Rob Hinds "explains" Manhoef decision, Jimmy Smith tears him a new one.

Pacemaker Joe

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
73
http://themmacommunity.com/threads/...arvalho-decision-jimmy-smith-weighs-in.18214/

“We don’t judge fights. We judge round by round,” Hinds said. “All the damage [Manhoef] did was mostly in the second round and the fifth round. The other three rounds were lackluster with not a lot to go on. The only round we saw different was round four.”
I talked to Rob after the fight and told him directly that it was the worst decision I had ever commentated. His answer was a more succinct version of what is quoted above. In his interview this is the only justification he really makes for seeing the fight the way he did. Read it carefully and you will be as confused as I was after hearing it from his own mouth. He talks about the damage Manhoef did and the how lackluster the other rounds were: there isn't a single WORD about what Raphael Carvalho did to win the fight. No talk of significant strikes, aggression, takedowns, cage control, submission attempts...you know STUFF A FIGHTER HAS TO DO TO WIN A FIGHT. The attitude almost seems to be that Carvalho started out the fight ahead and that it was Manhood's responsibility to convince them he deserved to win, and he didn't do enough. The simple truth is that, as painful as that fight was to watch, a fighter simply has to do more than his opponent and in every statistical category it was a (boring) wipeout. If a basketball game ends with a score of 15-20 it might suck, but the winning team still scored 25% than the other team and deserves to win. If Rob wants to win over a public that has been nearly universal in its condemnation, he should start by telling us what he saw in Carvalho that he felt gave him the win. On that subject he is conspicuously silent.
 
Hard to give Carvalho that fight but Manhoef did himself no favors. I would of been fine if they vacated the belt after that truly an awful fight.
 
Sounds a lot like Hinds' attitude is "the champion wins every round he doesn't obviously lose"
 
Hinds is the garbage pale who let that guy die at the Roufus event right?
 
Hard to give Carvalho that fight but Manhoef did himself no favors. I would of been fine if they vacated the belt after that truly an awful fight.
It was an awful fight, but it's hard to find anything that Carvalho did to try to win. Manhoef wasn't good either, but he did far more to win, though it still wasn't a lot.
 
Hinds is the garbage pale who let that guy die at the Roufus event right?
Yea, but there was a lot of blame to go around on that one. Nobody involved did anything right, corners, ref, ringside doc, paramedics, the fighter... Everyone fucked up in some way. James Reason killed him.
 
Totally missed this thread. Anyways, most impressive by Jimmy.
 
That's a pretty disgusting attitude from Hinds. It seems like he's just deflecting blame, claiming the decision really didn't matter because fight was bad, and pretty much implied the same bullshit we hear people here regurgitate when they're trying to defend an obviously bad decision in a championship fight, "you gotta beat the champ to be the champ".

Well, yes, you have to beat them at least three rounds to two. That doesn't mean that they start out every round 10-9 like you missed weight in Japan and you compromised with the Yakuza to save your little finger.

That was one of the worst decisions ever read, and I'm glad that Jimmy isn't afraid to say it. Even better, we were able to hear the thought process of a judge, and it's damning to say the least. Someone is going to say, "don't leave it in the hands of the judges", but I find that rather absurd; why even have them then?
 
Yea, but there was a lot of blame to go around on that one. Nobody involved did anything right, corners, ref, ringside doc, paramedics, the fighter... Everyone fucked up in some way. James Reason killed him.
Can I get the full story here? Who was the fighter that died?
 
Can I get the full story here? Who was the fighter that died?
Dennis Munson Jr, a kickboxer under Duke Roufus.
http://deadspin.com/report-kickboxer-died-in-bout-due-to-cheap-promoter-i-1659686690
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/wa...by-fight-officials-b99356847z1-280084622.html

There was a lot of blame to go around. Roufus took a shitload of heat from fighters who used to train there too over his training practices and how fighters were treated.

Oh, and it wasn't Hinds reffing it, my mistake. But if you want to read about a fight where nobody involved did anything right and it killed a man, read both those articles. Holy fuck.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy is the best commentator in the sport. I agree with him 99% here, but he does undersell how much commentating influences the perception of fans.
 
Oh look, the UFC shills are insulting Bellator again. I shouldn't be surprised.

The fight was fine - not the best but better than the CM Punk crap UFC is putting out now. And it was a close decision that someone had to win. Generally in sports, you need to actually BEAT the champ to win the belt. Manhoeff just didn't do enough to win that fight so Carvalho kept the belt. Makes sense to anyone who's not a UFC shill.

Jimmy Smith, the Bellator color commentator, is a UFC shill. OK.

