HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

UFC 167 GSP vs. Hendricks (UPD Post 774: GSP announces semi-retirement/title forfeit)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2013, 08:32 PM
  #701
Habs_Apostle
Registered User
 
Habs_Apostle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team_Spirit View Post
Honestly, though, this was hardly something Hendricks expertly set up. It's more GSP falling over Hendricks' leg. Hendricks moved in with some punches, sort of grabbed at GSP's head, GSP circled right into Hendricks lead leg, and it was likely an automatic reaction for Hendricks to extend it a couple of inches, and down goes GSP. So this was more of a consequence of southpaw fighting an orthodox fighter just getting tangled up. But kudos to Hendricks for taking advantage.

Habs_Apostle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2013, 08:39 PM
  #702
jacks
Registered User
 
jacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Well boys George got his face pounded in but that doesn't mean you lose the fight.
You win the fight by winning more rounds .
Gorge won the 3rd and 5th and Hendricts won the 2nd and 4th.
So that means the 1st should declear the winner.

St-Pierre came out sharp, quickly blasting through Hendricks with a power double-leg takedown. Hendricks answered back with a takedown of his own later in the round, but the pace was set by the champion, who also attempted a guillotine choke in the opening seconds.


In terms of striking output, St-Pierre landed 19 significant strikes in the round compared to Hendricks' 18, while Hendricks landed 27 total strikes compared to 26 from the champion.

At the worst the rd was a draw.It was a close rd.Could have gone to either fighter.

A draw in the 1st rd means GSP retains his title. I guess 2 judges seen GSP winning the 1st rd.When i watch the fight live i had Hendricts winning quite easily.Guess that's why i'm not a judge.Apon rewatching the fight [ i dowmloaded it later the next day.] i picked a winner per rd.Boys was i surprised when i came up with GSP winning the 1st,3rd and 5th while getting a total ass-kicking in rd 2 and 4 .But winning 2 rds out of 5 nt matter how bad you beat/dominate those two rds will not give you the win.

jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2013, 09:22 PM
  #703
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacks View Post
Well boys George got his face pounded in but that doesn't mean you lose the fight.
You win the fight by winning more rounds .
Gorge won the 3rd and 5th and Hendricts won the 2nd and 4th.
So that means the 1st should declear the winner.

St-Pierre came out sharp, quickly blasting through Hendricks with a power double-leg takedown. Hendricks answered back with a takedown of his own later in the round, but the pace was set by the champion, who also attempted a guillotine choke in the opening seconds.


In terms of striking output, St-Pierre landed 19 significant strikes in the round compared to Hendricks' 18, while Hendricks landed 27 total strikes compared to 26 from the champion.

At the worst the rd was a draw.It was a close rd.Could have gone to either fighter.

A draw in the 1st rd means GSP retains his title. I guess 2 judges seen GSP winning the 1st rd.When i watch the fight live i had Hendricts winning quite easily.Guess that's why i'm not a judge.Apon rewatching the fight [ i dowmloaded it later the next day.] i picked a winner per rd.Boys was i surprised when i came up with GSP winning the 1st,3rd and 5th while getting a total ass-kicking in rd 2 and 4 .But winning 2 rds out of 5 nt matter how bad you beat/dominate those two rds will not give you the win.
That's one heck of a BS analysis of the 1st round. No mention of the damaging elbows thrown GSP's way while he attempted a takedown? No mention of the stuffing of takedowns from Hendricks? No mention of Hendricks getting up? No mention of him controlling GSP against the cage?
Both fighters stayed in the middle of the ring, GSP didn't control it.

That is one bias analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
GSP didn't slip, Hendricks threw a leg in there for a trip as gsp was backpedaling dodging a flurry of punches. I noticed live watching the fight and I noticed it posted on every mma forum online as well.
You're right. I hadn't paid attention to his leg until re-watching it. Clearly Hendricks placed his leg there for the trip.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2013, 09:24 PM
  #704
jacks
Registered User
 
jacks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
That's one heck of a BS analysis of the 1st round. No mention of the damaging elbows thrown GSP's way while he attempted a takedown? No mention of the stuffing of takedowns from Hendricks? No mention of Hendricks getting up? No mention of him controlling GSP against the cage?
Both fighters stayed in the middle of the ring, GSP didn't control it.

That is one bias analysis.



You're right. I hadn't paid attention to his leg until re-watching it. Clearly Hendricks placed his leg there for the trip.
Try watching the round again.You know watch.

jacks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2013, 09:39 PM
  #705
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacks View Post
Try watching the round again.You know watch.
I have watched it. Four times now, and there's also Fightmetric that agrees with me.
In case you don't know what that is, it's the official statistical provider of fights for the UFC. They had Hendricks winning as well, but hey, you know, just watch.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 05:17 AM
  #706
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I have watched it. Four times now, and there's also Fightmetric that agrees with me.
In case you don't know what that is, it's the official statistical provider of fights for the UFC. They had Hendricks winning as well, but hey, you know, just watch.
I've watched again for the 4th time, looking for a reason to give it to George, there isn't one. I had Hendricks clearly win round 1, sure it was close, but, yet clear imo.

