View Single Post
Old
11-19-2013, 01:56 AM
  #673
Kriss E
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 32,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
1. Controversial in the sense that it's created a discussion concerning how fights should be scored. It's really only rabid GSP and Hendricks' fans that are arguing absolutes. Perusing MMA forums, the most impartial posters seem to agree it was a tossup. And it was certainly no robbery.

By the way, rewatch round 2 (and don't listen to the freaking commentators). While Hendricks lands a few good blows (many of those so-called solid shots were glancing), GSP is never in any danger of going out and really holds his own, landing some great shots in this round as well. While I give this to Hendricks, he hardly battered GSP here; maybe stunned him briefly, but that's all (look it's a fight, it happens).

2. This had nothing to do with the actual fight itself. It was a response to all of those raving about how amazing Hendricks is (see comments in this thread).

3. Disagree. This is subjective. Were those elbows really effective? Superficially damaging maybe, but effective in what other sense? The commentators made such a big deal out of these. You could argue GSP exhibited octagon control as he had Hendricks on one leg and even up against the cage. Maybe your bias is at work here?

4. I agree. The punch didn't knock him down. What I would argue is that the kick and punch combination rattled Hendricks, which then allowed GSP to take him down (after all GSP had a great deal of trouble getting him down otherwise). That was a very effective combination: kick to body, punch to head, takedown.

5. I always thought it was who finished strongest that weighed most heavily under Pride rules. I think you're right, though, in your assessment. It's probably that, given what happened in the last round is so memorable, the fighter that finished the strongest was likely often perceived to have been the most aggressive. At any rate, this wasn't about judging the fight under Pride rules. Rather, it was only to point out that damage is one criteria you could apply; there are others you could add. And, as you point out, if you change the rules, you fundamentally change the game and, thus, the dynamics of the fight itself and how fighters approach it.

You stated at the outset that there is a controversy. Well, you've just agreed there is NO controversy (i.e., you just stated it was a CLOSE fight because of the stupid rules). Stupid rules aside, if those are the rules AND you agree it was CLOSE under these rules, then you shouldn't have a problem with GSP winning this fight. So UNDER THE RULES Hendricks should NOT have won (or, at least, as you seem to agree, it could be construed as a tossup). So nothing controversial here. Now if you want to argue the rules should be changed, that's a different matter (I personally hate the fact you can win a round with a single, useless takedown). But if you change the rules, you have a different sport, and then both GSP and Hendricks will approach the fight differently, so you'll have a different fight anyways.
1- I re-watched the whole fight already and my position stands. As for the 2nd round, say what you want, GSP's legs wobble after a hook. He then has to sustain a good number of punches and he's backing away, luckily for him Hendrick loses his mouthguard and it gives him a bit of a breather. They exchange some punches later on but GSP's punches are mostly jabs keeping Hendricks more at bay, however he isn't controlling the octagon, not any more than Hendricks is.
GSP got more damaged in this round. It wasn't just merely ''stunned''

2- I don't think Hendricks is that awesome. I think people feel that way because he should have won the fight versus arguably the best or top two p4p fighter in the world.

3- My bias?? Hmmm...let's see, you're claiming the punches Hendricks threw didn't really hurt him in the 2nd, it was more of ''stunned briefly'', then you say that GSP established control from that one leg grab (without mentioning it was actually a takedown attempt well defended by Hendricks), then question the effectiveness of the elbows thrown on GSP (even though GSP moved his face to protect himself and then let go of the leg after keeping on receiving these elbows), but ya, sure, I'm the one showing some bias...

4- So GSP threw a good combination leading to a takedown? Okay, that's a far stretch from calling it a knockdown.

5- It wasn't my assessment though, those were the factual criteria to judging in Pride. Of course there are plenty of criteria to apply, and they should each have a different priority value. Damage should be at the top, it's only logical.



Yes there is a controversy, because even under these dumb rules, GSP should have lost. Matter of fact, even the official statistical company provider of the UFC had Hendricks winning in a ten point system. So yes, there was a controversy.
There's an even bigger one if you look at the performance rating where Hendricks beat GSP 364 to 315.
My point was to show that under this system, if you look at the points, it will always be a close fight because there's so little difference in points attributed. 10-9 that's it.
But it doesn't make the fight actually a close one.
The scoring was close (as it always is) but the fight wasn't.


And please don't assume I'm someone who's judgment gets influenced by Goldberg talking out of his ass. I don't care about the commenting. I've been watching MMA for a very, very long time. I'm not expert but I have a pretty good understanding of the sport.

Kriss E is online now   Reply With Quote