyron Woodley texts me one more time. The guy can’t text me enough. I mean, I’m not kidding you. I’m not being a promoter here. He must’ve texted me 15 times a day, and then when this thing with Georges St-Pierre went down, boom! He wants every fight. There are guys like (Woodley) that are out there. Those are the guys I want to deal with. Those are the guys I want to hear from. I love Tyron Woodley. I love it.” – via MMA Junkie

Jake “The Juggernaut” Ellenberger expressed his voice his support for the fight, but ultimately it was Woodley who earned the nod. “T-Wood” was last seen dismantling Josh Koscheck with a first round knockout at UFC 167.

Condit destroyed Martin Kampmann with a come-from-behind technical knockout at UFC Fight Night 27 in August. Prior to that he had lost two straight to the best of the best in St. Pierre and Hendricks.

Slated to go down on March 15 from the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas, UFC 171 will undoubtedly be a showcase event for the elite welterweight talent in the Octagon. Here’s a rundown of the blockbuster card so far:

Johny Hendricks vs. Robbie Lawler

Carlos Condit vs. Tyron Woodley

Hector Lombard vs. Jake Shields

Myles Jury vs. Diego Sanchez

Ovince St. Preux vs. Thiago Silva

Robert McDaniel vs. Tor Troeng

Alex Garcia vs. Sean Spencer

Photo Credit: Stephen R. Sylvanie for USA TODAY Sports


Comments

REGISTER OR LOG IN TO POST COMMENTS AND BECOME AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY
  • moots
    Sharp
    12
    Weak | 4
    Cool | 1
    Funny | 0

    Condit 'came from behind' against Kampmann? Hardly. He got taken down a few times in the first round but Kampmann never displayed dominance and Condit was probably never behind.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • highkick12
    Sharp
    10
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    Thats the problem with mma scoring, taking someone down for whatever reason counts for like 50 punches

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Mike Drahota
    Weak
    10
    Sharp | 5
    Funny | 1
    Cool | 0

    He lost the first round hands down. It looked like Kampmann's wrestling was much better early in the fight. Therefore, he came from behind. Settle down.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • moots
    Sharp
    12
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    Just think you over-dramatized it a bit Mike. Condit dominated Kampmann thoroughly, no justification in saying Condit came from behind. *Barely* losing the first round (by being taken down and having no damage taken) and then destroying Kampmann over the next 3 rounds isn't exactly coming from behind. Whatever. Tis 'moot'.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Weak
    8
    Sharp | 1
    Funny | 0
    Cool | 0


    Moots, if you trust me to play Herb Dean on this one, I think Mike's description of the fight is apt. Carlos did destroy Martin in the fourth. So, check on the point.

    Come from behind?

    Moots, as a "huge" Carlos Condit fan, and a guy that picked him and rooted for him in the fight, my "recollection" of the bout, and I've not seen it since the night, is that Carlos lost the first two rounds and part of the third, and as a result of Kampmann's takedowns. That in essence, Condit began to turn it around in the third and demonstrated that he was the better fighter. Subsequently, he culled the victory in the fourth.

    Again, I haven't watched the fight in replay, but if you asked me my remembrance of it, I would have to agree with Mike's (brief, no detail, not trying to make a point, "moot" or otherwise) recount/ account of the match, which subsequently and accurately, reflects the written record.

    If nothing else Moots, you should allow for literary license. As you know I value your analytic, I hope you will consider my opinion devoid of bias.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • moots
    Cool
    6
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0

    At times when I see a bit of journalistic creativity I wonder: would an mma neophyte read this much more differently, and leave with a much different opinion and conclusion on that material than someone who actually saw the fight, and actually KNOWS fights? In this case I think that is the case. I think someone who hadn't seen that fight, and someone who doesn't know fights like we do, may very well think that without clarification, Kampmann must have had his way with Condit in the early goings and had a very obvious and significant advantage. I am, however, tempted to rewatch the fight, as I do not recall Kampmann being significantly in control (even *with* the takedowns, which if I remember correctly, resulted in little to no damage to Condit). Of course we all know that a fight is not scored on damage, but effective striking/grappling etc etc.
    This is a conclusion that, at least in my opinion, is totally unsubstantiated and I think it is implied by the dramatization. Literary freedom aside, I stand by my over-dramatization opinion.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Weak
    4
    Cool | 1
    Sharp | 1
    Funny | 0


    Moots, to be fair, if someone was to summarize an opinion of a four round fight, as based off of Mike's singular sentence, then I'd call that an overly dramatized view.