Round 2: was easily Hendricks, a big LOL to the poster who said the stoppage for Hendricks mouthpiece benefited him. Hendricks was rag dolling him up until this point, George was holding on for dear life, throwing exactly zero shots from the clinch at this time. George bounced back a bit towards the latter 2 minutes of the round, but the damage was already done, if George gets a 10-9 in round 1, then round 2 should have been a 10-8, in no way were these 2 rounds equal, but reversed

Round 3: I'd give a close but clear round to GSP imo, very close though and closer than 2 previous imo. Although I think when Hendricks landed, he landed the better shots, but I'll give it to gsp based on output.

Round 4: Much like round two, Hendricks dominates, lands vicious elbows from top control ad controls all the exchanges up against the cage. Often reversing positioning, this round wasn't close, if George gets a 10-9 for any of the previous rds, this should have been a 10-8.

Round 5: I see a lot of posters calling this one a decisive GSP round, I just don't see it. I see a fighter in complete desperation mode, the look on his face at the end going for the sub tells it all. Close round, GSP edges it out, but in no way was it dominate; 10-9 GSP.


Judging the fight as a whole, which they don't do, Hendricks wins in a landslide. Judging the fight in the current rules, Hendricks wins, judging the fight based on what I'd like to see, more 10-8 rds for clearly dominate rds, Hendricks wins again. Under no criteria did George deserve the victory here.

Note: I realize they don't hand out 10-8 rds typically for rds like 2 and 4 for Hendricks, but that is why the system has been broke for years. They should, not all rounds are equal.

GSP was the benefactor of being the champ, a poorly applied scoring system and incompetent judging. The fact that their shots landed were basically a wash tells the real story here. Hendricks hits like a truck, GSP hasn't finished since Koschek. GSP needed a decisive edge in shots landed to win this fight, an edge he didn't get.

I'm not sure where the numbers are coming from for rd 1, but 1/2 way through the round, Hendricks was leading in SS 21-12. Yet the numbers coming out now say it was 18-17 for GSP. Giving GSP 5 more and subtracting from Hendricks, in any event, rd 1 was a clear Hendricks round anyway. There was a glitch somewhere, or some doctoring elsewhere. Watching the fight live, the SS were totaled up on the screen and they don't reflect those final numbers at all, but strikes landed isn't the main criteria here, who hurt who the most is and Hendricks was never hurt.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 11-20-2013 at 05:23 AM.
habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 11:46 AM
  #707
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I've watched again for the 4th time, looking for a reason to give it to George, there isn't one. I had Hendricks clearly win round 1, sure it was close, but, yet clear imo.

Round 2: was easily Hendricks, a big LOL to the poster who said the stoppage for Hendricks mouthpiece benefited him. Hendricks was rag dolling him up until this point, George was holding on for dear life, throwing exactly zero shots from the clinch at this time. George bounced back a bit towards the latter 2 minutes of the round, but the damage was already done, if George gets a 10-9 in round 1, then round 2 should have been a 10-8, in no way were these 2 rounds equal, but reversed

Round 3: I'd give a close but clear round to GSP imo, very close though and closer than 2 previous imo. Although I think when Hendricks landed, he landed the better shots, but I'll give it to gsp based on output.

Round 4: Much like round two, Hendricks dominates, lands vicious elbows from top control ad controls all the exchanges up against the cage. Often reversing positioning, this round wasn't close, if George gets a 10-9 for any of the previous rds, this should have been a 10-8.

Round 5: I see a lot of posters calling this one a decisive GSP round, I just don't see it. I see a fighter in complete desperation mode, the look on his face at the end going for the sub tells it all. Close round, GSP edges it out, but in no way was it dominate; 10-9 GSP.


Judging the fight as a whole, which they don't do, Hendricks wins in a landslide. Judging the fight in the current rules, Hendricks wins, judging the fight based on what I'd like to see, more 10-8 rds for clearly dominate rds, Hendricks wins again. Under no criteria did George deserve the victory here.

Note: I realize they don't hand out 10-8 rds typically for rds like 2 and 4 for Hendricks, but that is why the system has been broke for years. They should, not all rounds are equal.

GSP was the benefactor of being the champ, a poorly applied scoring system and incompetent judging. The fact that their shots landed were basically a wash tells the real story here. Hendricks hits like a truck, GSP hasn't finished since Koschek. GSP needed a decisive edge in shots landed to win this fight, an edge he didn't get.

I'm not sure where the numbers are coming from for rd 1, but 1/2 way through the round, Hendricks was leading in SS 21-12. Yet the numbers coming out now say it was 18-17 for GSP. Giving GSP 5 more and subtracting from Hendricks, in any event, rd 1 was a clear Hendricks round anyway. There was a glitch somewhere, or some doctoring elsewhere. Watching the fight live, the SS were totaled up on the screen and they don't reflect those final numbers at all, but strikes landed isn't the main criteria here, who hurt who the most is and Hendricks was never hurt.
You know... 2 out of 3 REAL judges disagree with you. But you know they must know nothing.

By the way Georges was in Vegas not in mtl and tgere was a lot of Hendricks fan at the fight no reason to rig it.

Lavigne who's a UFC referee also give it to St-Pierre.

As for the mouthpiece, it is not my opinion that it didn't help St-Pierre it is is coach's opinion. And I don't know why HE would lie on that.

