Fabricated robberies

[corrupted]

Reyes.

He lost. It was VERY close. But jones. 2, 4&5.

The narrative moving forward that he was some uncrowned champion ruined his career. He was never the same after because he couldn't accept it and his fans still gas him up about it.

 

[corrupted]

Jones' fights after Gus 1:

Glover: 50-45, 50-45, 50-45
Cormier: 49-46, 49-46, 49-46
St. Preux: 50-44, 50-45, 50-45
Cormier: KO/no contest
Gus: KO
Smith: 48-44, 48-44, 48-44
Santos: 47-48, 48-47, 48-47
Reyes: 48-47, 48-47, 49-46
Gane: Submission

That's two 48-47 fights.

Discrediting fighters based on made up stats is weak shit.

Roids quip in 3,...2,....

 

[DomiDomi]

Bisping vs Hendo 2- Narrative is Hendo was robbed, did more damage. Dropped Bisping twice. However the 2 H bombs he landed were the only 2 significant strikes he landed over a 25 minute fight. For 23 and a half minutes Bisping gave Hendo a kickboxing lesson, had him wobbled multiple times on the feet and pieced him up for the whole fight. Clear as day 4 rounds to 1 decision for Bisping.

Bisping probably edged out 3 rounds where barely anything happened, so we can't begrudge him the win.

But your description of the fight is downright fantasy. Bisping barely landed a meaningful strike all fight, Hendo didn't have scratch on him, he wasn't wobbled at all never-mind "multiple times".

 

[OldBoy91]

Bisping probably edged out 3 rounds where barely anything happened, so we can't begrudge him the win.

But your description of the fight is downright fantasy. Bisping barely landed a meaningful strike all fight, Hendo didn't have scratch on him, he wasn't wobbled at all never-mind "multiple times".

I mean, you are entitled to be wrong. Have at it.

 

[BoomStronk]

Machida v Shogun
Davis v Machida
Jones v Reyes


Theres a whole genre of fights that are considered robberies for a few weeks or months when passions are high that are not remembered as such. I don't think those counts. Remember Volk v Islam people lost their goddamm minds over that one.

Machida shogun is a good example. I remember being quite surprised at how up in arms everybody was about that fight.

Machida had haters, shogun was beloved. Makes sense

 

[Dr Fong]

The way the UFC spun Volk-Max 1 into a 'controversial decision' was a far more egregious fabrication than calling Volk-Max 2 a robbery.

Volk-Max 2 wasn't a robbery, but it was closer to one than Volk-Max 1 was to a close decision.

 

[ferrisjso]

Machida shogun is a good example. I remember being quite surprised at how up in arms everybody was about that fight.

Machida had haters, shogun was beloved. Makes sense

I think theres this thing where dominant fighters are held to a higher standard and if they struggle people gravitate towards saying they lost just because they didn't meet expectations whereas the challenger exceeded them.

 

[BoomStronk]

I think theres this thing where dominant fighters are held to a higher standard and if they struggle people gravitate towards saying they lost just because they didn't meet expectations whereas the challenger exceeded them.

Totally - Hence the uproar over Jones's Gus, Reyes and Santos fights, or the GSP -Hendricks fight.

 

[ferrisjso]

Totally - Hence the uproar over Jones's Gus, Reyes and Santos fights, or the GSP -Hendricks fight.

GSP v Hendricks was different. While it was 3-2 that was only cause Hendricks threw the 5th. Also even if you can make the argument for GSP winning and us overreacting him retiring afterwards makes it look like Hendricks beat him. At the time it was clearly a robbery which is why every media member(with presumably different ideas of how to score a fight) scored it for Hendricks. Until recently it was the only unanimous media decison for the loser of a title fight(there was another one recently cant remember which).

 

[Kompromat]

Totally - Hence the uproar over Jones's Gus, Reyes and Santos fights, or the GSP -Hendricks fight.

