HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2013, 06:02 PM
  #726
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
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.
Most fans?? Fans of? From where???
The two biggest MMA sites Sherdog and MMAWeekly, have Hendricks winning from fans polling.
Sherdog has only about 25% of fans giving it to GSP, 68% give it to Hendricks, 5% draw. We're talking about more than 2000 voters there.
So again, most fans? Who exactly are you talking about? Montrealers that know jack crap about MMA and are blind supporters of their local stars?
I know people that can't even tell me what is a guillotine choke or armbar sub try to argue with me how GSP won. If I bring up an omoplata, forget about it, I'm speaking chinese.
I know people that told me Hendricks had to knock him out to beat GSP. That was the only way they were going to give any credit to JH.

Please man. Most people involved in the sport gave it to Hendricks.

And spare me the two judges. You know as much as me how wrong they can be, and how often it's happened, and they were wrong here once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
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.
Easy might have been an exaggeration, nothing easy about fighting one of the best fighters in the world.
But he did exactly what he needed to do. He made GSP uncomfortable. He controlled where the fight was going to happen by stuffing takedowns, he made him pay very hard with many elbows, countered most of GSP's punches, gave very big knees, and hit him with solid punches that clearly impacted GSP.
So ya, it was a clear round 1 win. And again, if rd 3&5 are 10-9 for GSP, then rd2-4 could be argued 10-8 for Hendricks.
It wasn't an easy win, maybe that's a poor choice of word, but it was a clear rd 1 win to Hendricks.
As I said, if you give it to GSP, you're reaching, or playing the ''he's the Champ'' bias. In other words, you're not being fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
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.
No he shouldn't, he was right 100%, and I hate the guy.

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.
Of course you're more comfortable with your description. That way you don't have to give any credit to Hendricks.
I mean, the guy trips GSP and you're saying ''wtv, GSP was probably going to fall anyways''...
Seriously dude, it's pretty lame at this point.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 06:08 PM
  #727
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by durojean View Post
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.
You can argue the fight was close. It's always close fights in a ten point system, after all, you only win rounds by 1 pt (considering they almost never give 10-8). So it will always be close. But using the score to prove this point is pretty foolish because, as I said, you only win rounds by 1pt.

It was ludicrous that GSP won it. That's why you heard all those guys boos after the announcement. You realize that those people were the same guys chanting GSP during the fight right??

It was a clear defeat. Any clearer would mean GSP gets KOd or submitted, and if that's the standard, then you're not being fair.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 06:13 PM
  #728
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
He took a complete **** kicking. I can't believe you're even playing this game tbh, you know he got his ass kicked.
That's really my biggest issue with these debates I've had with some people over the past days. Before they brought out the stats, most agreed they were pretty surprised to see GSP come out the victor. Now some stats come out and suddenly it was definitely a deserved victory from GSP. It's lame and they go out of their way to downplay some of the things Hendricks did only to fit this narrative.

What's bad here is that GSP is one of my favorite fighters and I actually think Hendricks is nothing special, and I'm the so called bias one.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 06:35 PM
  #729
icerocket
Registered User
 
icerocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlantis
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,310
vCash: 500
Point is Hendricks didn't do enough to beat one the greatest UFC champions in the eyes of the judges.

Also Dana White is a terrible human being.

icerocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 07:08 PM
  #730
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by icerocket View Post
Point is Hendricks didn't do enough to beat one the greatest UFC champions in the eyes of the judges.

Also Dana White is a terrible human being.
Clearly, not all judges have the same standards, which is pretty ridiculous.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 07:11 PM
  #731
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
Most fans?? Fans of? From where???
The two biggest MMA sites Sherdog and MMAWeekly, have Hendricks winning from fans polling.
Sherdog has only about 25% of fans giving it to GSP, 68% give it to Hendricks, 5% draw. We're talking about more than 2000 voters there.
So again, most fans? Who exactly are you talking about? Montrealers that know jack crap about MMA and are blind supporters of their local stars?
I know people that can't even tell me what is a guillotine choke or armbar sub try to argue with me how GSP won. If I bring up an omoplata, forget about it, I'm speaking chinese.
I know people that told me Hendricks had to knock him out to beat GSP. That was the only way they were going to give any credit to JH.