He said he'd of rather no stoppage because Georges was clinching and without space you do a lot less damage. Again, not my opinion but his coach's opinion.

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 12:02 PM
  #708
Alexdaman
Registered User
 
Alexdaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Montreal, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,350
vCash: 50
It's simple, it was a close fight, Hendricks won 3 rounds out of 5. The judges didn't have a good angle on the first round and therefore gave it to GSP.


Now, I've seen all of GSP's fights and on this one he did NOT look like he used to ( he was even smiling before the first round ). He didn't seem focused like a robot like he usually does. He's gonna have to step it up to beat Hendricks and maybe he won't be able to do it.

Alexdaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 12:04 PM
  #709
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I've watched again for the 4th time, looking for a reason to give it to George, there isn't one. I had Hendricks clearly win round 1, sure it was close, but, yet clear imo.

Round 2: was easily Hendricks, a big LOL to the poster who said the stoppage for Hendricks mouthpiece benefited him. Hendricks was rag dolling him up until this point, George was holding on for dear life, throwing exactly zero shots from the clinch at this time. George bounced back a bit towards the latter 2 minutes of the round, but the damage was already done, if George gets a 10-9 in round 1, then round 2 should have been a 10-8, in no way were these 2 rounds equal, but reversed

Round 3: I'd give a close but clear round to GSP imo, very close though and closer than 2 previous imo. Although I think when Hendricks landed, he landed the better shots, but I'll give it to gsp based on output.

Round 4: Much like round two, Hendricks dominates, lands vicious elbows from top control ad controls all the exchanges up against the cage. Often reversing positioning, this round wasn't close, if George gets a 10-9 for any of the previous rds, this should have been a 10-8.

Round 5: I see a lot of posters calling this one a decisive GSP round, I just don't see it. I see a fighter in complete desperation mode, the look on his face at the end going for the sub tells it all. Close round, GSP edges it out, but in no way was it dominate; 10-9 GSP.


Judging the fight as a whole, which they don't do, Hendricks wins in a landslide. Judging the fight in the current rules, Hendricks wins, judging the fight based on what I'd like to see, more 10-8 rds for clearly dominate rds, Hendricks wins again. Under no criteria did George deserve the victory here.

Note: I realize they don't hand out 10-8 rds typically for rds like 2 and 4 for Hendricks, but that is why the system has been broke for years. They should, not all rounds are equal.

GSP was the benefactor of being the champ, a poorly applied scoring system and incompetent judging. The fact that their shots landed were basically a wash tells the real story here. Hendricks hits like a truck, GSP hasn't finished since Koschek. GSP needed a decisive edge in shots landed to win this fight, an edge he didn't get.

I'm not sure where the numbers are coming from for rd 1, but 1/2 way through the round, Hendricks was leading in SS 21-12. Yet the numbers coming out now say it was 18-17 for GSP. Giving GSP 5 more and subtracting from Hendricks, in any event, rd 1 was a clear Hendricks round anyway. There was a glitch somewhere, or some doctoring elsewhere. Watching the fight live, the SS were totaled up on the screen and they don't reflect those final numbers at all, but strikes landed isn't the main criteria here, who hurt who the most is and Hendricks was never hurt.
I agree.

Rd1 was clear for Hendricks.
Rd2, no contest.
Rd3, it was close, I gave it to Hendricks but I can understand why others would give it to GSP. Considering the Champ factor, I expected GSP to get it too.
Rd4, No contest.
Rd5, close, but give it to GSP.


As for the striking ponts of first round, it's because they're counting the overall strikes, which Hendricks beat 27-26 I believe. The 18-17 was for significant strikes.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 12:16 PM
  #710
Haaabs
Registered User
 
Haaabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Montreal
Posts: 355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I agree.

Rd1 was clear for Hendricks.
Rd2, no contest.
Rd3, it was close, I gave it to Hendricks but I can understand why others would give it to GSP. Considering the Champ factor, I expected GSP to get it too.
Rd4, No contest.
Rd5, close, but give it to GSP.


As for the striking ponts of first round, it's because they're counting the overall strikes, which Hendricks beat 27-26 I believe. The 18-17 was for significant strikes.
No contest for who? I thought that Hendricks didn't do anything that round other than the elbows off the slip. Before and after GSP fell, I thought GSP was chasing Hendricks around the ring because he was gassed.

I think Hendricks "using only 70%" power and the fact that he was employing a counter punching technique most of the fight is what lost it for him.

Haaabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 01:47 PM
  #711
Habs_Apostle
Registered User
 
Habs_Apostle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I agree.

Rd1 was clear for Hendricks.
Rd2, no contest.
Rd3, it was close, I gave it to Hendricks but I can understand why others would give it to GSP. Considering the Champ factor, I expected GSP to get it too.
Rd4, No contest.
Rd5, close, but give it to GSP.


As for the striking ponts of first round, it's because they're counting the overall strikes, which Hendricks beat 27-26 I believe. The 18-17 was for significant strikes.
KrissE, every time a poster says anything in favor of GSP, you scream bias! But, honestly, you're one of the most biased advocates for Hendricks that Ive encountered. Proof of your blatant bias? Well, the fact you gave round 3 to Hendricks. You're clearly in the minority here: all three official judges gave it to GSP, most fans gave that round to GSP (even after careful analysis), and heck, even Dana White, in his delusional rage, gave that round to GSP.