Name a Bellator employee, other than maybe Carvalho, who's being insulted in this thread? I'll give you a hint: Hinds doesn't work for Bellator.
 
Jimmy is the best commentator in the sport. I agree with him 99% here, but he does undersell how much commentating influences the perception of fans.
He also explains how that wasn't the problem here though: if the fans in the stands weren't able to hear him, why were the boos so loud after the decision?
 
Oh look, the UFC shills are insulting Bellator again. I shouldn't be surprised.

The fight was fine - not the best but better than the CM Punk crap UFC is putting out now. And it was a close decision that someone had to win. Generally in sports, you need to actually BEAT the champ to win the belt. Manhoeff just didn't do enough to win that fight so Carvalho kept the belt. Makes sense to anyone who's not a UFC shill.

Wow.

I guess all the fans that paid to be there, to see a Bellator show, they're UFC shills too, right? Just plants that Dana put in there, because they all sure as fuck booed that decision.
 
Oh look, the UFC shills are insulting Bellator again. I shouldn't be surprised.

The fight was fine - not the best but better than the CM Punk crap UFC is putting out now. And it was a close decision that someone had to win. Generally in sports, you need to actually BEAT the champ to win the belt. Manhoeff just didn't do enough to win that fight so Carvalho kept the belt. Makes sense to anyone who's not a UFC shill.

"To be the champ, you have to beat the champ" isn't a judging rule, it's something fighters should be saying to themselves to push that extra little bit to be the best fighter they can to beat the champion. That isn't a hard and fast rule. Same as "You're not a true champion until you defend your belt", fans treat that like it's a RULE, not something that fighters should be saying to themselves as extra motivation.

Also, i'm not a UFC Shill, and the fight was atrocious. Mentioning CM Punk makes no sense as you're either referencing another issue that people AREN'T criticizing in the matchmaking, or you're saying that CM Punk has put on worse fights, which is mind numbingly dumb. You can win by an inch or a mile as the challenger, it doesn't matter, if you deserved to win, that's it, period. This "OYU HAVE TO CONVINCINGLY WIN THE ROUND OTHERWISE THE CHAMP GETS IT" is nothing but poison.

I've been on Team Takeover, i've been around people who blamed the shitty fights and people's shitty reactions to them on ZUFFA ZOMBIES, settle down. The fight sucked and Manhoef should have won it, doesn't matter if he did 1% more, he did more.
 
He also explains how that wasn't the problem here though: if the fans in the stands weren't able to hear him, why were the boos so loud after the decision?

I agreed with that part. But he went on to imply that fans in general are not swayed by commentating and in reality, they often are.
 
"To be the champ, you have to beat the champ" isn't a judging rule, it's something fighters should be saying to themselves to push that extra little bit to be the best fighter they can to beat the champion. That isn't a hard and fast rule. Same as "You're not a true champion until you defend your belt", fans treat that like it's a RULE, not something that fighters should be saying to themselves as extra motivation.

Also, i'm not a UFC Shill, and the fight was atrocious. Mentioning CM Punk makes no sense as you're either referencing another issue that people AREN'T criticizing in the matchmaking, or you're saying that CM Punk has put on worse fights, which is mind numbingly dumb. You can win by an inch or a mile as the challenger, it doesn't matter, if you deserved to win, that's it, period. This "OYU HAVE TO CONVINCINGLY WIN THE ROUND OTHERWISE THE CHAMP GETS IT" is nothing but poison.

I've been on Team Takeover, i've been around people who blamed the shitty fights and people's shitty reactions to them on ZUFFA ZOMBIES, settle down. The fight sucked and Manhoef should have won it, doesn't matter if he did 1% more, he did more.

I agree with the Motto "To be a champ you have to beat the champ." But another Motto I'll invent right now also applies to this fight, "If you are the champ, you actually need to fight in your defenses, otherwise you don't deserve the belt."
 




I guess the company that Bellator hires to do the official fight statistics is shilling for the UFC too.
 
I agreed with that part. But he went on to imply that fans in general are not swayed by commentating and in reality, they often are.
Yea, and you can see it of you read the pbp threads on here too. Jimmy's not bad, but when Rogan has a favorite it's often hilarious. Though even with him it does get blown out of proportion, he's not as big of a nut hugger as some seem to think he is.
 
Oh look, the UFC shills are insulting Bellator again. I shouldn't be surprised.

The fight was fine - not the best but better than the CM Punk crap UFC is putting out now. And it was a close decision that someone had to win. Generally in sports, you need to actually BEAT the champ to win the belt. Manhoeff just didn't do enough to win that fight so Carvalho kept the belt. Makes sense to anyone who's not a UFC shill.
3oAt2dA6LxMkRrGc0g.gif
 
Back
Top