Please man. Most people involved in the sport gave it to Hendricks.

And spare me the two judges. You know as much as me how wrong they can be, and how often it's happened, and they were wrong here once again.


Easy might have been an exaggeration, nothing easy about fighting one of the best fighters in the world.
But he did exactly what he needed to do. He made GSP uncomfortable. He controlled where the fight was going to happen by stuffing takedowns, he made him pay very hard with many elbows, countered most of GSP's punches, gave very big knees, and hit him with solid punches that clearly impacted GSP.
So ya, it was a clear round 1 win. And again, if rd 3&5 are 10-9 for GSP, then rd2-4 could be argued 10-8 for Hendricks.
It wasn't an easy win, maybe that's a poor choice of word, but it was a clear rd 1 win to Hendricks.
As I said, if you give it to GSP, you're reaching, or playing the ''he's the Champ'' bias. In other words, you're not being fair.



No he shouldn't, he was right 100%, and I hate the guy.



Of course you're more comfortable with your description. That way you don't have to give any credit to Hendricks.
I mean, the guy trips GSP and you're saying ''wtv, GSP was probably going to fall anyways''...
Seriously dude, it's pretty lame at this point.
Most fans on the sites you've mentioned (whether GSP or Hendricks fans) concede Hendricks gets 2 and 4 and GSP 3 and 5. So, first, you differ from the norm in that you gave Hendricks round 3 also. Next, most fans on the sites you mentioned seem to agree (regardless of who they thought won the fight overall in a poll) that round 1 was the clincher (using a 10 point must system). And most fans seem to agree this round could have gone either way. So, second, you differ from the norm in that you cannot possible conceive how this round could go to GSP.

So THAT'S what makes your position so extreme. OK? So again, whether you think you're right or wrong, my only point is this: there just aren't many arguing as vehemently as you for a clear round 1 to Hendricks, and there were very few, if any, as far as I can tell, that gave round 3 to Hendricks. In short, you're one of the most extreme Hendricks advocates I've come across.

And yes Dana should apologize... and yes he was going to fall anyways...etc. OK, this is beginning to remind me of that old Monty Python sketch where one man pays for an argument and only complains he's being contradicted. "You're not arguing, you're just contradicting me!" And the other man responds, "No, I'm not!"

I think this is the point we're at now. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Habs_Apostle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 07:21 PM
  #732
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
Most fans on the sites you've mentioned (whether GSP or Hendricks fans) concede Hendricks gets 2 and 4 and GSP 3 and 5. So, first, you differ from the norm in that you gave Hendricks round 3 also. Next, most fans on the sites you mentioned seem to agree (regardless of who they thought won the fight overall in a poll) that round 1 was the clincher (using a 10 point must system). And most fans seem to agree this round could have gone either way. So, second, you differ from the norm in that you cannot possible conceive how this round could go to GSP.
What are you even arguing about anymore? That it was a close fight? Fine, let's say for the sake of the argument, it was.
You still have about 70% of the people saying Hendricks won, which is all that matters.
You think it's close, I don't think it really was, who freaking cares. It's all very subjective and completely irrelevant to the main debate, that GSP should have lost.
So give it a rest already with your rd 1-2-3-4-5 breakdown. At the end of the day, a big majority of MMA fans thought GSP lost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs_Apostle View Post
So THAT'S what makes your position so extreme. OK? So again, whether you think you're right or wrong, my only point is this: there just aren't many arguing as vehemently as you for a clear round 1 to Hendricks, and there were very few, if any, as far as I can tell, that gave round 3 to Hendricks. In short, you're one of the most extreme Hendricks advocates I've come across.
I'm only doing so because you're saying things like ''wtv the official statistical provider of the UFC is wrong'' and ''wtv, GSP would have fallen anyways''.
Or morons saying ''he tapped!''.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 07:27 PM
  #733
Danadiens
Registered User
 
Danadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
What are you even arguing about anymore? That it was a close fight? Fine, let's say for the sake of the argument, it was.
You still have about 70% of the people saying Hendricks won, which is all that matters.
You think it's close, I don't think it really was, who freaking cares. It's all very subjective and completely irrelevant to the main debate, that GSP should have lost.
So give it a rest already with your rd 1-2-3-4-5 breakdown. At the end of the day, a big majority of MMA fans thought GSP lost.



