Unfortunately it's not the only criteria.
I never claimed it was. I still scored the fight for Lawler for the same resaons I scored the GSP/Hendricks fight for Hendricks.
Unfortunately it's not the only criteria.
For a guy that says rankings are "fucking stupid", he sure does use them as reference a lot
What a fucking idiot. Nothing controversial about Hendricks beating Robbie--as much as I wanted Robbie to win. He has a hardon for Robbie. It's pathetic.
As annoying as it is to have every fight that has a round of difference between two fighters, I can just imagine how fucking awful this would be if we scored fights as a whole. We'd be talking minute by minute analysis.
"ROBBIE WON 13:24 OF THAT FIGHT I KNOW IT!"
"BUT JOHNY'S 11:36 MATTERED MOAR ARGGG"
headaches. Headaches everywhere.
No body wants to see a fight like that again.
Hendricks/Lawler 2? Why not? I'd love to see that.
snap outta it.
robbie was picking him apart entire time.
No, it was a clear 10-9 for Hendricks. Sorry, this whole thing of "The guy who gets a takedown and doesn't murder whoever he takes down doesn't deserve to win the round" thing is just getting ridiculous. It's part of MMA. Robbie knows it, which is why he didn't bitch about the decision. All he had to do was stop the TD and he didn't. And Johny was nowhere near as hurt as the people rooting for Robbie thought he was. 10-9 Hendricks.
Rematch should be interesting if and when it happens
its one thing to question the rule, its like that, lame ass takedowns when the guy doesnt do shit its still scored (dont even remember exactly if hendricks did something)
but is it fair to score a takedown when the guy who took him down actually didnt do anything?
You mean like Gus' impressive TDs in the Jones fight?
Jones got up, guess they dont mean shit
You mean like Gus' impressive TDs in the Jones fight?
Jones got up, guess they dont mean shit
but lawler's guard wasn't even closed The action halted pretty much right when the takedown happened. Halting action shouldn't be encouraged in mma