I think theres this thing where dominant fighters are held to a higher standard and if they struggle people gravitate towards saying they lost just because they didn't meet expectations whereas the challenger exceeded them.

Exactly. Let's not forget another one everyone brands a robbery - Khabib vs Tibau. This one is peculiar because its debated entirely retrospectively.

 

[maximus__]

Jones' fights after Gus 1:

Glover: 50-45, 50-45, 50-45
Cormier: 49-46, 49-46, 49-46
St. Preux: 50-44, 50-45, 50-45
Cormier: KO/no contest
Gus: KO
Smith: 48-44, 48-44, 48-44
Santos: 47-48, 48-47, 48-47
Reyes: 48-47, 48-47, 49-46
Gane: Submission

That's two 48-47 fights.

Discrediting fighters based on made up stats is weak shit.

Well there you go. It's actually just 3 wins via 48-47, 4 via atleast 4 rounds and 2 finishes's and a NC.
Puts him at about 38-40% of his run going 8-0-1 (NC).

I will change my comment to of his nine fights, 3 were close 48-47 decisions, with him getting the rub in all 3 when, the Reyes fight in particular should have been a loss. I forgot Anthony got so dominated even with the point deduction and could of sworn Cormier 1 was a 48-47, but I was wrong.

 

[maximus__]

GSP v Hendricks was different. While it was 3-2 that was only cause Hendricks threw the 5th. Also even if you can make the argument for GSP winning and us overreacting him retiring afterwards makes it look like Hendricks beat him. At the time it was clearly a robbery which is why every media member(with presumably different ideas of how to score a fight) scored it for Hendricks. Until recently it was the only unanimous media decison for the loser of a title fight(there was another one recently cant remember which).

Nah. That was just people being so used to GSP winning and giving the match to the challenger for doing well. Hendricks won 2, GSP won 2 rounds and the decider was the first round.

GSP wins that round. They were counting knee strikes to the thigh for Hendricks as sig strikes, GSP answers every single one. GSP lands a blast double followed by a guillotine attempt with a little brazilian tap from Johnny in the transition. GSP is landing flush headkicks and winning the striking at range, they are even in the clinch and GSP is the one pushing the action the entire round. Damage or bruising wasn't scored then

Johnny lost that round and taking off the 5th later cost him the fight.

GSP won the round because his takedown at the start was better, and lead to an attack, he was winning the striking at distance and and he was the one moving forward and pushing the action. Hendricks was reacting to him in nearly every exchange. It's a close round decided on the fact that Johnny's best offence (the elbows) was during an attempted takedown by GSP. The knee Rogan blew his load about didn't actually land. We don't even get a reaction to headkicks from GSP, but we do from a knee imeddiately answered to the thigh?
The right person won.

Scoring criteria in 2013 is below.

Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense. Effective striking is judged by determining the number of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the significance of such legal strikes.


Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.

Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.

Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.

 

[ferrisjso]

Nah. That was just people being so used to GSP winning and giving the match to the challenger for doing well. Hendricks won 2, GSP won 2 rounds and the decider was the first round.

GSP wins that round. They were counting knee strikes to the thigh for Hendricks as sig strikes, GSP answers every single one. GSP lands a blast double followed by a guillotine attempt with a little brazilian tap from Johnny in the transition. GSP is landing flush headkicks and winning the striking at range, they are even in the clinch and GSP is the one pushing the action the entire round. Damage or bruising wasn't scored then

Johnny lost that round and taking off the 5th later cost him the fight.

GSP won the round because his takedown at the start was better, and lead to an attack, he was winning the striking at distance and and he was the one moving forward and pushing the action. Hendricks was reacting to him in nearly every exchange. It's a close round decided on the fact that Johnny's best offence (the elbows) was during an attempted takedown by GSP. The knee Rogan blew his load about didn't actually land. We don't even get a reaction to headkicks from GSP, but we do from a knee imeddiately answered to the thigh?
The right person won.