I'm only doing so because you're saying things like ''wtv the official statistical provider of the UFC is wrong'' and ''wtv, GSP would have fallen anyways''.
Or morons saying ''he tapped!''.
The real question is, how much money did you bet and lose? Come on we know you lost a lot on it.

Danadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 07:29 PM
  #734
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danadiens View Post
The real question is, how much money did you bet and lose? Come on we know you lost a lot on it.
Zero, not a gambler, and I would have put money on GSP winning.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 08:24 PM
  #735
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
What happened in this match is pretty simple.

Round 1 fairly equal and they gave the benefit of the doubt to the champion because it really was an equal round.

Knowing the rules and the rest of the match, it's a fair concensus that round 3 and 5 goes to St-Pierre and that's why he won.

I'm not arguing that St-Pierre won or lost. I actually think that idmf St-Pierre was not a legend and the champ he would have lost.

I'm arguing I understand the decision and really it was a thight fight knowing how those are judged.

Arguing that the system is bad and not representative is like me saying that if I had the talent I would be an nhler... It maybe true it doesn't give me the talent.

What I see in round 1 is 2 takedown for GSP against 1 and submission tentative that may or may not nearly have worked and a thight fight when the 2 were up. GSP was the champ and yes I find he did a little more in that round.

Add to that the fact that GSP is a legend and that the judges couldn't resee tge round 4 times it explains a lot of thing.

The rules were known by both fighters at the beginning of the fight. They both knew they rarely give a 2 points difference after a round and they both knew that after a round is finished it's a new start. Hendricks had that fight until the 5th round. He lost it there it's plain and simple.

Some say he was coasting threw it. I do believe he was more tired than the champ and it showed.

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 08:31 PM
  #736
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by durojean View Post
What happened in this match is pretty simple.

Round 1 fairly equal and they gave the benefit of the doubt to the champion because it really was an equal round.

Knowing the rules and the rest of the match, it's a fair concensus that round 3 and 5 goes to St-Pierre and that's why he won.

I'm not arguing that St-Pierre won or lost. I actually think that idmf St-Pierre was not a legend and the champ he would have lost.

I'm arguing I understand the decision and really it was a thight fight knowing how those are judged.

Arguing that the system is bad and not representative is like me saying that if I had the talent I would be an nhler... It maybe true it doesn't give me the talent.

What I see in round 1 is 2 takedown for GSP against 1 and submission tentative that may or may not nearly have worked and a thight fight when the 2 were up. GSP was the champ and yes I find he did a little more in that round.

Add to that the fact that GSP is a legend and that the judges couldn't resee tge round 4 times it explains a lot of thing.

The rules were known by both fighters at the beginning of the fight. They both knew they rarely give a 2 points difference after a round and they both knew that after a round is finished it's a new start. Hendricks had that fight until the 5th round. He lost it there it's plain and simple.

Some say he was coasting threw it. I do believe he was more tired than the champ and it showed.
Well maybe you need to rewatch it, and if you still see the same thing, maybe you should watch it with someone that knows a little more about MMA so he can show you all the good things Hendricks did.

If all you're seeing is 2 takedowns vs 1, and a sub attempt, then you're only painting a small part of the portrait.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2013, 08:44 PM
  #737
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
That's the thing I don't need to rewatch it as the judges couldn't rewatch it. I'm going with my first impressions which they had to do to find a winner in that round.

It's always easier when you can watch it and watch it again. I do remember saying to my friends it was really tight after the first round.

Plus, it wouldn't help as I would focus on things that proves my point so it wouldn't do any good.

I'm not only seeing that... I saw good things from Hendricks...


Last edited by durojean: 11-20-2013 at 08:54 PM.
durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 12:25 AM
  #738
boris4c
Registered User
 
boris4c's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 634
vCash: 500
I was delighted and surprised when GSP was declared the winner on that particular night. However I just rewatched UFC 167 and I can now see it is not surprising at all that GSP won the fight.

When people argue that most fans gave the win to Hendricks, there is a good reason behind it and that is the fact Hendricks caused a lot more damage during the fight. He messed up his opponent and he himself did not suffer major damage. However, a lot of the fans who voted forget that the winner is the one who wins the most rounds. In my opinion and that of the majority of the judges, GSP won three rounds. The truth is he barely won them, with the exception of one round, while Hendricks clearly won rounds 2 and 5, which then gives us the illusion that he won.