And you keep going on about fightmetric. Now I'm not a fan of these things. They've had these punch stats in boxing forever, and they are notoriously inaccurate. I've put them to the test many times and they flat out fail. Often, the punch stats would say one fighter landed 20 punches the other 15. But if you go back and carefully analyze the tape, you find that maybe each fighter landed 3 or 4 blows. There are just so many nuances to consider in scoring a blow. For example, often a blow will looks like it landed in devastating fashion but the fighter actually rolled with it, essentially rendering it a missed blow, yet it's counted as a significant shot. And often blows will barley touch the opponent and they count that. So forth and so on. Add to this the fact that judges don't have access to these (and I don't think they should) and it's a moot point to bring it up.

Despite what I said above, you have brought this up time and time again in favor of Hendricks, noting Hendricks landed 364-315 overall. But if you really want to play this game, why don't you give the more nuanced breakdown? The fact that GSP held a 101-85 edge in significant strikes over the 5 rounds. And, honestly, what's a strike if it is not a significant strike? So who really cares about the 364-315 number. We should be looking at strikes that matter, right? And looking more closely at these, well, my oh my, they just happen to bolster the judges subjective scoring and most fans (except you of course) more scrutinized scoring post fight: GSP edges round 1 (19-18), handily wins round 3 (31-15 and five (9-4), whereas Hendricks (based solely on significant strikes mind you) edges round 2 (30-28) and easily wins round 4 (18-4).

So we have convergence between the judges scoring, fans more scrutinized scoring, and a so-called objective fight metric. The fact that you diverge from all of these suggests, again, you're the one harboring the bias here.

Obviously, then, given your demonstrated bias, we all need to take what you say with a grain of salt.

Now, as to the first round. I've finally had a chance to watch this several times. To claim, again, this is clearly Hendricks round is ridiculous. Yes, an argument can be made that it's his round. But an argument can also be made for GSP.


Last edited by Habs_Apostle: 11-20-2013 at 02:33 PM.
Habs_Apostle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 02:28 PM
  #712
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by durojean View Post
You know... 2 out of 3 REAL judges disagree with you. But you know they must know nothing.

By the way Georges was in Vegas not in mtl and tgere was a lot of Hendricks fan at the fight no reason to rig it.

Lavigne who's a UFC referee also give it to St-Pierre.

As for the mouthpiece, it is not my opinion that it didn't help St-Pierre it is is coach's opinion. And I don't know why HE would lie on that.

He said he'd of rather no stoppage because Georges was clinching and without space you do a lot less damage. Again, not my opinion but his coach's opinion.
And 1 judge agreed, so what does that mean??? But this is the ridiculous ''you're not a coach of GM, therefore you can never be right and they're always right''. It's stupid, and there's a long list of judges making poor decisions in fight matches. This isn't new.

If you don't know why GSP's COACH would try to put everything on GSP's side then you have no business discussing this fight.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 02:30 PM
  #713
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaabs View Post
No contest for who? I thought that Hendricks didn't do anything that round other than the elbows off the slip. Before and after GSP fell, I thought GSP was chasing Hendricks around the ring because he was gassed.

I think Hendricks "using only 70%" power and the fact that he was employing a counter punching technique most of the fight is what lost it for him.
Look at the instance again and pay attention to Hendricks's leg, he is trying to trip GSP and he does just that, it wasn't a slip. And no, GSP was not controlling the fight.

JH using only 70% was just stupid trash talk. Don't put too much stock on that.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 02:34 PM
  #714
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by durojean View Post
You know... 2 out of 3 REAL judges disagree with you. But you know they must know nothing.

By the way Georges was in Vegas not in mtl and tgere was a lot of Hendricks fan at the fight no reason to rig it.

Lavigne who's a UFC referee also give it to St-Pierre.

As for the mouthpiece, it is not my opinion that it didn't help St-Pierre it is is coach's opinion. And I don't know why HE would lie on that.

He said he'd of rather no stoppage because Georges was clinching and without space you do a lot less damage. Again, not my opinion but his coach's opinion.
1. Every fighter, and every metric available disagrees with those 2 judges. The promoter disagrees, almost everyone everywhere disagrees. It's usually 2 or 3-1, there's always a few contrarians trying to argue for arguments sake. Rogan disagrees. and on and on.

The appeal to authority, gotta love it. Judges rarely display incompetence

2. No one said it was rigged, it was incompetence combined with a terrible system

3. George's corner is going to spin this however they have to.

4. See above

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 02:39 PM
  #715
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I agree.

Rd1 was clear for Hendricks.
Rd2, no contest.
Rd3, it was close, I gave it to Hendricks but I can understand why others would give it to GSP. Considering the Champ factor, I expected GSP to get it too.
Rd4, No contest.
Rd5, close, but give it to GSP.


As for the striking ponts of first round, it's because they're counting the overall strikes, which Hendricks beat 27-26 I believe. The 18-17 was for significant strikes.
When they telecasted I'm almost certain it was 21-12 in SS for Hendricks, not total strikes, I'll watch it for a 5th time and see.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 02:40 PM
  #716
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haaabs View Post
No contest for who? I thought that Hendricks didn't do anything that round other than the elbows off the slip. Before and after GSP fell, I thought GSP was chasing Hendricks around the ring because he was gassed.

