Only GSP fanboys think that have no clue how MMA is scored think GSP has a valid argument for winning.
"bUt iT WaS a ClOsE fIgHt CaUsE iT wAs 48-47"
The excuses become more and more desperate. <Lmaoo> Shields, Condit, and Diaz all had moderate success against GSP to varying degrees. The halo effect doesn't apply here when you consider that GSP did not look invincible in any of his last 3 fights. The competition caught up to him and he was ready to bounce.
Poor guy is actually citing ufcstats instead of going over each exchange in round 1. It was hardly a close round: either you favor a mediocre one armed guillotine and weak jabs or you favor strong uppercuts and hooks to the head. Dominick Cruz also landed more strikes against Cody Garbrandt, does he have a case for winning as well? Hendricks doesn't need extra credit for doing better than GSP's other opponents because Hendricks was anointed the winner by every media source.
Pretty easy to land more strikes when your arsenal is mostly jabs and inside leg kicks. Hendricks was landing hooks, uppercuts, and elbows. Also great job on bringing in the "you gotta beat the champ convincingly" chestnut and effectively conceding that GSP and his fanboys don't have a leg to stand on. I was surprised that you didn't mention that Hendricks "tapped" in round 1 or that he was on PEDs.
It actually shows that nobody within the media thought GSP won. Only the 2 Las Vegas judges thought so, one of them being Sal D'amato.
One of the most deplorable and mentally unhinged fanbase ever. One of them is actually arguing that GSP should have won because he landed more "significant" strikes. They cannot take a loss to save their lives.