Btw, the people who booed GSP after the fight are certainly not the people who cheered "GSP!" during the fight. When Hendricks spoke after the fight he was also booed heavily when he said "I won this fight!", and obviously by the people who cheered "GSP!" during the fight. This is quite obvious and saying otherwise is just foolish.

I would love to see a rematch between them.

boris4c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 03:22 AM
  #739
Neutrino
Registered User
 
Neutrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 366
vCash: 500
There wasn't a doubt in my mind that Hendricks won after watching the fight, but I watched it again just now and it was definitely closer than I remembered. If GSP didn't have the edge of the champion he would have lost for sure but he had it so it's a moot point...

I hope Hendricks gets the belt now, he deserves it and he said his knee is fine so hopefully he gets a title fight sooner than later.

Neutrino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 09:05 AM
  #740
Devourers
Registered User
 
Devourers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 568
vCash: 500
I can't believe the level of homerism and lack of MMA knowledge in this thread.

1) I'm a big GSP fan
2) I wanted him to win
3) I know he didn't win
4) The president of the UFC knows it
5) Judges make mistakes all the time in MMA and Boxing
6) Just because people say you have to knock out the champ to win shouldn't make it true, and if that were the case imo if anything there should be no round limit.

If you're honestly trying to tell me this guy:



Beat up this guy:



Then not only are you a big time homer, not only do you drink GSP homer fan kool-aid, but you're simply not a true fan of MMA but rather a fan of GSP who incidentally likes MMA as a result.

It's a sport about mixed martial arts sure, but the object of the sport is to beat your opponent. GSP didn't beat up Hendricks at all, 90% of GSP's hits landed were of little physical significance where as Hendricks hit him with significant strikes time and time again.

You can argue the stats or that round or this round all you want, I expect much better from the champion and I expect much more of the UFC and their judges when a guy who clearly got dominated and had the crap kicked out of him wins a fight. It's ridiculous that GSP won, and I wanted him to win but it hurts when your guy wins with zero honor.

The way I see it if the challenger always has to finish in order to take a belt, even when he gives the champ a serious beating, it should be a fight to the end not 5 rounds. This would force the champ to stop playing it safe and doing ineffective jabs that don't phase his opponent but run up the judges score cards.

It's pathetic that a sport like this has devolved into a "let's play it safe cause we all know how the judges are going to call it" contest where the champions are holding back so much making it a boring fight (in this instance, it backfired but in the end he still wins) just in order to keep their title. If they knew that one person had to finish, they'd approach the fight much differently but since they don't 90% of GSP fights are a snoozefest where he stands back and jabs for 5 rounds.

Usually he deserves the win even though it's lame, but not this time. If you think GSP won that fight re-watch it, only this time take off your homer glasses for a second or two, maybe you'll see the actual fight.

Devourers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 09:31 AM
  #741
FF de Mars
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 42 rue Fontaine
Country: Martinique
Posts: 5,979
vCash: 500
I wouldn't be opposed to changing the rules. Hendricks dominated, afterall. However, in this fencing match, GSP won the most points. It's the same as in a classroom : you always have those people who write papers the way the teacher wants. It used to annoy the heck out of me too because like Hendricks I wrote papers my own way, with more strenght and personality, yet always ended up with a B+ or a A-, instead of a perfect grade like those suckers. My point is GSP won because he exploited the rules which need to be changed but which wont because it's the world we live in.

FF de Mars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 09:34 AM
  #742
Jazzped
Registered User
 
Jazzped's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Montréal
Country: Canada
Posts: 80
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devourers View Post
I can't believe the level of homerism and lack of MMA knowledge in this thread.

1) I'm a big GSP fan
2) I wanted him to win
3) I know he didn't win
4) The president of the UFC knows it
5) Judges make mistakes all the time in MMA and Boxing
6) Just because people say you have to knock out the champ to win shouldn't make it true, and if that were the case imo if anything there should be no round limit.