Scoring criteria in 2013 is below.

Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense. Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense. Effective striking is judged by determining the number of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the significance of such legal strikes.


Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.

Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike or takedown.

Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.

GSP had been struggling for a bit before the Hendricks fight with Shields and Condit. That aura had faded a bit..

At the end of the day all 16 recorded media members came out with Hendricks 48-47. On MMA decisions the scoring for Round 1 is a lot closer but Hendricks is still up by 9 percentage points(2600 people voted)..

I will admit it was a closer fight than public perception was but that doesn't mean GSP won. If someone thinks they can still win giving up Round 5 the other fighter did not have a good night. GSP fleeing the division after the fight certainly reinforced the perception Hendricks won. Maybe if that wasn't the case it'd have been viewed as more of a tossup.

 

[maximus__]

GSP had been struggling for a bit before the Hendricks fight with Shields and Condit. That aura had faded a bit..

At the end of the day all 16 recorded media members came out with Hendricks 48-47. On MMA decisions the scoring for Round 1 is a lot closer but Hendricks is still up by 9 percentage points(2600 people voted)..

I will admit it was a closer fight than public perception was but that doesn't mean GSP won. If someone thinks they can still win giving up Round 5 the other fighter did not have a good night. GSP fleeing the division after the fight certainly reinforced the perception Hendricks won. Maybe if that wasn't the case it'd have been viewed as more of a tossup.

I don't know how you can really give it to Hendricks though via the scoring at the time. I think he probably gets the nod today, but you could argue the guillotine tips GSP over.

The round was scored in it's totality in terms of all criteria ath that time and takedowns were scored highly. GSP lands a flush headkick and a second one that was partially blocked.

If the first 15 seconds of that round occurred in the last 15 seconds, the decision wouldn't even be controversial.
People just gave the round to Hendricks because he didn't immediately lose.

MMA media got it wrong and were influenced by watching the fight with Rogan's hyperbole. At no point in MMA have knees to the thigh from a mutual clinch position really been considered a sig strike or fight ending offence. GSP dictated where the fight occurred that entire round and it's a good example of an actual close 10-9 based on octagon control and aggression IMO.

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

It was just never worth a serious response

That's fair.

 

[ferrisjso]

I don't know how you can really give it to Hendricks though via the scoring at the time. I think he probably gets the nod today, but you could argue the guillotine tips GSP over.

The round was scored in it's totality in terms of all criteria ath that time and takedowns were scored highly. GSP lands a flush headkick and a second one that was partially blocked.

If the first 15 seconds of that round occurred in the last 15 seconds, the decision wouldn't even be controversial.
People just gave the round to Hendricks because he didn't immediately lose.

MMA media got it wrong and were influenced by watching the fight with Rogan's hyperbole. At no point in MMA have knees to the thigh from a mutual clinch position really been considered a sig strike or fight ending offence. GSP dictated where the fight occurred that entire round and it's a good example of an actual close 10-9 based on octagon control and aggression IMO.

Both guys had a takedown in round 1 and Hendricks stuffed a takedown attempt. Stats say Hendricks had more control time too. GSP did not take Hendricks again until the 5th.

Round 1 you could argue for GSP if you look at it a certain way but on the flipside you could also argue round 3 for Hendricks which almost no one gave to him. If takedowns matter so much you could argue it. Hendricks might have been thinking a judge might give him that one when he made the choice to "punt". If hes thinking he has a case to win all 4 previous rounds you can understand why he'd play it safe. If you think you've won 3 competitive rounds you likely only have 2 but if you think you've won 4 he'd be thinking he has 3.

In terms of Rogans hyperbole if the entire media had the same score that argument rings hollow. Some might have been present and not watching the PPV. And a signifigant minority of fans watch PPV with no sound especially the sorts of people who'd have media credentials.