I think Hendricks "using only 70%" power and the fact that he was employing a counter punching technique most of the fight is what lost it for him.
LOL, the first ever argument in favor of GSP for rd 4. Kriss has it right, no contest sums it up perfectly.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 02:49 PM
  #717
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
KrissE, every time a poster says anything in favor of GSP, you scream bias! But, honestly, you're one of the most biased advocates for Hendricks that Ive encountered. Proof of your blatant bias? Well, the fact you gave round 3 to Hendricks. You're clearly in the minority here: all three official judges gave it to GSP, most fans gave that round to GSP (even after careful analysis), and heck, even Dana White, in his delusional rage, gave that round to GSP.

And you keep going on about fightmetric. Now I'm not a fan of these things. They've had these punch stats in boxing forever, and they are notoriously inaccurate. I've put them to the test many times and they flat out fail. Often, the punch stats would say one fighter landed 20 punches the other 15. But if you go back and carefully analyze the tape, you find that maybe each fighter landed 3 or 4 blows. There are just so many nuances to consider in scoring a blow. For example, often a blow will looks like it landed in devastating fashion but the fighter actually rolled with it, essentially rendering it a missed blow, yet it's counted as a significant shot. And often blows will barley touch the opponent and they count that. So forth and so on. Add to this the fact that judges don't have access to these (and I don't think they should) and it's a moot point to bring it up.

Despite what I said above, you have brought this up time and time again in favor of Hendricks, noting Hendricks landed 364-315 overall. But if you really want to play this game, why don't you give the more nuanced breakdown? The fact that GSP held a 101-85 edge in significant strikes over the 5 rounds. And, honestly, what's a strike if it is not a significant strike? So who really cares about the 364-315 number. We should be looking at strikes that matter, right? And looking more closely at these, well, my oh my, they just happen to bolster the judges subjective scoring and most fans (except you of course) more scrutinized scoring post fight: GSP edges round 1 (19-18), handily wins round 3 (31-15 and five (9-4), whereas Hendricks (based solely on significant strikes mind you) edges round 2 (30-28) and easily wins round 4 (18-4).

So we have convergence between the judges scoring, fans more scrutinized scoring, and a so-called objective fight metric. The fact that you diverge from all of these suggests, again, you're the one harboring the bias here.

Obviously, then, given your demonstrated bias, we all need to take what you say with a grain of salt.

Now, as to the first round. I've finally had a chance to watch this several times. To claim, again, this is clearly Hendricks round is ridiculous. Yes, an argument can be made that it's his round. But an argument can also be made for GSP.

I don't agree with you at all here. This was a Hendricks round all day long. No one cares about the fight metric, Kriss is just saying under yet another measure, GSP comes up short.

Significant strikes are not created equal, it's nice narrative, but a Significant Strike landed by someone with cement hands and someone who is known for a relative lack in striking power are not created equal.

It's amazing that Hendricks, who hits way harder, out landed george and lost the fight. The only visible damage was done by Hendricks, GSP was in trouble, Hendricks was never in trouble. I'm not talking facial damage, I'm talking visibly wobbled and in trouble.

Lastly, the scoring system needs to be changed, I can see an argument for a close decision in Hendricks favor for a fight that wasn't really all that close. No way should a fighter get beat up that bad and win a fight, and the loser looks like he barely broke a sweat. It's a fight and GSP got his ass whooped.

Talking about bias, in one of your previous posts, you completely tried to discredit Hendricks for the trip he made in round 4, no one said it was expertly done, only that it wasn't a slip. Hendricks knowingly stuck his leg in there as GSP was moving away, 100% on purpose, you made it sound like the two collided, they didn't, Hendricks realized George was moving away as he was pressuring him with shots and seized the opportunity to pull a Machida like sweep. It was awesome. Not the initial plan, I'm sure, but great ring presence to see the opportunity. Most people thought it was a slip, because that's how Rogan called it, but it clearly was a trip.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 11-20-2013 at 02:55 PM.
habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 03:20 PM
  #718
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
KrissE, every time a poster says anything in favor of GSP, you scream bias! But, honestly, you're one of the most biased advocates for Hendricks that Ive encountered. Proof of your blatant bias? Well, the fact you gave round 3 to Hendricks. You're clearly in the minority here: all three official judges gave it to GSP, most fans gave that round to GSP (even after careful analysis), and heck, even Dana White, in his delusional rage, gave that round to GSP.
In the minority? Well, if you want to play that card, shall we check out what's the minority that think GSP won the fight??
Look at Round 3 again. GSP starts the round with that solid kick to the knee however right after eats a big knee to the face, he gets some good combos in, but a lot of his punches are countered by a punch from Hendricks. I have no problem giving this round to GSP based on the stand up, but JH gets a late takedown and often enough, this sways rounds so that's why I gave it to JH, but as I said, I can see why GSP gets this round and it's not a decision I would contest.
Even Rogan says the takedown might have swayed the round over to JH. It didn't, I have no issues there.
And hey, I'm not the one that tried taking away a clear trip from Hendricks.

