Bisping vs Silva fightmetrics

How many points is a KO worth in scoring a fight?

Enough to win the round. I don't think anyone disputes Silva won round 3. But unfortunately it was RIGHT at the bell, so Silva didn't get a chance to finish.
 
Fight metric is for nerds, even the top goof himself said it was even going into the 5th. Silva was robbed

If it's 2-2 going into the 5ths how could it be a robbery.

0-4 going into the 5th now that would be a robbery.
 
Who did you think won at the end of the fight on first time viewing?

Yup. We need to remove the judges and have a doctor examine both fighters faces at the end of the fight to declare the winner.
 
So, if a guy throws more strikes, lands more strikes, but misses a larger percentage...he loses? That doesn't make sense. I can see the argument for Anderson having landed the harder shots though, but Bisping certainly landed more.

I agree, missing doesn't matter, it's about the strikes that hit. The real problem is that there isn't really a universally applied standard of how fights are being scored. We have fights in which they seem to look more at the amount of strikes landed, and at other fights they seem to look more at the impact of the strikes. Judges are really inconsistent.

I feel that a knockdown secures the round unless you were really dominating the round or the knockdown was more of a pushover. But 3rd round was definitely a hard knee, which was the most significant strike of the round. Fifth round was also clearly Anderson's. So I guess we disagree about the fourth, but must admit I'll have to rewatch that one. Don't remember it too clearly, just remember feeling like it was even going into the fifth.
 
Yup. We need to remove the judges and have a doctor examine both fighters faces at the end of the fight to declare the winner.

Not sure what you're implying but for the record, I had it an easy 1,2,4 Bisping.
 
Bisping clearly won 3 rounds to 2. the judges were all right. I swear I am not a Bisping fan or a Silva fan, I didn't care who win, just wanted a good fight.. but I scored it 48-47 to Bisping while watching it
Agreed, and i was impartial during the fight. And i hate the unified system for determining decisions but it is what it is...
 
Who did you think won at the end of the fight on first time viewing?
at the end of the fight i felt that silva would get the nod but still felt it was close. maybe it was just the momentum shift. still close enough either way that i dont think the term robbery is in order.
 
I agree, missing doesn't matter, it's about the strikes that hit. The real problem is that there isn't really a universally applied standard of how fights are being scored. We have fights in which they seem to look more at the amount of strikes landed, and at other fights they seem to look more at the impact of the strikes. Judges are really inconsistent.

I feel that a knockdown secures the round unless you were really dominating the round or the knockdown was more of a pushover. But 3rd round was definitely a hard knee, which was the most significant strike of the round. Fifth round was also clearly Anderson's. So I guess we disagree about the fourth, but must admit I'll have to rewatch that one. Don't remember it too clearly, just remember feeling like it was even going into the fifth.

Honestly, the 4th was pretty damn close. I would have to re-watch it also, but I don't think either man dominated the round. Bisping landed more shots in in, but silva landed the better shots. Glad I'm not a judge!
 
If it's 2-2 going into the 5ths how could it be a robbery.

0-4 going into the 5th now that would be a robbery.

Nope, it's a robbery because there is NO WAY Anderson lost that fifth round. So if it was even going into the fifth, he was robbed.

If I rob you of 0,01$, you were still robbed. Doesn't really matter that I only took a little. There's no such thing as being a little bit robbed. You were either robbed or not.
 
at the end of the fight i felt that silva would get the nod but still felt it was close. maybe it was just the momentum shift. still close enough either way that i dont think the term robbery is in order.

What rounds would you have given to Silva?
 
I agree, missing doesn't matter, it's about the strikes that hit. The real problem is that there isn't really a universally applied standard of how fights are being scored. We have fights in which they seem to look more at the amount of strikes landed, and at other fights they seem to look more at the impact of the strikes. Judges are really inconsistent.

I feel that a knockdown secures the round unless you were really dominating the round or the knockdown was more of a pushover. But 3rd round was definitely a hard knee, which was the most significant strike of the round. Fifth round was also clearly Anderson's. So I guess we disagree about the fourth, but must admit I'll have to rewatch that one. Don't remember it too clearly, just remember feeling like it was even going into the fifth.

You can feel a knockdown secures a round all you want, but this isn't K1. A knockdown does not secure a round.
 
Nope, it's a robbery because there is NO WAY Anderson lost that fifth round. So if it was even going into the fifth, he was robbed.

If I rob you of 0,01$, you were still robbed. Doesn't really matter that I only took a little. There's no such thing as being a little bit robbed. You were either robbed or not.

3pduul.jpg
 
People that think Anderson clearly inflicted more damage have short-term memory problems.

Did you not see Bisping knock down Silva in rounds 1 and 2 and follow him to the ground for some serious ground and pound sequences?

It was like Silva/Weidman II all over again.

It's hard to see bruises on dark-skinned people.

It's common sense- dark blue is hard to contrast from dark brown as opposed to white or yellow.

I agree with you, but Bisping got hurt by one of those up kicks.
 
Anderson coasted the 4th round that solidified the victory for Bisping. Can't win a round backing up and fighting with your back on the cage.

I gave rounds 1,2,4 to Bisping.
 
What rounds would you have given to Silva?
3,4,5
with 4 being the round that could go either way. imo
neither fighter really did much in that round and silva just seemed content to parry bisping against the fence. attempting to doge most of his attacks with is back to the wall. very strange.
but at the same time bisping was throwing lots of volume.
and i think silva came alive at the end and landed some good effective strikes
was it enough to steal the round? clearly not in the eyes of the judges. but to me it was. well at least upon first viewing
 
Anderson fans starting to realize you can't possibly give him round 4 and are now relying on "B-but Bisping was out!"

So fucking delusional.
 
Back
Top