 

[maximus__]

Both guys had a takedown in round 1 and Hendricks stuffed a takedown attempt. Stats say Hendricks had more control time too. GSP did not take Hendricks again until the 5th.

Round 1 you could argue for GSP if you look at it a certain way but on the flipside you could also argue round 3 for Hendricks which almost no one gave to him. If takedowns matter so much you could argue it. Hendricks might have been thinking a judge might give him that one when he made the choice to "punt". If hes thinking he has a case to win all 4 previous rounds you can understand why he'd play it safe. If you think you've won 3 competitive rounds you likely only have 2 but if you think you've won 4 he'd be thinking he has 3.

In terms of Rogans hyperbole if the entire media had the same score that argument rings hollow. Some might have been present and not watching the PPV. And a signifigant minority of fans watch PPV with no sound especially the sorts of people who'd have media credentials.

Yes but even then a takedown was scored higher if it led to the passing of guard or an attack. Hendricks put GSP down on the ground before he was able to work to his feet. It's a takedown but less than a blast double in the middle of the cage resulting in actually having to defend top position and a sub. It's a major point in a close round.

Round 1 is the only round there is any real argument about. The other 2 rounds were scored pretty much the same by anyone.

Re watch the round. The majority of Hendricks offence was knees to the thigh that were immediately answered by GSP with the exact same strikes. Most of Hendricks offence comes when he is in a bad position or defending attacks from GSP like the elbows against the cage. GSP won the striking at range and this was completely ignored including the headkick. When you take into account that GSP landed a takedown to a sub attempt, that had to be defended, won the striking on the feet at range, controlled the centre of the octagon, came forward, AND given that they both had success in the clinch, how can you give it to the guy whose primary form of offence was knees to the thigh in a neutral position or some elbows whilst he defended a takedown? Without a knockdown, it should go to the fighter who actually won in areas the fight is scored. These days it probably goes the other way.

The re

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

yan/o'malley. it was a fine decision. condit/diaz was never really a robbery, both fought like shit. silva/brunson was fine. bisping/hamill was fine. there are a few real robberies that stand the test of time like gordon/pimblett, pearson/sanchez, garcia/phan.

fans, on the other side, have to decide if they want grappling that leads to nothing valued or not. the fights they think are robberies all involve most meaningless grappling they either want to be scored heavier or scored lighter. they need to pick a side

 

[maximus__]

yan/o'malley. it was a fine decision. condit/diaz was never really a robbery, both fought like shit. silva/brunson was fine. bisping/hamill was fine. there are a few real robberies that stand the test of time like gordon/pimblett, pearson/sanchez, garcia/phan.

fans, on the other side, have to decide if they want grappling that leads to nothing valued or not. the fights they think are robberies all involve most meaningless grappling they either want to be scored heavier or scored lighter. they need to pick a side

Yan vs O'malley is the first time I have considered the UFC have influenced the outcome of a fight. They have continued to try and do it with O'malley currently, with the rushed Aljo fight after threatening to strip him and vera getting the title fight.

The fight occurred in Abu Dhabi and was ran by the UFC as they handed over to the local commission.

O'malley got away with 3 separate fouls in each round, including multiple glove grabs, cage grabs and was not docked a single point after multiple warnings.

On top of that the UFC stats tried to say O'malley landed 86 sig strikes of his 91 landed, which anyone watching could see was completely false.

Yan addressed every criticism that had cost him the first round in the Aljo 2 fight. He went forward, landed with more volume and bigger shots, mixed in his takedowns, had control time and still somehow lost because O'malley punched his high guard less than Yan punched him cleanly... Yan actually won every scoring criteria in that round.

It's should have been 1,2 for Yan. O'malley can have the 3rd from the cut, which becomes 9-9 with a point deduction from the cage assisted granby immediately after having his hand removed from the cage.

Don't defend that type of decision or incompetence from a referee.

 

[Ibm]

Hendricks vs GSP. GSP won that fight.