Decisions Without Much Controversy Where You Scored It For The Losing Fighter

[LTorino]

I think we all have those fights where we think someone got screwed who most really don't. I guess I would say Wand vs Liddell. When Liddell was shooting takedowns to score points and avoid last second throwdowns, I thought he deserved to lose.

I thought Hendricks should have lost against Condit too, since his takedowns led to nothing and were avoiding exchanges.

 

[LockardTheGOAT]

I don't know if he got screwed, but Condit could have plausibly have been given the decision against Robbie Lawler.

Also, even though I like her, I thought Michelle Waterson deserved to lose her last fight.

 

[AimedWithV]

I think we all have those fights where we think someone got screwed who most really don't. I guess I would say Wand vs Liddell. When Liddell was shooting takedowns to score points and avoid last second throwdowns, I thought he deserved to lose.

I thought Hendricks should have lost against Condit too, since his takedowns led to nothing and were avoiding exchanges.

Are we talking here about objective judgment of fights, based on knowing the rules - or biased opinions who deserves and who isn't , like yours in these 2 cases?

 

[RomanJester]

Manhoef v. Carvalho I

 

[LTorino]

Are we talking here about objective judgment of fights, based on knowing the rules - or biased opinions who deserves and who isn't , like yours in these 2 cases?

Either or. I think Condit was beating Hendricks off his back, so it's a bit of both there. Objectively, Liddell outstruck Wand, but he blatantly stalled at opportunities for really exciting parts.

 

[AimedWithV]

Either or. I think Condit was beating Hendricks off his back, so it's a bit of both there. Objectively, Liddell outstruck Wand, but he blatantly stalled at opportunities for really exciting parts.

But you do know, that neither "beating off back" nor "stalling excitement" are factors in judging the fight?

 

[20falarVerdades]

Silva vs Bisping

 

[Tour'soverboyo]

I think we all have those fights where we think someone got screwed who most really don't. I guess I would say Wand vs Liddell. When Liddell was shooting takedowns to score points and avoid last second throwdowns, I thought he deserved to lose.

I thought Hendricks should have lost against Condit too, since his takedowns led to nothing and were avoiding exchanges.

Hendricks won that fight. Having Condit is incredibly bad scoring

 

[SCTwins]

Every fight Cerrone loses, even the ones by stoppage.

 

[LTorino]

But you do know, that neither "beating off back" nor "stalling excitement" are factors in judging the fight?

Well, the title was that there was no controversy. I think Hendricks takedowns should have been scored for zero because he could do nothing once on top, kind of similar to the Matt Brown fight which no one questioned the decision. Why take a guy down if you can't do anything from top position and get rewarded for it?

Hendricks won that fight. Having Condit is incredibly bad scoring

 

[AimedWithV]

Well, the title was that there was no controversy. I think Hendricks takedowns should have been scored for zero because he could do nothing once on top, kind of similar to the Matt Brown fight which no one questioned the decision. Why take a guy down if you can't do anything from top position and get rewarded for it?

Well, just so you know - every takedown is scored, and every top position is scored.
Hope that makes it more clear for you now.

 

[ColbyIsTheGoat]

Khabib vs Tibau

 

[magicmarker]

Chuck Liddell beat Keith Jardine

 

[ANIM4L]

probably RDA vs Covington. RDA was better on the feet. Covington just held him on the cage and when he took him down, RDA was back up ready to bang. If it were PRIDE he'd get a card for stalling.

I know this post will trigger the homos. So dont bother quoting me expecting a response.

 

[campbecc]

Well, the title was that there was no controversy. I think Hendricks takedowns should have been scored for zero because he could do nothing once on top, kind of similar to the Matt Brown fight which no one questioned the decision. Why take a guy down if you can't do anything from top position and get rewarded for it?

he just tried to hold Condit down and still couldn't keep him down for long.

 

[LTorino]

Well, just so you know - every takedown is scored, and every top position is scored.
Hope that makes it more clear for you now.

And beating an opponent off your back is supposed to be possible via scoring, but is way too often overlooked.

 

[AimedWithV]

And beating an opponent off your back is supposed to be possible via scoring, but is way too often overlooked.

It's also very subjective. You decide it's "beating off", other decides it's ineffective punching that doesn't overwhelm dominant position of an opponent.

 

[Magx951]

Well, the title was that there was no controversy. I think Hendricks takedowns should have been scored for zero because he could do nothing once on top, kind of similar to the Matt Brown fight which no one questioned the decision. Why take a guy down if you can't do anything from top position and get rewarded for it?

he only had the double digit takedowns because he literally did nothing with them

He also looked like he was gassing in the third. Condit should've gotten the nod.

 

[CroCopsLHK]

Joe Lauzon vs Jim Miller 2

 

[LTorino]

Chuck Liddell beat Keith Jardine

Are you Chuck Liddell? It made me dislike Liddell that he actually thought he won and didn't give Jardine credit, when it seemed like Jardine tuned him up. Why do you think Liddell won? It fits the thread