If you're honestly trying to tell me this guy:



Beat up this guy:



Then not only are you a big time homer, not only do you drink GSP homer fan kool-aid, but you're simply not a true fan of MMA but rather a fan of GSP who incidentally likes MMA as a result.

It's a sport about mixed martial arts sure, but the object of the sport is to beat your opponent. GSP didn't beat up Hendricks at all, 90% of GSP's hits landed were of little physical significance where as Hendricks hit him with significant strikes time and time again.

You can argue the stats or that round or this round all you want, I expect much better from the champion and I expect much more of the UFC and their judges when a guy who clearly got dominated and had the crap kicked out of him wins a fight. It's ridiculous that GSP won, and I wanted him to win but it hurts when your guy wins with zero honor.

The way I see it if the challenger always has to finish in order to take a belt, even when he gives the champ a serious beating, it should be a fight to the end not 5 rounds. This would force the champ to stop playing it safe and doing ineffective jabs that don't phase his opponent but run up the judges score cards.

It's pathetic that a sport like this has devolved into a "let's play it safe cause we all know how the judges are going to call it" contest where the champions are holding back so much making it a boring fight (in this instance, it backfired but in the end he still wins) just in order to keep their title. If they knew that one person had to finish, they'd approach the fight much differently but since they don't 90% of GSP fights are a snoozefest where he stands back and jabs for 5 rounds.

Usually he deserves the win even though it's lame, but not this time. If you think GSP won that fight re-watch it, only this time take off your homer glasses for a second or two, maybe you'll see the actual fight.
I'm not a big UFC fan, I'm not here to argue who should have won, because I know that I'm a homer with limited MMA knowledge.

That being said, I think that using a pic of GSP after the Condit fight is pretty much irrelevant in this case. And we can ALL agree that GSP won Condit's fight without a doubt even though his face was the most "damaged".

We can't judge who won solely on their looks. Again, I'm not here to argue that GSP should have won, but it happened countless times that a fighter won while being the most "damaged". The look of the fighters' face is irrelevant in MMA.

I'll let you guys debate on the scorecard, I really can't argue on that matter.

Jazzped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 10:42 AM
  #743
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devourers View Post
I can't believe the level of homerism and lack of MMA knowledge in this thread.

1) I'm a big GSP fan
2) I wanted him to win
3) I know he didn't win
4) The president of the UFC knows it
5) Judges make mistakes all the time in MMA and Boxing
6) Just because people say you have to knock out the champ to win shouldn't make it true, and if that were the case imo if anything there should be no round limit.

If you're honestly trying to tell me this guy:



Beat up this guy:



Then not only are you a big time homer, not only do you drink GSP homer fan kool-aid, but you're simply not a true fan of MMA but rather a fan of GSP who incidentally likes MMA as a result.

It's a sport about mixed martial arts sure, but the object of the sport is to beat your opponent. GSP didn't beat up Hendricks at all, 90% of GSP's hits landed were of little physical significance where as Hendricks hit him with significant strikes time and time again.

You can argue the stats or that round or this round all you want, I expect much better from the champion and I expect much more of the UFC and their judges when a guy who clearly got dominated and had the crap kicked out of him wins a fight. It's ridiculous that GSP won, and I wanted him to win but it hurts when your guy wins with zero honor.

The way I see it if the challenger always has to finish in order to take a belt, even when he gives the champ a serious beating, it should be a fight to the end not 5 rounds. This would force the champ to stop playing it safe and doing ineffective jabs that don't phase his opponent but run up the judges score cards.

It's pathetic that a sport like this has devolved into a "let's play it safe cause we all know how the judges are going to call it" contest where the champions are holding back so much making it a boring fight (in this instance, it backfired but in the end he still wins) just in order to keep their title. If they knew that one person had to finish, they'd approach the fight much differently but since they don't 90% of GSP fights are a snoozefest where he stands back and jabs for 5 rounds.

Usually he deserves the win even though it's lame, but not this time. If you think GSP won that fight re-watch it, only this time take off your homer glasses for a second or two, maybe you'll see the actual fight.
St-Pierre scratches easily and Hendricks don't... St-Pierre did screw up Hendricks more with the legs injury and he did show he had more left in the tank in the 5th round.

Did Hendricks won the fight, yes probably... He did not won the match tho, that's St-Pierre. Need a proof of that look at who got the belt.

