For once the judges had it right, and yet Sherdog still complains...

[Thai Otoshi]

How many times have we seen the better striker dominate on the feet, get taken down, be the busier fighter on the ground, and go on to lose the decision.

Everyone loses their shit at the injustice.

So look at my surprise as the better striker dominated on the feet, got taken down (which the other fighter essentially did nothing with), got takedowns of his own, landed ALL of the ground strikes, attempted submissions, and the judges gave him the fight... but lo and behold, I come on Sherdog and everyone's losing their shit at the injustice. Some are even throwing around the word "robbery", spitting in the face of anything resembling logical discourse.

Am I missing something?

While I think the fight was close, though only in the sense that Thompson won on the laughably arbitrary "Octagon Control" aspect of the judging criteria, a "robbery" it was not.

If you consider getting horribly outstruck on the feet (literally 3:1), doing nothing with your takedowns, getting taken down yourself an equal number of times, and being in danger of submission attempts while also getting GnPed at every step a "robbery"... then wow.

I don't know what sport some of you are watching.

 

[RockyLockridge]

nah

 

[countswagula]

Agreed fully, Benson also had the most dangerous sub attempt in the fight.

 

[threelions]

There seems to be so many people who are allowing themselves to be blinded by hate for Benson that they can't see straight. The emotional outbursts happening in threads are just bizarre.

 

[Thai Otoshi]

nah

You claim to be a follow of JUST BLEED God in your sig, but you inexplicably believe that the fighter who landed less strikes and attempted less submissions won a fight?

C'mon son....

 

[Evbo]

I was high and tired as fuck during that fight so I can't say my view of it is 100% accurate but I thought it was fairly clear that Bendo won, and I absolutely despise Bendo.

 

[crazybull]

I thought Benson won but Thomson showed he is a great fighter to keep it competitive with a broken hand.
The big thing that really surprised me was how easy Thomson could take Benson down,even with a stuffed hand,either Thomson has great take down skills or Benson has no take down defence.

 

[RampageQJ]

Benson won the fight. Takedowns should not mean anything if you do nothing with it. I've rewatched. Benson was the aggressor, definitely inflicted more damage, as more damaging guy when on top and had the closest sub attempt. How people are so anti bendo is beyond me. The guy won the fight, close but he definitely won in my book.

 

[michal001]

the outrage has to do with these concerns:

-lack of consistency. when there is a lack of consistency, then concerns of poor training (of judges), conspiracy, and favoritism creep in.

-http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/having-opponents-back-doesnt-score-many-points-mma-2658681/

-nobody reasonable can deny that it was a close fight. but how can a score of 49-46 exist for that fight? it's hard for many people to accept one judge scoring it 48-47 for one fighter and another scoring it 49-46 for another.

-finally, multiple MMA sites, multiple objective viewers all felt Thompson won. It was a close fight. Of course people will argue when it's a close fight. It's the hyperbole when either side insists that their view is the only correct view that creates the "shertard" situation.

 

[Thai Otoshi]

I thought Benson won but Thomson showed he is a great fighter to keep it competitive with a broken hand.
The big thing that really surprised me was how easy Thomson could take Benson down,even with a stuffed hand,either Thomson has great take down skills or Benson has no take down defence.

I think Bendo has good TDD, as Thompson literally had one foot up to chest level in a couple attempts, and Bendo's balance wasn't letting him go down.

I think part of the reason Bendo seemed to go down easy is because he often doesn't seem to care getting taken down or be put in dangerous spots.

He's been like that since the WEC days. I lost count of how many locked in subs he calmly let happen, then just as calmly sneaked out of.

 

[P4psilva]

How many times have we seen the better striker dominate on the feet, get taken down, be the busier fighter on the ground, and go on to lose the decision.

Everyone loses their shit at the injustice.

So look at my surprise as the better striker dominated on the feet, got taken down (which the other fighter essentially did nothing with), got takedowns of his own, landed ALL of the ground strikes, attempted submissions, and the judges gave him the fight... but lo and behold, I come on Sherdog and everyone's losing their shit at the injustice. Some are even throwing around the word "robbery", spitting in the face of anything resembling logical discourse.

Am I missing something?

While I think the fight was close, though only in the sense that Thompson won on the laughably arbitrary "Octagon Control" aspect of the judging criteria, a "robbery" it was not.

If you consider getting horribly outstruck on the feet (literally 3:1), doing nothing with your takedowns, getting taken down yourself an equal number of times, and being in danger of submission attempts while also getting GnPed at every step a "robbery"... then wow.

I don't know what sport some of you are watching.

this should shut all these trolls up.

they think fighters are supposed to win based off what they want

 

[Kirin]

How many times have we seen the better striker dominate on the feet, get taken down, be the busier fighter on the ground, and go on to lose the decision.

Everyone loses their shit at the injustice.

So look at my surprise as the better striker dominated on the feet, got taken down (which the other fighter essentially did nothing with), got takedowns of his own, landed ALL of the ground strikes, attempted submissions, and the judges gave him the fight... but lo and behold, I come on Sherdog and everyone's losing their shit at the injustice. Some are even throwing around the word "robbery", spitting in the face of anything resembling logical discourse.

Am I missing something?

While I think the fight was close, though only in the sense that Thompson won on the laughably arbitrary "Octagon Control" aspect of the judging criteria, a "robbery" it was not.

If you consider getting horribly outstruck on the feet (literally 3:1), doing nothing with your takedowns, getting taken down yourself an equal number of times, and being in danger of submission attempts while also getting GnPed at every step a "robbery"... then wow.

I don't know what sport some of you are watching.

I thought the exact same thing. People on here have their heads so far up their asses they can't even see their own hypocrisy and inconsistency.

the outrage has to do with these concerns:

-lack of consistency. when there is a lack of consistency, then concerns of poor training (of judges), conspiracy, and favoritism creep in.

-http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/having-opponents-back-doesnt-score-many-points-mma-2658681/

-nobody reasonable can deny that it was a close fight. but how can a score of 49-46 exist for that fight? it's hard for many people to accept one judge scoring it 48-47 for one fighter and another scoring it 49-46 for another.

-finally, multiple MMA sites, multiple objective viewers all felt Thompson won. It was a close fight. Of course people will argue when it's a close fight. It's the hyperbole when either side insists that their view is the only correct view that creates the "shertard" situation.

All of your "points" are really lame.

Instead of lauding the two judges who made the right call last night, you're complaining about how they didn't score the way some moronic judges are often wont to do: guy gets a td, the round is automatically his?

Instead of trying to use the sites/scores that "support" your argument, how about actually making a case for why thompson deserved to win based on the merits of the fight? Did he land more strikes? Was he dominating the grappling? Did he come close to finishing multiple times in multiple rounds? I say no to all three of those.

 

[crazybull]

I think Bendo has good TDD, as Thompson literally had one foot up to chest level in a couple attempts, and Bendo's balance wasn't letting him go down.

I think part of the reason Bendo seemed to go down easy is because he often doesn't seem to care getting taken down or be put in dangerous spots.

He's been like that since the WEC days. I lost count of how many locked in subs he calmly let happen, then just as calmly sneaked out of.

Fair call,just thought Thomson having a stuffed hand still managed to take him down relatively easy but as you stated he didn't seem to bothered by it and if Thomson's hand is damaged his grip would be poor as well, so very hard for Thomson to finish Benson without a decent grip.

 

[Thai Otoshi]

-lack of consistency. when there is a lack of consistency, then concerns of poor training (of judges), conspiracy, and favoritism creep in.

Which is absurd, considering the judges finally seem to be scoring fights based off of damage and activity, and not just takedowns = winning.

-http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f2/having-opponents-back-doesnt-score-many-points-mma-2658681/

Of course having someone's back doesn't score many points.

Getting into a position, and then essentially doing nothing with it, should NOT score you points.

-nobody reasonable can deny that it was a close fight. but how can a score of 49-46 exist for that fight? it's hard for many people to accept one judge scoring it 48-47 for one fighter and another scoring it 49-46 for another.

That was absurd... but only makes it a "robbery" in the sense that last judge should have had it 48-47 like a reasonable person.

-finally, multiple MMA sites, multiple objective viewers all felt Thompson won. It was a close fight. Of course people will argue when it's a close fight. It's the hyperbole when either side insists that their view is the only correct view that creates the "shertard" situation.

You mean multiple subjective viewers.

And I say subjective, because the closest thing to objectivity we have in MMA scoring, Fight Metric, showed a MASSIVE disparity in striking, and an equal number of takedowns, with Bendo having a better ratio of success vs. attempts.

 

[Mau]

Great thread, there's still hope

 

[RakodaJay**]

This was a good decision. Sherdog's are blinded by their hate for Henderson.

 

[SnitchInsider]

Just watched the fight this morning. I was expecting a robbery of epic proportions. What I got was a fight that Benson pretty clearly won. Thomson mounted almost zero offense until spurts during the fifth round. He won a few grappling exchanges, yes, but he did nothing with the dominant positions he had, when he had them.

Easy decision.

 

[BlizzardVeers]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize those heel jabs in the clinch should count as damaging or significant strikes. Definitely got out struck, if you include them.

Benson landed only several significant strikes that actually did damage. 3 of them were body, and one was a combo. He really didn't do much else throughout the fight.

Thomson clearly won round 1, based on huge slams, having rear mount with a body lock on for MORE THAN 2 minutes of that round. He was never outgrappled in the clinch, and while Bendo did turn him around that really doesn't mean jack shit. Thomson clearly had double underhooks for most of the fight, and had complete control in the clinch - which is why he was repeatedly able to take Bendo down. Benson didn't do shit in that round, even if the numbers say he did, because those numbers are always fucking massively inflated for his fights - due to his heel kicks.

Thomson was also in control for round 2, and while it was closer, it was clear that based on what we were watching that Thomson took that round. He had double underhooks (aka control), he had rear mount (for a significant amount of time again) he had the submission attempts, he had the takedowns - as he did in the first round. Despite backing up, Josh controlled where that fight went, at every minute of those first two rounds.

Josh lost the third. Bendo controlled the pace and where the fight went, and landed the more significant strikes and kept off his back.

And then Josh won the fourth based on those exact same things.

I thought it was obvious that Bendo won the 5th, but other people don't agree it was that obvious.

And Benson landed SOME GNP, but he really didn't land enough for it to matter. He struck more. He threw more punches. But how much damage did he do? What did those punches and strikes accomplish? Thomson's RNCs, repeatedly, his rear mount control, REPEATEDLY for long periods of time, his takedowns, his clinch control - etc. I think he won the fight based on that. Judging in the past has shown us that striking doesn't fucking take priority over dominate grappling, or control of where the fight is and how the fight is being fought. That's a reason people are pissed off. If those strikes Bendo was throwing matter for shit, he would have clearly won the fight - and he didn't, and you're acting like everyone else is stupid because they don't agree, possibly because you think they're just butthurt Bendo haters.

It's not a matter of being butthurt, and you're acting like the people that are scoring this for Thomson just hate Bendo. That's not the truth at all. Your entire argument is based on a false premise. I fucking hate Thomson as a person, and he's a fun fighter to watch. But I was rooting for Bendo - and it's flat out bullshit that he got that decision the way that he did.

Hell, I wouldn't even be mad if Bendo had gotten the decision with another 48-47 - because I thought it was close. I'm pissed, and a lot of other people are pissed, because the decision was decided by a fucking 49-46 for Bendo. The only media outlets that scored it this same way, really had people who don't know what the fuck they're watching score on it. (Adam Martin for MMAJunkie).

By the way other fights have been scored in the past, no, that particular judge didn't get any part of that right. In-fact, it's pretty clear that Sal Damato (who was the judge in question) just judged that fight based on whatever the fuck he wanted. In any consistent universe of judging, Thomson -wins- that fight.

I don't agree with you.

 

[Hawke]

Agreed fully, Benson also had the most dangerous sub attempt in the fight.

You referring to that standing choke?

 

[Kirin]

What a joke, blizzard veers. If it's obvious that anyone if judging the fight on "what the fuck he wanted" it's you.

I guess absorbing those kicks to the calf is better than landing them now? Also, you seem to be letting thompson's mild success in the grappling over the first two rounds complete skew what you saw in the rest of the fight.

Great analysis on the 4th round by the way.