UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Ya, I really wish people would stop looking at damage and saying whoever looked the worst, lost. Hitting to the face is really less than 50% of MMA. Leg kicks, knees to the body, and body shots don't do a lot of damage to the outside of the body, but they count for the same number of points as a punch in the nose.

Don't get me wrong, it was a very close fight that could have gone either way, and of course Dana is going to say Hendricks cleaned up, he will be the new champ when GSP retires and Dana always stands up for them, at least until he thinks it's time for a change, a la The Spider.

Anyway, it was a good fight and someone finally was able to give GSP a challenge.

I'm pretty sure Hendricks landed plenty of shots to the body, legs though too.

And man, Dana can't win with you. If he went out and said Gsp deserved the win he'd get criticized too. I respect him for being a promoter and claiming that the sport needs to be looked at. He just wants what he thinks is fair regardless. The fans want the same thing, so I'm cool with his perspective. He did overreact though claiming it was 4-1 Hendricks. It was a heat of the moment comment. Overall I respect what he's trying to explain to everyone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[p_rushing]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

It won't happen, but if GSP retires and they need someone to fight for the belt, I suggest like a 8 man tourney for it. Lawler, Hendricks, Woodley, Condit, Shields, Ellenberger, Rory MacDonald and Matt Brown.

I would love that, but the UFC hasn't shown they want to force the fighters to fight every 1-2 months it would take for a tourney to happen.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[TheShizNo1]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

If they would let this round scoring crap go and judge it as a fight in it's entirety, I don't think these issues happen nearly as much.

Then you have fighters actually fighting to win a fight and not out point each other.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Pappy Knuckles]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Dana just got overly emotional last night, shocker. After letting it sink in, I definitely feel like Hendricks should be champ. With that said, with the rules in place, I can possibly see why Gsp is still champ.

Dana kept mentioning "damage" in his post conference comments. He should know the rules and that damage isn't mentioned in the rules for scoring.

With that said, I pray to god scoring gets adjusted. Was it a close fight according to the stats and rounds won? Absolutely. Was there seriously any real doubt as to who should be champ? Not a shred IMO. Again, with the rules in place, I can see why Gsp won. So I'm not going to harp on that. It was not a robbery.

Like I said last night, there could be a dominant 10-9 round and a razor close 10-9 round. Unfortunately in the end those count as equals. So in a 5 round fight if Hendricks had two dominant 10-9 rounds and Gsp had three razor close 10-9 rounds, I would probably consider Hendricks the winner. This scenario has played out recently in a number of fights, I just am blanking in the moment, but I hope somehow scoring is adjusted a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't like the way Dana was acting like GSP owed it to the UFC to give Hendricks an immediate title shot. While I do think Hendricks deserves it, GSP has logged more minutes in the cage than anyone in the history of the company. If he feels like he wants to step away for a little bit or even permanently, I think that he should be able to make that choice without Dana strong arming him into another fight when he doesn't want to.

[aholbert32]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I didn't like the way Dana was acting like GSP owed it to the UFC to give Hendricks an immediate title shot. While I do think Hendricks deserves it, GSP has logged more minutes in the cage than anyone in the history of the company. If he feels like he wants to step away for a little bit or even permanently, I think that he should be able to make that choice without Dana strong arming him into another fight when he doesn't want to.

I dont think he said he owed it to the UFC. He said he owed it to the fans and Hendricks because of the controversial decision.

[Pappy Knuckles]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I dont think he said he owed it to the UFC. He said he owed it to the fans and Hendricks because of the controversial decision.

I could've sworn he said he said GSP owed it to the company in his interview with Ariel, but I could be mistaken. Either way, if GSP needs time away, I don't feel he should be pressured into coming back immediately. Dana always says that guys need to be in the right frame of mind for this sport and it seems apparent from last night that GSP has other things on his plate right now.

[jeremym480]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Whether it's fair or not, many people subscribe to the theory of "to win the belt you have to beat the champ convincingly". Obviously, GSP won Rounds 3 and 5. I need to re-watch Round 1 again, but on my initial viewing I thought that Hendricks won. If it was close and we assume the judges agree with the have "you have to beat the champ to be the champ" theory, then I could see them giving it to GSP.

If you're a Hendricks fan, then I think it's okay to be upset, but I don't think it's some scoring atrocity like some are making it out to be. And as always I'm at the rigged posts. As long as judges are human, then scoring is going to be subjective and we're always going to have controversial decisions. This isn't the first and certainly won't be the last.

[drewst18]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Wow I shut it off with 10 seconds left this morning and if you could take a picture of my shocked face when I read headline on Yahoo Sports "GSP narrowly defends title"

I love GSP but embarrassing

[redsrule]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I would love that, but the UFC hasn't shown they want to force the fighters to fight every 1-2 months it would take for a tourney to happen.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Agreed. It'd be awesome though.

If they would let this round scoring crap go and judge it as a fight in it's entirety, I don't think these issues happen nearly as much.

Then you have fighters actually fighting to win a fight and not out point each other.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I think having judges score the fight as a whole would be even worse right now actually. The problem isn't the 10 point system (although there are issues) it is the fact that there aren't many competent judges out there.

Wow I shut it off with 10 seconds left this morning and if you could take a picture of my shocked face when I read headline on Yahoo Sports "GSP narrowly defends title"

I love GSP but embarrassing

Why is it embarrassing? Hendricks was game and was GSP's first test since Serra KO'd him. I thought he lost a close one but there is nothing to be ashamed of.