It's like de Zibanejad goal in the playoffs... Surely doesn't look like a goal but that goal counted.

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 11:19 AM
  #744
idk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
What are you even arguing about anymore? That it was a close fight? Fine, let's say for the sake of the argument, it was.
You still have about 70% of the people saying Hendricks won, which is all that matters.
You think it's close, I don't think it really was, who freaking cares. It's all very subjective and completely irrelevant to the main debate, that GSP should have lost.
So give it a rest already with your rd 1-2-3-4-5 breakdown. At the end of the day, a big majority of MMA fans thought GSP lost.



I'm only doing so because you're saying things like ''wtv the official statistical provider of the UFC is wrong'' and ''wtv, GSP would have fallen anyways''.
Or morons saying ''he tapped!''.
You hit the nail on the head. It wasn't a close fight in terms of outcome. GSP got beaten pretty badly. The problem is 100% with how the fight is scored.

Look at it this way. Hendricks clearly won rounds two and four. He was far and away the better fighter. Of the two the second round was more handily in Hendricks's favour, but he pounded on GSP pretty good in each round. GSP clearly won round five (although he was not as dominating as Hendricks in either two or four) and was in control for round three. Hendricks still did more damage in his two rounds, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter - the scoring system says that all the rounds count the same. At the end of the day short a knock down (which was close in round two but didn't happen) it doesn't matter by what margin you win a round, simply that you win it. Looking at those four rounds the score is tied 38-38.

Throw on top of that the problem with the first round. Yes, it was close. Yes, GSP probably got the champion's point on two of those scorecards. But it was really close. And it was the first round. It was before everything else. Before the savage beating Hendricks laid on GSP in rounds two and four. If you take round one and tack the exact same round on at the end of the match and I assure you that JH goes home the winner.

That "early round/late round" problem came around again in round two. JH really dominated that round. He didn't knock GSP down but he came within a punch of doing so. However the judges typically don't give 10-8 scores without a knock down unless there is a really good reason for doing so. Flip rounds two and five and JH and the judges very well might have given him a 10-8 round because he had been so dominant for so long.

That's it. 100% of the problem right there. It's not GSP's fault - I doubt he was aiming to take the beating of his life and get by on the skin of his teeth. It's not UFC's fault. They're bound by the state athletic rules. It's not the judge's fault - they scored the rounds as they saw them and couldn't exactly go back and change their scores or break the rules to fit the narrative that the match took on. It might be the Nevada State Athletic Commission's fault, but the ten point system is (a) universally used in combat sports and (b) is better than the alternatives (like amateur boxing, where shots landed count). It sucks, especially for JH, but I doubt he's going to go away that quickly. Unless GSP retires altogether he'll have a chance to do it again.

idk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 11:31 AM
  #745
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by durojean View Post
St-Pierre scratches easily and Hendricks don't... St-Pierre did screw up Hendricks more with the legs injury and he did show he had more left in the tank in the 5th round.

Did Hendricks won the fight, yes probably... He did not won the match tho, that's St-Pierre. Need a proof of that look at who got the belt.

It's like de Zibanejad goal in the playoffs... Surely doesn't look like a goal but that goal counted.
You know you can get the crap kicked out of you and then get hit breaking some bone of yours. You can be out for longer than the guy you just destroyed. That's completely irrelevant.
GSP landed a solid kick (which was countered with a big knee to the face btw), and kept trying to kick that leg. So there was some internal damage. And you know what, I freaking hope Hendricks walks out of there with some type of damage, imagine going to fight the best fighter in the world and leaving without a scratch?..

In any event, people look at the stats and say, Hmmm GSP landed more significant strikes in rd 1.
Let's look at them. He did land more significant strikes, one more than Hendricks. But why are people disregarding damage/impact of both fighter's strikes? After all it is part of the scoring criteria and there's no way GSP's strikes were more impactful. No way.
GSP landed 1 more significant strike, it was 19-18. But in terms of accuracy, Hendricks got 67% vs GSP's 50%, why aren't people talking about that?
So not only did Hendricks' strikes have more impact, but he also was much more accurate.
Then you can look at the total amount of strikes and Hendricks beat GSP 27-26 (again with much better accuracy).
In terms of take down, GSP went 50%. During his failed attempt, he ate about 5-6 nasty elbows to the side of the head. It made the side of his head turn red.
So Hendricks has one takedown defense. He also went 100% in his takedown attempts, going 1 for 1.

