Fightmetric for GSP - Hendricks

GSP is a notorious bleeder. Guys like BJ and Hendo have catcher's mitts for faces. GSP doesn't. This is why you can't judge a fight by how much a combatant is marked up.
 
Oh shit, GSP nuthuggers just got destroyed by this post.

Don't be a retard. They use some scientific formula that they came up with. The punch totals are FACTS. Those strikes counted by them, actually happened.
 
I thought GSP won, he clearly was landing more strikes
 
XufKNOl.jpg
 
Why are Jabs considered "Significant strikes".

Look at Hendricks face after the fight and tell me anything GSP landed was significant. GSP got beaten into a retirement speech....
 
I'm sure in la la land those fucking stats mean something more than what I saw. I saw GSP take an ass kicking. At least in the Gus vs Bones fight both fighters looked like crap afterwards. GSP looked terrible and Johny looked like he'd just finished a crossfit work out of the day. When he says he out struck GSP he meant that his strikes were more significant and caused more damage. This is why the NFL, soccer, and the NBA have their own officiating and even that sometimes sucks. You have to have your own fucking officials who are trained to officiate and know your sport inside and out or this kind of controversy will continue to happen.
 
FightMetric statistics are AT LEAST as biased and useless as the judging in Nevada is. For instance, do you really believe that a solid straight left from Hendricks is merely equivalent to a similar right hand from GSP? I think not.

So you are saying that their qualitative analysis of the fight, which gave the fight to Hendricks, is wrong. That seems contradictory.
I'll be waiting here to see you change your tune and call fightmetrics fair all of a sudden.
 
I'd love to see them count strikes one by one. What a joke.
 
and there you have it. FM got the score perfect. Still think they're a joke?

They are definitely a joke. They're misleading. Look at how they have people in this thread saying this proves GSP won the fight. How can you tell me that's not a joke?
 
Don't be a retard. They use some scientific formula that they came up with. The punch totals are FACTS. Those strikes counted by them, actually happened.

the same site that put up those punch totals that are "FACTS", also scored the fight for hendricks.

hendricks won, gsp knew hendricks won, everyone that watched that fight knows hendricks won.

btw i still think fightmetric is shit, we just happen to agree this time.
 
Either you think Fightmetric numbers are created by magic and fairies or you said very little just now.

Because I'm pretty sure people enter those numbers so "significant" strikes are 100% subjective.

Nope. Perhaps educate yourself on what they actually mean with "significant strike". Hint: It's not a qualitative judgement.
 
They are definitely a joke. They're misleading. Look at how they have people in this thread saying this proves GSP won the fight. How can you tell me that's not a joke?
FM says Hendricks won 48-47.

This is what I'm taking about. People don't even know what they're looking at.
 
Not all significant strikes are created equal. Damage counts and Johny did much more damage in the first two rounds than GSP did on him the entire fight. 1, 2, and 4 for Hendricks.
 
gsp 1,3,5. just how i had it.

gsp haters are just mad. get over it, youll feel better tomorrow.

in the meantime gsp will likely be banging some dark chocolate hotties in a luxury hotel room.
 
"The UFC, via FightMetric, tracks significant strikes as all strikes attempted from a standing distance position, plus all power strikes (as opposed to jabs) in the clinch, or on the ground."

Significant strikes are not what people think they are.
 
So.. Hendricks had better stats in Round 1, and clearly did more damage, yet ''lost'' the round. Totally legit, I'm sure.
 
"The UFC, via FightMetric, tracks significant strikes as all strikes attempted from a standing distance position, plus all power strikes (as opposed to jabs) in the clinch, or on the ground."

Significant strikes are not what people think they are.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^.

The term "significant strike" was created to keep a meaningful striking statistic. Landing a greater number of them than your opponent doesn't necessarily mean you won. They're not all created equal but they all can have significance. The term is to weed out all the baby strikes in the clinch and on the ground that don't do any damage. There is no interpretation by the scorers of what a strike did when it happened.

To use a football analogy, a team can rush for more yards and lose the game. It happens less frequently but it's certainly possible.

Also, the notion that FightMetric changes their statistics in some kind of devious way is hilarious. They have live stats on site and they have official stats that publish shortly after. Official stats are painstakingly worked on to make sure everything is right. They hope to get about 80% of the live numbers correct. Sometimes it's harder than others (Jones/Gustafsson a prime example).

If you want to have a problem with FightMetric's decision that Hendricks won (in their blog post), that's totally your right. But they went about making the decision by actually analyzing the strike totals to all major targets while taking power and damage into play (not to mention grappling).
 
LOL at gsp landing only 2 less significant strikes in rnd 2

The same round where he went wobbly,

the same round where he got fucked up pretty hard

crum laughs at your fightmetric

go back and watch other than when he got rocked he outscored Hendricks
 
Back
Top