Why is Lawler Macdonald 2 not Considered a Comeback?

I think it is cause a lot of people scored round 1 and 2 for Lawler and round 3 and 4 for Rory so a lot more people saw it as just a back and forth fight that came down to the last round rather than a come from behind win.

I had Lawler winning round 1 since the striking was very even and he broke Rory's nose.
 
Robbie was very clearly losing

No he wasn't, round 1 he broke Rory's nose and landed only 2 less strikes and Lawler clearly won round 2. Round 3 and 4 were Rory's but neither was close to a 10-8.
 
When people talk about the greatest comebacks of all time, you never hear Lawler/Macdonald 2 mentioned. Yet Lawler was down three rounds to one on all three scorecards, and needed a finish to win (or a 10-8 for a draw.)

IMG_1651.0.0.jpg

Because the 5th round is the only one that counts in a Lawler fight. Notice he doesn't win as much without the 5th round.
He uses the other 4 to build up power for the 5th.
 
It's one of the greatest fights of MMA history. And it was very close.
 
It's only a comeback if you've got a pencil in your hand while your watching. If you just watch it as a fan it wasn't a dominant performance until the last minute.
Yes i thought it was a close fight.
 
Obviously you didn't read the sherdog thread. Everyone was talking about how Robbie was behind
HEH, definitely not.
I watch the fights with friends, invariably I do not read sherdog's assessment :)
but regardless, it was an amazing war.
This was one of those fights you do not think about scores at all. you just enjoy the fight!!

but like most said, it was a war, and it was close.
Coming from behind is when you almost lose, and is able to turn it aroun (i.e. when Frankie was almost KO'd by Gray and turned it around.
Not when two guys are going at it, in a close combat.

I guess "the distance" to get back is much shorter on Rory & Robbie's example than Frankie & Gray.
 
Back
Top