Dana: GSP won rounds 1, 3, 5.

[Irishwhiskey119]

Ellenberger said that Dana told him after rewatching the fight, he thinks GSP won the fight.

At 17:30 of Adams podcast.

Update: Dana was apparently contacted by Cindy, and he denied saying this. There is literally zero reason for Ellenberger to make this up though.

Dana said it in a taped video interview that he went back and watched it and scored it for GSP. I scored it for GSP as well. Which is the correct scoring.

If you score the fight hole = Hendricks wins big

If you score round by round = GSP wins.

 

[MR.HUNT]

You know it's true when Cindy O. has to come on the UG to defend Dana.

 

[Captainhowdy19]

If GSP hadn't said he was leaving for awhile and stepping down. Do you really think Dana would have had his belt taken , tell him not to go to the press conference and say he lost ?

 

[Almus Monk]

Damage? Dude didnt knock gsp down once. Watch the fight, gsp landed shots when he was rocked.
Fights arent won on who u think lamds the heavier shots.... Especially when a knockdown isnt the result from the "damaging" shots

 

[Squarechoke]

I am not a GSP hater or a Hendricks apologist. I am an mma fan. The first round could go either way, but I scored it (and the fight) for Hendricks.

GSP apologists can not admit that their boy might have lost the fight.

It could have been made moot if GSP had done the honourable thing and offered Hendricks a rematch. But GSP walked away instead. Showing GSP is not the classy guy his fans would have you believe...

Since the rumors about that GSP would retire came out well before the fight the honorable thing could have been to give Hendricks his shot before retiring. Stepping away doesn't prevent Hendricks at all from getting the title. If anything it makes it easier since while Hendricks might have gotten a direct rematch it's not certain as Gustafsson didn't when he was in the same position.

Had he insisted on taking a break while holding the belt you would have had something. Now you don't.

I am objective, and I welcome intelligent debate. Sadly that leaves you out of the mix..,

You stating that you are objective as a fact can actually be an argument that you're not. We can try to be as objective as possible but to reach 100% objectivity in anything but extremely simple matters is extremely hard, maybe even impossible.

To properly be objective you also need to do your research, which I've seen is an area where you have been lacking when reading a couple of other threads this week. For example still not knowing that VADA does testing according to WADA protocols, which shouldn't really be possible not to know for anyone that's read these forums for a while.

 

[zephid]

Has nothing to do with topic ... but, 40%+ of Sherdog had GSP winning. Sooo, bye.

Not really. Here is the poll: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/who-do-you-think-won-gsp-vs-hendricks-how-did-you-score-2606947/

Who do you think won the fight?
GSP: 27.11%
Hendricks: 67.94%
Draw: 4.95%

 

[taddyheat]

Why are people still arguing this, hendricks kicked the shit out of gsp, if you don't agree with that you're a fucktard! If there's achy way to give gsp that fight, it's because of a flawed system, once again, if you don't agree you're a fucktard!

 

[Groundmaster]

You stating that you are objective as a fact can actually be an argument that you're not. We can try to be as objective as possible but to reach 100% objectivity in anything but extremely simple matters is extremely hard, maybe even impossible.

As if anybody would need that with this dork. He is clearly biased.

He still refuses to recognize the facts surrounding the whole VADA/WADA affair and has stated that Hendricks clearly won the fight. The last is not only patently wrong (as anybody can see if he checks out the official result) it also shows that you are not very objective.

I think Hendro should have gotten the nod (although I was impressed with GSPs fortitude esp in rd 5) - but it was by no means an easy call.

 

[Groundmaster]

Not really. Here is the poll: http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/who-do-you-think-won-gsp-vs-hendricks-how-did-you-score-2606947/

Who do you think won the fight?
GSP: 27.11%
Hendricks: 67.94%
Draw: 4.95%

Maybe you should read the thread - would make you look a bit less stupid.

 

[zephid]

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/score-georges-johny-round-round-2607597/

Was slightly over 40% when I saw it, now its 39.4% that score round 1 to GSP, which is the only round that is up for debate.

