UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

[Dos_Santos]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Are you saying it was 5-0 Hendricks? You have a knack for saying some off-the-wall stuff. your consistency

Last 4 rounds were scored correctly by all 3 judges. Anyone who has ever even sparred would be in agreement. Any argument against the contrary of those 4 rounds is a stretch.

Anyone who knows anything about the fight game understands who won round one. There isn't a debate.

Since all 5 rounds were very easy to score, it was a robbery. They missed it.

[Dos_Santos]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

LOL. This is par for the course for you. Anyone who wants to see a stream of ridiculous statements about MMA, Boxing or anything in general should just click on your user name and see your past posts. I would love if we could ban people for ridiculous posts but we cant.

Just hope you understand that your posts are pure comedy to a big group of us. You are so far removed from your element that it is hilarious that you try and act like you have an understanding of the game.

Go find a fighter and see how long he listens to you without giggling.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Last 4 rounds were scored correctly by all 3 judges. Anyone who has ever even sparred would be in agreement. Any argument against the contrary of those 4 rounds is a stretch.

Anyone who knows anything about the fight game understands who won round one. There isn't a debate.

Since all 5 rounds were very easy to score, it was a robbery. They missed it.

So basically you just explained to yourself in a long-winded post why you were wrong for saying the fight was a robbery. A 3-2 decision for either fighter wouldn't spell robbery as clearly as you think.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Just hope you understand that your posts are pure comedy to a big group of us. You are so far removed from your element that it is hilarious that you try and act like you have an understanding of the game.

Go find a fighter and see how long he listens to you without giggling.

You have no idea about my background so you should just step away from the keyboard before you no longer are permitted to spout your ridiculous crap on this board.

Anyway back to the fights for everyone else. Who fights for the belt next? Hendricks v. Condit/Brown? Hendricks v. Lawler?

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Post fight press conference about to start, apparently Dana is furious. Can't wait

Hope this wakes Rory up that he needs to stop this point fighting/safe fighting crap

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Post fight press conference about to start, apparently Dana is furious. Can't wait

Hope this wakes Rory up that he needs to stop this point fighting/safe fighting crap

Yeah, he's thought Hendricks won and he's furious about the Nevada commission. He has a beef with Keith Kizer going.

[ManiacMatt1782]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I scored it 3-2 hendricks, giving him 12 and 4, and giving GSP 3-5, But I thought round 2 was closer than round 1, I thought 1 was clear for hendricks. i'll re watch it again tomorrow, but I didn't think it was a total robbery even though I felt Hendricks won.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Dana is ****ing heated that Hendricks didn't win.. calling everyone out

[GiantYankee]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I have the fight 3 rounds to 2 for GSP. Rounds 2,3, & 5 for the champ. This fight was so close that I would have been okay with a Hendricks decision. Hate that GSP revealed that he may retire right after the fight. I know Rogan prodded but I can see a lot of criticism coming his way.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I have the fight 3 rounds to 2 for GSP. Rounds 2,3, & 5 for the champ. This fight was so close that I would have been okay with a Hendricks decision. Hate that GSP revealed that he may retire right after the fight. I know Rogan prodded but I can see a lot of criticism coming his way.

Im interested to hear why you gave 2 to GSP. That was the round where he was rocked twice by Hendricks.

[WizardJay]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

It's hardly rigged, won't be the first or last time someone lost a fight that most thought he won but that hardly means it's rigged.

Please..... it happen in the Jon Jones fight also. The only reason he(George) won is because he's the fan favorite cause he clearly got his *** whooped.

[GiantYankee]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Dana needs to calm down. This was a close fight.

[redsrule]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Here's R1 stats:

Strikes 27-26
Sig strikes 19-18
TDs: 1-1

Got that off of twitter. This is why it isn't a "robbery" either way. Obviously stats aren't everything, especially in MMA, but neither fighter landed a "significant" strike in that round, both got taken down but both got up quickly. If anything, that is what a 10-10 round should be, and since both Hendricks and GSP won 2 other rounds, it should have been a draw, which GSP would have kept the belt regardless.

[redsrule]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Please..... it happen in the Jon Jones fight also. The only reason he(George) won is because he's the fan favorite cause he clearly got his *** whooped.

Not at all. This stuff happens (also in boxing) because judges are incompetent for the most part. GSP and Jones are bad examples as well, because cases can be made for both of them winning the fight.
If it was for fan favorites Tim Bradley would have never have gotten the win over Pac, or recently over Juan Manuel Marquez.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Dana is going off on NSAC right now on FS1.