    My suggestion would be to any neophyte that was so particularity interested on the subject, and as to the point of calling Mike out on his 16 word description of it, that before they pass judgment on Michael for his 16 word synopsis of the match, that they actually go and watch the bout, and its 15 minutes & :54 seconds of action, before they believe any 16 word account of its accurate outcome.

    Re-writing it for a more Kampmann friendly audience:

    "Condit destroyed Martin Kampmann with a technical knockout at UFC Fight Night 27 in August

    ...Voilà.

    Moots, you know I respect your view of things, but on this issue Mike is more than within his purview of fight description. Regrettably, we can't argue it out over breakfast. :-(

    Reply 4 months ago
  • moots
    Funny
    1
    Sharp | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    Brian, I think we both know at this point we have beaten the horse so dead it looks as bad as JDS after 5 rounds. While there aren't many ways to determine who is *right* or *wrong* on a topic, I must say that it seems at least, that people reading our posts here in general agree with the opinion that Mike's description was over-dramatized, which is the point I've made. I will be the first to agree that majority opinion doesn’t always make something right, but the point I’ve made is that the *majority* would see a different fight history with Mike’s description, making a majority view actually quite telling.

    I am all game for literary freedom and a bit of sensationalism from time to time - I just think in this particular case it implied a different history than what at least *most* of us recall, and what most of us would consider 'come-from'behind'.

    Taking a third-person for a moment, I think we can both agree that this argument is particularly frivolous. While I also respect your opinion, and have no ill-will towards Mike (it is quite simply, just a literary disagreement and nothing more), I think we ought to move onto bigger, and in my opinion, more moot topics.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Funny
    2
    Sharp | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0


    No ill-will on this end either, my friend.

    Don't be alarmed at the sound of the gun shot; just me shooting the horse in the head. :-)

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Ivy
    Weak
    8
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0
    Cool | 0

    Tyron is huge for a welter weight. Hope he takes Condit.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Sharp
    7
    Weak | 2
    Funny | 0
    Cool | 0


    If Woodley couldn't handle Jake Shields, he won't be able to handle Condit. That would be my view of it, at any rate. CC is simply too technical on the feet.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Ivy
    Funny
    5
    Cool | 1
    Weak | 0
    Sharp | 0

    You have a point. I'm self-weaking my comment.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • ImmaBoss
    Cool
    9
    Sharp | 2
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0

    Tough fight but hopefully my boy Condit will take this and go and get his belt that rightfully belongs to him

    Reply 4 months ago
  • SatelliteMan
    Weak
    4
    Funny | 2
    Sharp | 0
    Cool | 0

    Woodley is a scary, scary dude. I am curious to see how Greg Jackson intends on pointing this one out.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • highkick12
    Cool
    2
    Sharp | 1
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0

    This is like a mini welter weight tournament card.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Weak
    4
    Cool | 2
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0

    So, let me get this straight...at the post-fight scrum for UFC on FOX 9, White said that..."no" he won't get the fight and why, because he's "not ranked" (scoffed at the thought) suddenly Woodley gets a shot over...who? MacDonald?

    Heaven forbid that we get Condit / MacDonald II in these convoluted (welterweight) times.; that would simply make no sense.

    In a weak of an ongoing series of fails on behalf of Dana White and the UFC as a whole, this is simply another one. This fight makes no sense, where Condit / MacDonald would have.

    There is debate as to whether or not Lawler beat MacDonald, and personally, I think Lawler lost the fight. As such, and in the times that we live in at 170, MacDonald was the right choice for that match and not Woodley.

    Thumbs down on that match and card; hope they don't charge $55 dollars for it.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Entity
    Cool
    1
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0

    Seems Dana has screwed the pooch lately a few times and got bit.
    I do like this fight though.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • SatelliteMan
    Cool
    3
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0

    You're absolutely right but it's because Macdonald is boring. Throw these 4 guys in the mix and fireworks abound.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • TheXperience
    Sharp
    5
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    I think Dana didn't want this fight for the reasons he stated, but Condit might've accepted Woodley's challenge and made this fight possible anyway.

    Condit is a "fighter", he cares little about rankings, he just wants the belt and he wants to put on exciting fights that fans want to see. Him accepting the fight with Brown, showed he will take on any challenge and this fight with Woodley again.

    Condit could've easily turned this fight down, but he wants to fight and he knows champ or not he'll run into Woodley some day, so why delay slaying the dragon? I think it's smart of Condit to take on Woodley now, as Woodley will only get better and stronger. I think it's strategic and very smart to make this move.

    With that said, I got Condit by TKO in the 2nd.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • SatelliteMan
    Cool
    2
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0

    Another way to look at it would be macdonalds style may stifle some of these exciting guys entertainment value

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Brian Cox
    Weak
    6
    Cool | 1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0


    SM...go back and watch the fight between Lawler and MacDonald and tell me that you really think Rory was boring.

    In fairness, I don't think you'll have that view of it. Had that been a five round fight, it would have been very interesting to have seen how it would have gone. Yes, Robbie hurt him in the third, but by the end of it, it was Lawler who was on the bottom and MacDonald who was raising up and putting elbows into his head.

    From the sight of it, if the bell didn't stop it, I think Lawler was done.

    Another way of looking at MacDonald's stifling style, would be to compare it to Lyoto Machida's stifling style.

    In looking at the fight, I stick by my conclusion that MacDonald won his fight with Lawler and that Robbie got a way with a lucky win. Further, I think there was nothing boring about his style, throughout the match. He was aggressive and the general in rounds one and two; caught in the third, survived and reversed by round's end.

    That's a win to me, SM.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • SatelliteMan
    Cool
    Weak
    Sharp
    Funny

    You are a tried and true fan, Brian. Unfortunately, the average Joe doesn't have the attention span to enjoy MacDonald's technical skills. With respect to the Lawler fight, I think it was a VERY exciting fight, but because Lawler made it so. If MacDonald had his way that fight, we would be watching 3 rounds of lay and pray. Like I said, you are absolutely right about MacDonald being deserving of being in the mix, but his strategy is to slow the pace and pick his shots and avoid getting hurt. While this is probably the smartest strategy, unfortunately it can turn into a snoozefest.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Drago
    Sharp
    1
    Weak | 1
    Funny | 0
    Cool | 0

    I dont think Woodley vs Condit make much sense in terms of the ranks and the division since potentially Woodley could be fighting for the tittle in his next fight. That said, I do think Woodley has great potential and will be an interesting bout against Condit, althought I would rather see Browne fighting Condit for a tittle shot but apparently Browne will still be off at that date!

    Another fight I think would make more sense would be Condit vs Rory II, I think they clash good stylistically and it would make more sense in terms of the rankings! It would also be a rematch of a great and close fight and a fight that actually Condit did come from behind to knock Rory out in the last seconds of the fight!

    That leads me to the false assessment that the fight of Condit against kampman II was a "come from behind" which is very wrong and misleading. Go and watch that fight again and you will see why people here tried to correct you. Heres the breakdown of that fight:

    ROUND 1
    - Kampman won 10/9 by controling the fight against the cage and on the ground with his grapling and scoring 4 takedowns but not doing any damage;

    ROUND 2
    - Condit won 10/9 by defending every takedown attempt and landing combinations over and over on their feet and doing damage and tiring Kampman;

    ROUND 3
    - Condit won 10/9 (10/8 if I were to score) by conceding only 1 takedown to kampman and continuing to deliver combinations, busting up Kampman (cutting him in the forehead) with a great elbow, throwing kicks and flying knees, getting his back, full mount and threatening with a modified guillotine on theire feet and a rear nacked choke on the ground;

    ROUND 4
    - TKO victory for Condit after dominating the entire round against a very busted and tired kampman.

    So, I dont see why type it was a come from behind victory at all since it wasnt even close to that. Personally it brings no value to the otherwise well written post, IMO of course...

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Mike Drahota
    Funny
    2
    Weak | 1
    Cool | 0
    Sharp | 0

    Yeah but you always have something bad to say about every post you comment on, so that doesn't really matter to me.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Fluidity
    Sharp
    3
    Funny | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    I'm not too high on Woodley, i still have his devastating KO loss to Marquardt in mind.

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Drago
    Weak
    1
    Funny | 0
    Sharp | 0
    Cool | 0

    Strange, my entire post seem to have disappeared...

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Mike Drahota
    Funny
    3
    Sharp | 0
    Weak | 0
    Cool | 0

    I see it. I didn't erase your eight hundredth nitpicking complaint. Haters gonna hate. Hate on Drago

    Reply 4 months ago
  • Drago
    Cool
    Weak
    Sharp
    Funny

    Dude, sorry for correcting you and agreeing with other posters on the this thread. I dont hate you, lowkick or anyone else for that matter but YOU do seem to have something against me since thats your fourth post that you reply directly to me without addressing anything post related. But weak away if thats what make you happy man but your clearly the one with hate issues...

    PS - and at least in this case you know im right, just go watch the fight again...

    Reply 4 months ago