So I don't see how I'm biased...This just looks like one lame ass attempt from you to somehow discredit my opinion in order to pump yours a little more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
And you keep going on about fightmetric. Now I'm not a fan of these things. They've had these punch stats in boxing forever, and they are notoriously inaccurate. I've put them to the test many times and they flat out fail. Often, the punch stats would say one fighter landed 20 punches the other 15. But if you go back and carefully analyze the tape, you find that maybe each fighter landed 3 or 4 blows. There are just so many nuances to consider in scoring a blow. For example, often a blow will looks like it landed in devastating fashion but the fighter actually rolled with it, essentially rendering it a missed blow, yet it's counted as a significant shot. And they often blows will barley touch the opponent and they count that. So forth and so on. Ad to this the fact that judges don;t have access to these (and I don't think they should) and it's a moot point to bring it up.
Notoriously inaccurate?? Perhaps, but they would at least have gotten this fight right.
Btw, a lot of times you can think some punches land but the don't. You can watch fights from your TV but they will only show replays of a few combos. So ya, I'm not surprised your count is different than the official counter, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy that's sitting a meter or two from the actual fight on the numbers.
However, Fightmetric grades the fight in slow-mo, every punch and attempt is slowed down and observed properly, so if your numbers are off by a lot, it's likely you're miscounting, not them.
But say the numbers are indeed flawed (and I'm sure there's mistakes in them, nothing is ever 100% accurate), it's applied to both fighters.

If it's a moot point, then this whole debate is a moot point. This debate started because people said ''Wait a minute, according to the stats, it's actually a lot closer than people may think! It explains GSP's victory!!''.
I'm not the one bringing up stats buddy, it's the people defending GSP that are. That's their reasoning for actually crediting GSP with the victory.
I brought up fightmetric because it's the official stat provider of the UFC and even they have GSP losing with the 10-point system.

So I think you were confused here a bit about who brought up what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
Despite what I said above, you have brought this up time and time again in favor of Hendricks, noting Hendricks landed 364-315 overall. But if you really want to play this game, why don't you give the more nuanced breakdown? The fact that GSP held a 101-85 edge in significant strikes over the 5 rounds. And, honestly, what's a strike if it is not a significant strike? So who really cares about the 364-315 number. We should be looking at strikes that matter, right? And looking more closely at these, well, my oh my, they just happen to bolster the judges subjective scoring and most fans (except you of course) more scrutinized scoring post fight: GSP edges round 1 (19-18), handily wins round 3 (31-15 and five (9-4), whereas Hendricks (based solely on significant strikes mind you) edges round 2 (30-28) and easily wins round 4 (18-4).
Because saying GSP scored 101-85 is very misguided and has nothing to do with the performance rating.
Performance rating uses Volume, Accuracy, Dominance, Method, Time, Win/Loss.

It's also seriously flawed if all you will do is look at significant strikes. It's as if I looked at Price's win record and say, hey, he's not having a good year. Pretty darn stupid right??? Right.
Why? Well because significant strike don't factor in Damage or Power, it's only about the target. A jab can be considered a significant strike. What's more valuable? A straight jab connecting or a powerful hook that makes the legs wobble?
The idea that every significant punch is equal to 1 pt is pretty freaking ridiculous.
That's why, under this stupid system, you need some subjectivity and be able to realize which of the two opponents has inflicted the most damage in the round (which is what a fight really all boils down to).
And if you have any bit of realism in you, you know JH did the most damage in that round (and fight).

Also, as Habsfanatic and I brought up before, if Round 3 is a 10-9 victory to GSP, then rd 2-4 could certainly be 10-8 for Hendricks.

Hendricks controlled most of this fight, it's not because GSP keeps moving forward that he's actually controlling the fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
So we have convergence between the judges scoring, fans more scrutinized scoring, and a so-called objective fight metric. The fact that you diverge from all of these suggests, again, you're the one harboring the bias here.

Obviously, then, given your demonstrated bias, we all need to take what you say with a grain of salt.
Of course, I'm bias towards my 2nd favorite fighter (A.Silva being my top one), makes total and complete sense..

Meanwhile, ''hey according to the stats, the fight was actually closer! To the point where it makes sense why GSP won!!! What's that? Fightmetric says Hendricks should have won? Who are they? The official stat provider of the UFC??? Pffft whatever man, they don't know crap and are wrong''.

Yes, friend, I am the bias one here. Good job.
Come to think of it, Dana White too must be biased! You would think he'd support the decision to give his biggest PPV earner the belt, but no, he's probably bias. Joe Rogan probably also is. One of GSP's sparring partners, who I watched the fight with, also disagreed with the decision, I guess he's biased as well! All the guys that booed the decision, they're probably biased too..
Let me ask you, who did you think won in all honestly before they announced the winner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
Now, as to the first round. I've finally had a chance to watch this several times. To claim, again, this is clearly Hendricks round is ridiculous. Yes, an argument can be made that it's his round. But an argument can also be made for GSP.
An argument can be made for GSP when you're reaching for one, when you're trying to explain why a judge would give it to him. Otherwise you would clearly give it to Hendricks. If this was a fight between two contenders, GSP loses rd 1 and loses the fight in unanimous decision.