But 61% scored it for Hendricks, so what's your point?

 

[heatbag]

Bullshit. There was one round that could have gone either way and most fans and mma media members scored that round for Hendricks. Learn to be objective. Until then, leave the debating to the grown ups...

And just to be clear, each guy clearly won two rounds. So the first round is the one in question.

Hendricks' own corner told him it was likely 2-2 going into the fifth. The needed rd was the fifth and we know without question who won that.

 

[FULOP]

16 out of 16 is not a coincidence

 

[Landos]

He lost but was gifted the decision. Why can't gsp nuthuggers accept this?
It's happened before in mma.

 

[Squarechoke]

As if anybody would need that with this dork. He is clearly biased.

He still refuses to recognize the facts surrounding the whole VADA/WADA affair and has stated that Hendricks clearly won the fight. The last is not only patently wrong (as anybody can see if he checks out the official result) it also shows that you are not very objective.

I think Hendro should have gotten the nod (although I was impressed with GSPs fortitude esp in rd 5) - but it was by no means an easy call.

Yeah, I edited my post to mention that proper objectivity requires that you read up on the relevant data, which he's clearly failed to do. There's of course a good argument that he in fact just chooses to ignore the evidence that doesn't support his agenda since no one that has followed the GSP vs Hendricks threads should have missed that.

 

[Ringluv]

One question I have is how is damage scored point wise. This is a sport with judges and scoring. Is a cut over an eye awarded more points or equal points to a leg kick that knocks down or maybe wobbles an opponent? I've never read anyone address this and I personally think judging damage is very ambiguous since the sport is judged on a round by round basis.

 

[Captainhowdy19]

But 61% scored it for Hendricks, so what's your point?

Ironic that there is about 61 percent haters here as well

 

[zephid]

Ironic that there is about 61 percent haters here as well

Or 39% nuthuggers.

 

[Groundmaster]

One question I have is how is damage scored point wise. This is a sport with judges and scoring. Is a cut over an eye awarded more points or equal points to a leg kick that knocks down or maybe wobbles an opponent? I've never read anyone address this and I personally think judging damage is very ambiguous since the sport is judged on a round by round basis.

Not at all

http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations

 

[_Keyser_Soze_]

Here are the facts...

1. Dana has never wavered publicly from his statement that he thinks Hendricks won the fight with GSP.

2. Most Media members (who know a little more than the apologists on either side here) scored the fight for Hendricks (and it wasn't close).

http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/mma-media-scoring-gsp-vs-hendricks-2608633/

3. Most fans scored the fight for Hendricks - but why bother posting this, as the GSP apologist nation somehow believes that one of the most popular fighters in UFC history has so many blind haters that they skewed the result.


The thing is, the first round was very close. I scored it for Hendricks, like most people did. I am objective enough to realize that given the way MMA rounds are scored, the round is open for debate. I only wish that the GSP apologists who claim the fight was a slam dunk for GSP 1,3,5 were open minded and intelligent enough to do the same. But alas, those people are still offering up lame excuses for the Serra loss (oh, GSP was going through some shit).

GSP was one of the classiest guys in MMA (with the exception of his excuses for the Hughes and Serra losses) until the Hendricks fight. Too bad his fans don't show the same level of class...

So yeah, Hendricks 1,3,5 just like most knowledgeable people had it...

 

[jmk1502]

There are some people - yes, I'm one of them - who believed Hendricks beat GSP, and handily at that. The very last thing most people are going to care about is what DW says.

Judges almost as a rule score for the champion in combat sports; any fan of boxing will tell you that immutable truth, and it's obvious - based on the Gus-Bones fight - and in a much, much larger way (actually being a flat-out robbery as opposed to the close decision fight above) with GSP-Hendricks. The question in my mind, after having watched the fight for the 10th time (literally) is whether to give any round but the 5th to GSP. The 3rd was close enough to go either way most definitely, and Hendricks CLEARLY won the 1st round. If you want to say GSP won the 1st (and 3rd for that matter), please state why you think this way.