Fights that were considered controversial, but you thought weren't?

Mousasi vs King Mo, Mo clearly won. A lot of people claim Mousasi beat Mo up off of his back and deserved the win but the second round was the only round Mousasi was effective off of his back. I also remember Mo getting the better of a lot of the stand up exchanges.

gegard-mo-stats.jpg
 
gsp hendricks

hendricks clearly won, no controversy in my mind

The only round that matters is round 1, where GSP had a deep sub and many people think Hendricks tapped. If you don't see how GSP won that round then you are not worth having a discussion with.

For the record I do not see a tap. I see a 10-10 round and the sub attempt gives GSP a slight edge. Hendricks had his moments too in round 1, so it could go either way .. hence controversial.
 
A lot of these are good. One thing I've noticed about Sherdog is that people identify with fighters so much that they're completely bias. I've never been a "fan" of a fighter. There are guys I like to watch fight, but I don't identify with them the way I do in team sports. Maybe it's a WWE thing? I really don't know.

Jones clearly beat Gus. It was a close fight, but not controversial. For some reason Sherdoggers don't like Jones and their bias showed. Same thing with Henderson vs Edgar. People don't like Henderson so they thought it was controversial. That one wasn't even close though. Henderson kicked Edgar's ass. I don't even really care to watch either guy fight, but the outcome was obvious.
 
Rockhold vs. Jacare, I thought Luke clearly won.

i didnt even know that was controversial

jacare was my last on a 9 fight parlay, because rockhold was a nobody who i knew nothing about and jacare was -500 in strikeforce which loved can crushing

the previous 8 fights hit, so iw as rooting desperately for jacare, but even i knew he lost obviously. made me hate luke for weeks until i rewatched it and realized how awesome he is and the win seemed even more clear
 
Also, GSP did beat Hendricks, but a lot of that was the way people judge fights. One guy can land 10 jabs in a row then the other guy scrapes a bomb and people want to give it to the guy that threw the bomb. That's just retarded. Thankfully, most judges know how to score the 10 point must system.
 
Aldo/Edgar
Bendo/Edgar I
Sherk/Dunham
Condit/Diaz (probably the most convincing win imo)
GSP/Hendricks
Hendricks/Lawler
Rampage/Machida
 
Condit vs Diaz
Don't like or dislike either one so no bias, but I thought it was a clear win for Condit. Was shocked to read the opinions online. I think that fight more than any other was fueled by Diaz huggers and haters.
 
Diaz/Condit, Henderson/Franklin, Kampmann/Condit I, Edgar/Maynard II, Ortiz/Griffin I, Hughes/Serra, and as much as I hate to say it GSP/Hendricks.
 
Those saying Hendricks vs. GSP are either not being truthful to themselves or are lacking objectivity imo, that fight was close as hell, that fight is like the epitome of what a controversial fight is.
 
Those saying Hendricks vs. GSP are either not being truthful to themselves or are lacking objectivity imo, that fight was close as hell, that fight is like the epitome of what a controversial fight is.

*edit*
Misread your post.
 
bisping vs hamil... hamil should have won

jones vs hamil... jones should have been given the early stoppage decisioned win or tko from the shoulder injury
 
Are you suggesting that scorecards always tell the story of a fight?

Actually, I misread your post. I read it as Jones vs Gus because I was still thinking about that fight. My fault.

When I say "ringside scorecards," I mean those that include press row.
 
Actually, I misread your post. I read it as Jones vs Gus because I was still thinking about that fight. My fault.

When I say "ringside scorecards," I mean those that include press row.

Oh okay. I thought Jones clearly won 3 rounds but it was close like you said, I agree with you.
 
Back
Top