The fights in the UFC that caused the most controversy?

[tjerny]

Why even bring it up. 1,2,5

 

[MarkyMcFly]

Diaz v Condit had no controversy other than stupid, uneducated, "just-bleed" fans who wanted Condit to stand in front of Diaz's 100 swatting punches.

Belfort v Couture--the eyelid punch that exchange titles: TKO or N/C?
Shogun v Lyoto--the 100 kicks over 25 minutes that the judges completely missed or dismissed.
Hughes v Newton--the double KO that could have redefined UFC WW history and Newton's career.

People should get off their high horse. Just because some one like a different aspect of MMA than you, doesn't make them stupid or uneducated.

I love MMA, I love everything about it. I love grappling, and subs, and ground and pound and all that Jazz. It a science to me, more than boxing. However, it's 10 times more exciting when two guys stand and trade with each other. That doesn't make me stupid or uneducated.

It's like the Rampage Machida fight. Am I stupid and uneducated because I don't think back pedaling and circling away should not win you a fight? That if you do that, and the other person is coming forward trying to fight, that the aggressor should win the fight? Or does that make me a "just bleed" fan?

 

[tdluxon]

This is a little obscure, technically not UFC but a recent example. The main event of the undercard of Saturdays final strikeforce, Ryan Couture vs. KJ Noons was a total robbery.

Both Pat Militich and Frank Shamrock agreed that Noons easily won, and the stats were really one sided, but Judges gave split decision to Couture. The other judge, the only one that seemed to know what he was doing gave all three rounds to Noons.

 

[benjaminbuttons]

im still wondering who Rockhold or Jacare are gonna fight, with Weidman hurt the only guy coming off a win is Costa and i dont really care to see either guy fight him.

if Belfort wins i wouldnt mind seeing him fight Rockhold

 

[NoAbsolutes]

Machida still won the first match regardless of getting KO'd in the 2nd.

 

[I Know It All]

It's got to be Machida/Shogun. Condit/Diaz is imaginary controversy.

 

[leatherf4ce]

The one that shit on Dana the most had to be Cain/Brock. The one that caused the most controversy is probably Diaz/Condit. Dana, also, put in his two cents making it seem like he was already making a Diaz/GSP fight after this one happened. Nothing went Dana's way here, either. Though I was going for Diaz, it's always great seeing the underdog come out on top while Dana scrambles to make new plans.

 

[LegioTitan]

I have to give my vote to Shogun/Machida one.

As far is butthurt goes I have to vote for GSP Penn II.

 

[thetruth2709]

Diaz -Condit was not controversial... only to stupid dumb fanatics who couldnt accept their hero got owned and then he started crying "buuu buuu I dont want to play anymore, i retire its not fair buuuu" (please somebody put a picture of a baby crying here)

 

[MadHorse]

Honorable mention goes to Silva/Sonnen II. With all the shorts grabbing and shit

 

[thetruth2709]

This is a little obscure, technically not UFC but a recent example. The main event of the undercard of Saturdays final strikeforce, Ryan Couture vs. KJ Noons was a total robbery.

Both Pat Militich and Frank Shamrock agreed that Noons easily won, and the stats were really one sided, but Judges gave split decision to Couture. The other judge, the only one that seemed to know what he was doing gave all three rounds to Noons.

 

[Mikeyz]

In my mind it has to be Diaz vs Condit. I've never seen a fight that caused such a great deal of rehashing of similar arguments (from both sides) for so long. It's a discussion that seems to bring out the worst in posters so it got me wondering, if anyone knows of another fight that had a similar response from the fans.

Not so much controversial judges decisions I'm interested in, more so controversy caused by strategy or possibly incident.

What do you think Sherdog? Diaz vs Condit the worst in this respect? Or do you know of worse?

Hamill vs Bisping and Cote vs Sakara are the top 2 I can think of

 

[Break Brick]

Diaz -Condit was not controversial... only to stupid dumb fanatics who couldnt accept their hero got owned and then he started crying "buuu buuu I dont want to play anymore, i retire its not fair buuuu" (please somebody put a picture of a baby crying here)

It did cause controversy irrespective of your opinion on the matter.

 

[Break Brick]

It's got to be Machida/Shogun. Condit/Diaz is imaginary controversy.

So all of the hundreds upon hundreds of pages of threads with people arguing over it were imaginary were they? As long as we've got that cleared up.

 

[I Know It All]

So all of the hundreds upon hundreds of pages of threads with people arguing over it were imaginary were they? As long as we've got that cleared up.

No, there being any controversy is the imaginary part. Not the idiots whining about it.

 

[sp00k]

Shogun /Machida I - first blatant robbery I'd ever seen. So much so that it we he first instant rematch Dana gave.

luls. you need to read up on what robbery means. if 50% of the people say machida won and the other 50% says shogun won. It is not a robbery

 

[Mikeyz]

It did cause controversy irrespective of your opinion on the matter.

Agreed, but Condit did win the fight though.

He landed more strikes

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Before I joined, I was a lurker so I just kinda strolled around the boards starting in late 2009 when I used the Sherdog play-by-plays for info if I couldn't watch an event. The worst I've ever seen Sherdog go bananas was after the Fedor/Werdum fight but the most butthurt was definitely either Diaz/Condit or Penn/Edgar I. Jones/Shogun was pretty bad too

 

[Break Brick]

No, there being any controversy is the imaginary part. Not the idiots whining about it.

Either refer to a dictionary and look up controversy or just read the whole thread to where I addressed the issue earlier.

 

[Ah Man]

Greasegate.
Mark Coleman vs Takada, widely reported to be a work.

Two good calls. The standup in Rampage/Wanderlei 1 was a topic of heated debate right up until the rematch.

If we're not talking judge's decisions, I'd go with Sonnen/Silva 1. Between the way it went down and what it meant for a rematch, the controversial booking of an immediate rematch, and the endless arguments about TRT I think it had the biggest non-decision-related shitstorm.

The Erick Silva/Carlo Prater DQ is also still a rallying call for much debate about how back-of-the-head rules are and ought to be worded and enforced, and will likely remain so for a good long time. Also on the back-of-the-head point is Marquardt/Leites: which prompted a very public debate between Herb Dean and Big John McCarthy over the "headphones" vs "mohawk" rules, a controversy that would remain the topic of much consternation in which fighters never really knew what was going to be enforced. I think they can usually count on the "mohawk for the head" and "headphones for the neck" hybrid policy these days, but it still has lingering effects.