Last edited by Kriss E: 11-20-2013 at 03:26 PM.
Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 03:52 PM
  #719
Habs_Apostle
Registered User
 
Habs_Apostle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
In the minority? Well, if you want to play that card, shall we check out what's the minority that think GSP won the fight??
Look at Round 3 again. GSP starts the round with that solid kick to the knee however right after eats a big knee to the face, he gets some good combos in, but a lot of his punches are countered by a punch from Hendricks. I have no problem giving this round to GSP based on the stand up, but JH gets a late takedown and often enough, this sways rounds so that's why I gave it to JH, but as I said, I can see why GSP gets this round and it's not a decision I would contest.
Even Rogan says the takedown might have swayed the round over to JH. It didn't, I have no issues there.
And hey, I'm not the one that tried taking away a clear trip from Hendricks.

So I don't see how I'm biased...This just looks like one lame ass attempt from you to somehow discredit my opinion in order to pump yours a little more.



Notoriously inaccurate?? Perhaps, but they would at least have gotten this fight right.
Btw, a lot of times you can think some punches land but the don't. You can watch fights from your TV but they will only show replays of a few combos. So ya, I'm not surprised your count is different than the official counter, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy that's sitting a meter or two from the actual fight on the numbers.
However, Fightmetric grades the fight in slow-mo, every punch and attempt is slowed down and observed properly, so if your numbers are off by a lot, it's likely you're miscounting, not them.
But say the numbers are indeed flawed (and I'm sure there's mistakes in them, nothing is ever 100% accurate), it's applied to both fighters.

If it's a moot point, then this whole debate is a moot point. This debate started because people said ''Wait a minute, according to the stats, it's actually a lot closer than people may think! It explains GSP's victory!!''.
I'm not the one bringing up stats buddy, it's the people defending GSP that are. That's their reasoning for actually crediting GSP with the victory.
I brought up fightmetric because it's the official stat provider of the UFC and even they have GSP losing with the 10-point system.

So I think you were confused here a bit about who brought up what.


Because saying GSP scored 101-85 is very misguided and has nothing to do with the performance rating.
Performance rating uses Volume, Accuracy, Dominance, Method, Time, Win/Loss.

It's also seriously flawed if all you will do is look at significant strikes. It's as if I looked at Price's win record and say, hey, he's not having a good year. Pretty darn stupid right??? Right.
Why? Well because significant strike don't factor in Damage or Power, it's only about the target. A jab can be considered a significant strike. What's more valuable? A straight jab connecting or a powerful hook that makes the legs wobble?
The idea that every significant punch is equal to 1 pt is pretty freaking ridiculous.
That's why, under this stupid system, you need some subjectivity and be able to realize which of the two opponents has inflicted the most damage in the round (which is what a fight really all boils down to).
And if you have any bit of realism in you, you know JH did the most damage in that round (and fight).

Also, as Habsfanatic and I brought up before, if Round 3 is a 10-9 victory to GSP, then rd 2-4 could certainly be 10-8 for Hendricks.

Hendricks controlled most of this fight, it's not because GSP keeps moving forward that he's actually controlling the fight.



Of course, I'm bias towards my 2nd favorite fighter (A.Silva being my top one), makes total and complete sense..

Meanwhile, ''hey according to the stats, the fight was actually closer! To the point where it makes sense why GSP won!!! What's that? Fightmetric says Hendricks should have won? Who are they? The official stat provider of the UFC??? Pffft whatever man, they don't know crap and are wrong''.

Yes, friend, I am the bias one here. Good job.
Come to think of it, Dana White too must be biased! You would think he'd support the decision to give his biggest PPV earner the belt, but no, he's probably bias. Joe Rogan probably also is. One of GSP's sparring partners, who I watched the fight with, also disagreed with the decision, I guess he's biased as well! All the guys that booed the decision, they're probably biased too..
Let me ask you, who did you think won in all honestly before they announced the winner?


An argument can be made for GSP when you're reaching for one, when you're trying to explain why a judge would give it to him. Otherwise you would clearly give it to Hendricks. If this was a fight between two contenders, GSP loses rd 1 and loses the fight in unanimous decision.
I disagree. And I disagree with a lot of what you said. But I'm not sure we're really going to change one another's minds at this point. You're utterly convinced Hendricks easily won; I'm utterly convinced rounds 3 and 5 were clearly GSP, rounds 2 and 4 were clearly Hendricks, with round 1 being ridiculously close. Again, this assessment agrees with the official judges, with most fan and media write ups, and with the so-called significant strike metrics.

At the very least, whether you think you're right or wrong, you have to admit your assessment (of an easy round 1 for Hendricks and a round 3 for Hendricks) would have to be counted in the minority at this point.

And Dana was way off on this one. He should offer an apology to the judges. Thank God he wasn't judging (only round 3 to GSP?). In retrospect the judges did an amazing job, scoring the fight as they should have.

Habs_Apostle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 03:59 PM
  #720
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
And 1 judge agreed, so what does that mean??? But this is the ridiculous ''you're not a coach of GM, therefore you can never be right and they're always right''. It's stupid, and there's a long list of judges making poor decisions in fight matches. This isn't new.

If you don't know why GSP's COACH would try to put everything on GSP's side then you have no business discussing this fight.
The point i wanted to make is you seem to think it's ludacris that gsp won that fight while a lot of people including those 2 judges saw differently than you and a lot of people including me argue that the fight was a lot closer that you make it seem to be.

