View Single Post
11-21-2013, 01:31 PM
Kriss E
HFB Partner
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 31,686
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by idk View Post
The judges had a number of choices. They score round two 10-8, which it legitimately could've been and possibly cause controversy later one when GSP dominates the later rounds but does not win (that he didn't is academic, there was the threat that he could've) because they made an odd and generally unacceptable choice of scoring a non-knockdown round 10-8 or score round four 10-8 and raise the question "why not round two".

Judges have to remain consistent throughout the match. They can't change their scoring mid-fight. They can't start tacking on extra points because one guy should be winning. Sucks, I know, but they have to play by the rules.
If Judges were consistent, GSP would have won the fight by bigger margin.
How does he win rd 1 by 10-9 but then rd 3 or 5 by the same score?
It makes no sense. If Rd 1 was a 1 point dominance over Hendricks, then surely round 5 is a 10-8 dominance.
Judges are inconsistent and very subjective. They don't even follow the NSAC's own criteria. If they did, Hendricks wins rd 1 because there's a lot more to it then just amount of strikes and submission attempts.

Originally Posted by idk View Post
So we are awarding rounds simply based on a fighter being more "efficient"? Sorry, but even if we allow that judges can instantly calculate fight statistics (they can't) efficency isn't the only metric to base scores off of. GSP had one more significant strike, one less strike, the same number of takedowns (but one more takedown attempt) and one submission attempt. Yes, JH was more "efficent" - he threw fewer strikes and landed about the same. But judges also score based on significant strikes (which GSP leads in) and aggression (which GSP, by way of more strikes thrown, more takedown attempts and more submission attempts takes).

To cover off about round three - yes, JH had more takedowns and more takedown attempts in round three, but in that round GSP dominated the the striking stats - 31 to 15 significant, 32 to 22 total, 65 to 57 total thrown and 49% to 38% "efficiency").
Hate to tell you this, but efficiency and accuracy are part of the criteria. So yes, it's very important, and he was overly dominant in that category. And again, total disregard for impact, which is also criteria.

But here's where we are again, people are nitpicking one or two stats just to find a way to explain GSP's victor. But that's dishonest. It's like finding a reason why a mistake could be pass for a good decision, or an acceptable one. It's not right. A mistake is a mistake. That's it, that's all.
Round 1 should have gone to Hendricks, there is no question about it.
Anybody saying otherwise is either biased, or lacks knowledge of the sport.
Originally Posted by idk View Post
I personally don't disagree with you. I thought GSP had lost and still think he should have lost. I'm just saying there's a reason why he won - a flaw in the system. I'm personally believe it was the elbow strikes in the first that won it (the round) for JH in my mind that possibly the judges missed. The benefit of watching at home is that we get close ups of the action and replays and all that jazz. Those elbows were vicious - not only did they damage GSP's face but I think they made him woozy too - which is why he came out so flat in the second. But the judges didn't see them from the same angle I did, and given that they didn't stop GSP's takedown attempt immediately I figure they might have discounted them as more glancing blows. Yeah, they cut GSP open - but these days a butter knife can cut GSP open.
There's always been a flaw in the system. This isn't the first controversy.
But the reason why it's maybe a little bigger is because even under the flawed system, GSP should have still lost.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote