Contrary to popular belief, it was not the second round that was the decider.
Scorecards up on mmadec since for some reason they weren't for a while after the fight.
2/3 judges gave Hol the second while 0/3 gave him the first.
Yes, that's right, in a round where he had Hernandez on rollerskates, dropped him and significantly edged him both numbers wise while visibly stunning him several times with much harder shots than he got hit back with - we have him going 0/3 in that round.
I find this much more egregious than him losing the fight overall since you could argue the second was close since for some lay n praying on top for a minute seems to trump 4mins of damage (I didn't think it was particularly close but at least there was an argument for it unlike the first).
MMA judging has always been fairly incompetent and inconsistent but anyone else get the striking feeling it has regressed substantially lately? We seem to be getting wonky scores every card, several cards with multiple such scores. E.g. Santis v. Marshall last card.
Scorecards up on mmadec since for some reason they weren't for a while after the fight.
2/3 judges gave Hol the second while 0/3 gave him the first.
Yes, that's right, in a round where he had Hernandez on rollerskates, dropped him and significantly edged him both numbers wise while visibly stunning him several times with much harder shots than he got hit back with - we have him going 0/3 in that round.
I find this much more egregious than him losing the fight overall since you could argue the second was close since for some lay n praying on top for a minute seems to trump 4mins of damage (I didn't think it was particularly close but at least there was an argument for it unlike the first).
MMA judging has always been fairly incompetent and inconsistent but anyone else get the striking feeling it has regressed substantially lately? We seem to be getting wonky scores every card, several cards with multiple such scores. E.g. Santis v. Marshall last card.