Which controversial decision do you not see the controversy?

My issue is more with people saying that close decisions are "robberies." When a fight is close and viewers can argue rounds either way, then a split decision or narrow UD is not a robbery. It's a close decision.

Examples include Machida-Shogun 1, GSP-Hendricks, Diaz-Condit, Jones-Gus, etc. etc.

These are close decisions. Not robberies.

A robbery is when one guy CLEARLY & DEFINITIVELY beats the other, yet for whatever reasons, the judges **** it up and give the other guy the decision.

By crying robbery every time a decision doesn't go to the fighter you thought won in a close fight, we're actually devaluing the entire concept and taking away from actual, legitimate robberies.
 
Condit Diaz

I thought Condit clearly won. Won the exchanges and avoided damage. Seemed to frustrate Diaz
 
agree with diaz vs condit though it's been a while.

Jones vs Gus was close but I still hold that at best gus had a draw. I scored it 49/48

Not controversial but I thought more people would try to claim a machida win when he fought weidman. The chris won clearly but machida did better than people remember.

back on topic: Hendo vs Machida.
 
Amygdala said:
My issue is more with people saying that close decisions are "robberies." When a fight is close and viewers can argue rounds either way, then a split decision or narrow UD is not a robbery. It's a close decision.

Examples include Machida-Shogun 1, GSP-Hendricks, Diaz-Condit, Jones-Gus, etc. etc.

These are close decisions. Not robberies.

A robbery is when one guy CLEARLY & DEFINITIVELY beats the other, yet for whatever reasons, the judges **** it up and give the other guy the decision.

By crying robbery every time a decision doesn't go to the fighter you thought won in a close fight, we're actually devaluing the entire concept and taking away from actual, legitimate robberies.
Click to expand...

I love this post .
just pure common sense
 
Rampage v Mo and Rampage v Machida.

I don't like Rampage and I do like Machida, but I scored both of those fights for Quinton.
 
Machida vs Rua.

After watching it again, I honestly thought Machida did more. Shogun landed more leg kicks (and Rogan wouldn't shut up about it), but Machida landed more strikes over all.
 
Jehannum said:
haha just because you aren't capable of watching a fight doesn't mean the rest of us aren't.

and bias without commentary is still bias.
Click to expand...

yes, retard. you are right. good job.
 
GSP vs hendricks
Jones vs gustuffson
Aldo vs Edgar
Condit vs Diaz

Ones I still don't agree with

Sanchez vs pearson
Henderson vs Edgar 2
Dillashaw vs Assunscao
 
Last edited:
I'll go to my grave knowing Condit should have lost that fight. He ran!

Rampage/Forrest was an even worse robbery, and Machida/Shogun is still the worst decision I have ever seen.
 
The Green Lantern said:
I'll go to my grave knowing Condit should have lost that fight. He ran!

Rampage/Forrest was an even worse robbery, and Machida/Shogun is still the worst decision I have ever seen.
Click to expand...

Nah. He just didn't play into his gameplan, It was a VERY VERY close fight though but I'm not sure how it could be scored for Diaz

and trust me, I like Diaz.
tumblr_metxkpi8rs1ry1rm7o1_400.gif
 
JaxFJay said:
After reading the post about the Forrest v. Rampage fight I was wondering what fights did you all think wasn't controversial dispite what everyone else thought. Beside the Forrest v. Rampage fight, I never understood the Vera v. Couture controversy. I thought Vera won the second but Couture won the first and third pretty easily.
Click to expand...

Sonnen vs Bisping. Competitive fight but a clear win for Chael P.
 
Amygdala said:
My issue is more with people saying that close decisions are "robberies." When a fight is close and viewers can argue rounds either way, then a split decision or narrow UD is not a robbery. It's a close decision.

Examples include Machida-Shogun 1, GSP-Hendricks, Diaz-Condit, Jones-Gus, etc. etc.

These are close decisions. Not robberies.

A robbery is when one guy CLEARLY & DEFINITIVELY beats the other, yet for whatever reasons, the judges **** it up and give the other guy the decision.

By crying robbery every time a decision doesn't go to the fighter you thought won in a close fight, we're actually devaluing the entire concept and taking away from actual, legitimate robberies.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The word gets bandied about so much that it's lost its meaning. You want a real robbery? Go watch Chase Beebe vs Mike Easton, and then read about the aftermath. Now THAT is a robbery.

Anyway, my pick is Akiyama-Belcher. It was the clearest 2-1 I've seen in ages.
 
BJ Penn / GSP I (BJ had one really good round)


Condit / Diaz (Perfect gameplan for beating Nick Diaz)
 
Couple of em for me

1. Jones v Gus. I didn't watch it live due to traveling. So I went here first and sherdog was buzzing "best fight ever" "Gus was robbed" "jones might never be the same" so I was really interested to see it. I watched it a couple days later and I don't understand what the robbery talk was about. I thought jones won a close fight and if people wanted to give Gus props for being closer than anyone up til that point that's fine but I cannot support an argument that says Gus won that fight.

2 Davis v Machida. Not a lot happened in the fight. Phil did the most aggressive things and whereas I would be fine with those that wanted to call it a draw, I do not understand how anyone thinks Machida did "clearly enough" to win that fight. It's either Phil or a draw as far as what is believable for me
 
Hamill vs Bisping
Hamill dominated rd 1, but it wasn't 10-8. Then Bisping won 2 rounds that were pretty close, but still clearly Bisping.
 
As much as I hate it, Rampage-Machida. It really showed the flaw of the 10-9 scoring system though.
 
Any close Nog fight.
Both Barnetts.
Rico.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,669
Messages
55,433,135
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top