Up to that point, there's really no reason for you to give it to GSP. None. When you look at the overall efficiency of Hendricks, and the impact of his strikes, he clearly wins this round.
But then GSP gets a submission attempt, or at least he had a hold so bad he let it go after 2 seconds. However, fair being fair, it's still a sub. attempt and that counts.

So what people are arguing about is whether or not that submission attempt outweighs the impact and efficiency of Hendricks in round 1. To me, it clearly doesn't. Maybe to the judges it did.
But then again, if the submission attempt is what gives the edge to GSP, then the takedown by Hendricks should have given him the edge over GSP in rd 3.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 11:34 AM
  #746
IceDaddy
24 and Counting
 
IceDaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
I just rewatched the fight....


IMO it comes down to how you scored round 1.



Hendricks should have won.


Last edited by IceDaddy: 11-22-2013 at 02:57 PM.
IceDaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 11:37 AM
  #747
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by idk View Post
You hit the nail on the head. It wasn't a close fight in terms of outcome. GSP got beaten pretty badly. The problem is 100% with how the fight is scored.

Look at it this way. Hendricks clearly won rounds two and four. He was far and away the better fighter. Of the two the second round was more handily in Hendricks's favour, but he pounded on GSP pretty good in each round. GSP clearly won round five (although he was not as dominating as Hendricks in either two or four) and was in control for round three. Hendricks still did more damage in his two rounds, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter - the scoring system says that all the rounds count the same. At the end of the day short a knock down (which was close in round two but didn't happen) it doesn't matter by what margin you win a round, simply that you win it. Looking at those four rounds the score is tied 38-38.

Throw on top of that the problem with the first round. Yes, it was close. Yes, GSP probably got the champion's point on two of those scorecards. But it was really close. And it was the first round. It was before everything else. Before the savage beating Hendricks laid on GSP in rounds two and four. If you take round one and tack the exact same round on at the end of the match and I assure you that JH goes home the winner.

That "early round/late round" problem came around again in round two. JH really dominated that round. He didn't knock GSP down but he came within a punch of doing so. However the judges typically don't give 10-8 scores without a knock down unless there is a really good reason for doing so. Flip rounds two and five and JH and the judges very well might have given him a 10-8 round because he had been so dominant for so long.

That's it. 100% of the problem right there. It's not GSP's fault - I doubt he was aiming to take the beating of his life and get by on the skin of his teeth. It's not UFC's fault. They're bound by the state athletic rules. It's not the judge's fault - they scored the rounds as they saw them and couldn't exactly go back and change their scores or break the rules to fit the narrative that the match took on. It might be the Nevada State Athletic Commission's fault, but the ten point system is (a) universally used in combat sports and (b) is better than the alternatives (like amateur boxing, where shots landed count). It sucks, especially for JH, but I doubt he's going to go away that quickly. Unless GSP retires altogether he'll have a chance to do it again.
But yes, it is the judges's fault. They could grow a pair and realize there's no way GSP won his rounds in the same manner Hendricks did. So ya, a 10-8 might be in order.

And again, I disagree on Round 1. I don't think it was a close round at all. Hendricks was clearly more efficient than GSP at everything in that round (even according to the stats). All GSP has is a weak sub attempt, and again, if that's what swayed the vote towards GSP, then the takedown should have swayed the 3rd round to Hendricks.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 11:43 AM
  #748
KingHab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 165
vCash: 500
I'm a GSP fan but he CLEARLY lost this fight.

KingHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 12:35 PM
  #749
idk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
But yes, it is the judges's fault. They could grow a pair and realize there's no way GSP won his rounds in the same manner Hendricks did. So ya, a 10-8 might be in order.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
And again, I disagree on Round 1. I don't think it was a close round at all. Hendricks was clearly more efficient than GSP at everything in that round (even according to the stats). All GSP has is a weak sub attempt, and again, if that's what swayed the vote towards GSP, then the takedown should have swayed the 3rd round to Hendricks.
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").

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.

idk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2013, 01:31 PM
  #750
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
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 05:06 AM.

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.