[XFactah416]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

When I watched the first round again (since I think a lot of people tend to agree on 2-5), I am absolutely blown away by the thought that GSP actually won Round 1. Yes, GSP landed some strikes (including a very nice head kick that caught Johnny flush), and sure he got a takedown. So did Hendricks, and Hendricks was throwing and landing a lot more powerful and meaningful strikes. I know FightMetric (aka the source of objectivity generally) says that GSP landed more "significant strikes" in the first round, but if you look with your eyes I have a tough time seeing that actually being the case.

In terms of the decision itself, last night I thought it was 48-47 and today I thought it was 48-47 Hendricks. I mean, I guess I can justify a GSP Rd. 1 win if I try really, really hard, but I'd be more inclined to give him Round 2 where GSP recovered quite well after getting hurt and was landing at a decent rate on Johnny. From my point of view, Johnny won the fight in every way imaginable: 10 point must, PRIDE rules, street rules, any sort of scoring measure alive.

So, robbery? Nah. You reserve that for Machida vs Shogun I. But I thought Hendricks won 1/2/4 and I have a tough time seeing it going any other way unless you subscribe to archaic, WWE-esque scoring measures like "close rounds automatically go to champions" (which, btw, breeds the very same incompetence that people like to cry about in terms of judging ironically). Close fight? Sure, GSP definitely won 2 rounds (3 and 5), just like I think most would agree that Johnny won 2 and 4.

[drewst18]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Why is it embarrassing? Hendricks was game and was GSP's first test since Serra KO'd him. I thought he lost a close one but there is nothing to be ashamed of.

My bad, I meant the ruling for the UFC I just was lazy and didn't type it out.

Good fight, love GSP and Hendricks just disagree with the ruling but a rematch will be fun to see.

[The Chef]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

After seeing the stats I still tend to believe Hendricks won the fight but it wasnt nearly as much of a robbery as I thought in the heat of the moment. Seems everyone can agree that rounds 2 & 4 went to Hendricks and rounds 3 & 5 went to GSP so it all comes down to that first round. I wouldnt be surprised if that brief guillotine attempt by GSP stole the round in the eyes of the judges just based on pure stats alone since the stats themselves were extremely close for that round and even though the guillotine never really got close to finishing the fight I can see them using that as an excuse to give the round to GSP in the end.

[Sandman42]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Hmm looks like I missed some fun discussion here last night. I was watching the fight last night in AC and most people were livid that GSP won.

I thought Hendricks pretty clearly won 3-2. Round 1 was the closest, but Hendricks landed the more significant and power strikes in round 1. So, a bad decision. Yes? A robbery? No. I've been witness to dozens and dozens of other worse decisions that deserve the robbery moniker more than this one. I thought this was similar to the decision in the Henderson/Melendez fight earlier this year. I thought Melendez won that 3-2, but Henderson took the split decision there.

Also the NSAC deserves all the blame that's fired towards it, but Dana better send some towards his buddy Marc Rattner. Pretty sure D'Amato is one of the judges appointed by the UFC. He might be a part of the NSAC, but his main state is Wisconsin. Even if they didn't bring him along this fight, they constantly bring him as one of their judges to other cards that aren't in Vegas, despite his incompetence. He's not the worst judge in the sport, but for someone who draws the amount of cards and big fights like he has, he's pretty awful. Hopefully a decision as huge as this one knocks D'Amato down the totem pole of Rattner's judges.

[Vast]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

Johnny wasn't robbed but he should have won that fight. It sucks cuz although they should've rematched no matter what.
His record should be 16 -1 not 15 -2

Galaxy S3

[The JareBear]

Re: UFC 167 - St. Pierre v. Hendricks

I wanted to re-watch the card before I commented on these fights. I remember walking away from my first viewing just kinda confused and not knowing what had just happened.

A.) I love the Ali B. decision. Elliot might be a really talented guy, but anyone who decides to employ the tried and true "block their punches with my face" trick better be ready to finish the fight because they deserve to lose a decision. Ali flat out won, I had him easily winning two of the rounds

B.) I like Kos, but it's gotta be over for him. You can't tell me he is in better shape, career wise, than Okami or even Fitch

C.) I hope Sonnen drops back down to 185, that is all. Felt that way for awhile

D.) I might be crazy, but after re-watching the fight just a few minutes ago, I can see why GSP won. I had it 2-2 going into the fifth, the fifth was close but I think GSP was more active and just edged him out. Damage doesn't always tell the story. I might be alone here, but I don't think it's as absolutely ridiculous as people think. Just my opinion of course. There is more to a fight than cuts and bruises. It was really close, I would not have argued at all if Hendricks had won, but honestly, that fight reminded me of Franki Edgar/Benson Henderson, Condit/Diaz, and even a little bit of Gil/Benson and Frankie/Aldo, in most of the fights I had it scored for the declared loser, especially Frankie/Hendo II, Diaz/Condit, and Gil/Hendo so, who knows. To me, this was just a case of them finally getting it right. Who knows, maybe I am just a fanboy or something.

E.) Rory/Robbie. Interesting fight. I have to think Rory got a little bit "Machida'd" in this decision. I also think he probably lost points for that SUPER lame "lay motionless like a boss" technique when he took down Robbie, I believe in the second round, maybe? Whenever it was, it was one of the most blatant lay and pray's I have seen. Had he been active and actually tried something there, I have to think he would have won, because I don't think you can score that last round a 10-8