Dana White calls Lawler's loss to Hendricks "Controversial"

Fight could easily have gone either way. Close round 1 and round 5. And round 3 or 4 could be argued 10-8.

Interesting fight where once again the scoring system shows why it sucks.

Lol... no. God, fucking no.

Hendricks clearly won the 1st and 5th.
 
Close? Sure. Controversial? Nah.
 
rnds 1-2-5 JH. RL did more dmg in rnd 3-4 tho. He was closer to fnishing the fight. Just the judging system doesnt work like that, as dmg aint a factor.
 
jyJ5bQc.gif
 
Lol... no. God, fucking no.

Hendricks clearly won the 1st and 5th.

1st was really close. 5th Hendricks deserved though it was close to where basically bear hugging lawler for the final minute won him the round. I'd agree with anyone who says he won either round.

But once again the problem with this fight (much like GSP vs Hendricks and countless other examples) rounds 3-4 were valued the same as every other round of the fight. This is why the fight was questionable, though perfectly legitimate.
 
i thought round 5 was a 10 10. Lawler hurt Hendricks, hendricks hurt lawler. Hendricks holds lawler down to prevent action for the remainder of the round. 10-10

I suggest watching round 5 again. For a couple minutes there I thought Robbie was gonna get KO'd.
 
As a big fan of Lawler, can you guys stop being irrational?

Robbie was not winning the entire fight, he lost, 3 rounds to 2, extremely clearly. He was losing the 5th already and as if there was a doubt, Hendricks landed the takedown and maintained top position for the last minute.

He even said it, he even recognized the mistakes he made that cost him the fight and speaks of how he would do it differently.

Judge the fight through unbiased lenses and score it round by round. There is only one winner.

Ps this is not an attack on you, I've just seen a lot of people saying the same thing.

you gotta stop heavily relying on fight metric.

just cause on fight metric one guy landed 13 strikes n the other landed 12, doesnt not mean the 1st guy won the striking.

in hendricks/lawler round 1, johnnny "landed" more strikes, but robbie landed better/harder shots. he was clearly winning the striking part. johnny tries few tds n missed n his highlight of that round was pressing robbie against the cage doing nothing.
 
it was a close but clear win for hendricks, it's just being dana again bec of a possible rematch
 
JH 1, 2 and 5. Not very controversial at all, but a close fight that I don't mind seeing again.
 
It was but Dana is only saying this to build up Lawler's imminent rematch
 
you gotta stop heavily relying on fight metric.

just cause on fight metric one guy landed 13 strikes n the other landed 12, doesnt not mean the 1st guy won the striking.

in hendricks/lawler round 1, johnnny "landed" more strikes, but robbie landed better/harder shots. he was clearly winning the striking part. johnny tries few tds n missed n his highlight of that round was pressing robbie against the cage doing nothing.

I have never in my life read the fight metric for this fight. I am telling you how I saw it from the perspective of someone who is a fan of both. I would have loved to see Lawler pull it off.

There is a big difference between a close fight and a controversial fight. This was a close, competitive fight, but that does not make it controversial.
 
It was a very close fight... but "close" does not equal "controversial". I wasn't happy that Hendricks got a lead in the 5th and then stalled the remainder of the round... but it was a clear cut victory for him... and considering how epic the other 4 rounds were, I can forgive him for doing that.
 
still, i feel it sets a bad precedent for the sport b/c it encourages halting action as a method of winning. it shouldn't be a part of mma

It is called point fighting , and people hate it
giphy.gif


except when Big Rig does it.
 
Fights GSP in close fight and loses, he "Got Robbed". Fights Robbie Lawler in close fight and wins , it "was a landslide".
 
Back
Top