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 04:05 PM
  #721
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I don't agree with you at all here. This was a Hendricks round all day long. No one cares about the fight metric, Kriss is just saying under yet another measure, GSP comes up short.

Significant strikes are not created equal, it's nice narrative, but a Significant Strike landed by someone with cement hands and someone who is known for a relative lack in striking power are not created equal.

It's amazing that Hendricks, who hits way harder, out landed george and lost the fight. The only visible damage was done by Hendricks, GSP was in trouble, Hendricks was never in trouble. I'm not talking facial damage, I'm talking visibly wobbled and in trouble.

Lastly, the scoring system needs to be changed, I can see an argument for a close decision in Hendricks favor for a fight that wasn't really all that close. No way should a fighter get beat up that bad and win a fight, and the loser looks like he barely broke a sweat. It's a fight and GSP got his ass whooped.

Talking about bias, in one of your previous posts, you completely tried to discredit Hendricks for the trip he made in round 4, no one said it was expertly done, only that it wasn't a slip. Hendricks knowingly stuck his leg in there as GSP was moving away, 100% on purpose, you made it sound like the two collided, they didn't, Hendricks realized George was moving away as he was pressuring him with shots and seized the opportunity to pull a Machida like sweep. It was awesome. Not the initial plan, I'm sure, but great ring presence to see the opportunity. Most people thought it was a slip, because that's how Rogan called it, but it clearly was a trip.
Look at gsp today... Nothing from the fight is visible... All Hendricks did is a few scratches while GSP did long term damages...

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 05:02 PM
  #722
Habs_Apostle
Registered User
 
Habs_Apostle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I don't agree with you at all here. This was a Hendricks round all day long. No one cares about the fight metric, Kriss is just saying under yet another measure, GSP comes up short.

Significant strikes are not created equal, it's nice narrative, but a Significant Strike landed by someone with cement hands and someone who is known for a relative lack in striking power are not created equal.

It's amazing that Hendricks, who hits way harder, out landed george and lost the fight. The only visible damage was done by Hendricks, GSP was in trouble, Hendricks was never in trouble. I'm not talking facial damage, I'm talking visibly wobbled and in trouble.

Lastly, the scoring system needs to be changed, I can see an argument for a close decision in Hendricks favor for a fight that wasn't really all that close. No way should a fighter get beat up that bad and win a fight, and the loser looks like he barely broke a sweat. It's a fight and GSP got his ass whooped.

Talking about bias, in one of your previous posts, you completely tried to discredit Hendricks for the trip he made in round 4, no one said it was expertly done, only that it wasn't a slip. Hendricks knowingly stuck his leg in there as GSP was moving away, 100% on purpose, you made it sound like the two collided, they didn't, Hendricks realized George was moving away as he was pressuring him with shots and seized the opportunity to pull a Machida like sweep. It was awesome. Not the initial plan, I'm sure, but great ring presence to see the opportunity. Most people thought it was a slip, because that's how Rogan called it, but it clearly was a trip.
Really? You're calling that Machida-like? Awesome? You're the only one I've heard describe it that way. And great ring presence? He came in with punches and GSP circled into his lead leg. Even if Hendricks didn't move his lead leg that inch or two, GSP still probably falls down. I'm far more comfortable with my description than using the superlatives you've chosen to apply.

Habs_Apostle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 05:23 PM
  #723
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
Im not an expert but I had Hendricks winning 3 rounds to 2.. I think he dominated St-Pierre overall and was the best fighter that night.. I was shocked and couldnt believe it when they said "And STILL".. I think Hendricks has been robbed big time..

NewHabsEra* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 05:44 PM
  #724
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
Really? You're calling that Machida-like? Awesome? You're the only one I've heard describe it that way. And great ring presence? He came in with punches and GSP circled into his lead leg. Even if Hendricks didn't move his lead leg that inch or two, GSP still probably falls down. I'm far more comfortable with my description than using the superlatives you've chosen to apply.
Nope, you're trying to complete downplay it as if it were merely an coincidence/accident, JH did this on purpose, it was a great move at the time. Trying to discredit as an inadvertent collision is where the bias lies. This was a move that JH seen develop and he acted in a split second to go for it. Truly excellent move, I'm not comparing him to machida, only that one particular instance, it takes a lot of wherewith all to pull off a move like that in full speed. So, no I don't buy the "if things were different they wouldn't be same" argument you are putting forward.

I just watched the fight for a 5th time, my opinion is that it is even more convincing that Hendricks won with this last viewing. Rd 3 is certainly debatable as well. Knowing that Hendricks should have been ahead 2-0, I think I gave GSP the round knowing if I hadn't the fight was over. I still think GSP may have squeaked it out, but I found that rd questionable as well. Rd 5 is the only clear rd gsp won.

He took a complete **** kicking. I can't believe you're even playing this game tbh, you know he got his ass kicked.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 05:57 PM
  #725
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewHabsEra View Post
Im not an expert but I had Hendricks winning 3 rounds to 2.. I think he dominated St-Pierre overall and was the best fighter that night.. I was shocked and couldnt believe it when they said "And STILL".. I think Hendricks has been robbed big time..
Hendricks wasn't robbed at all actually. He was given a major payday just by the rematch. I suspect the rematch will get more viewers than the original fight.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.