*SPOILERS * And ANOTHER joke judging result

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Ok, so I just watched this. Unfortunately I knew the result before watching, and the controversy about the decision...

Let's get my bias out the way. I love a big knockout puncher, and Hendricks is one of the very best. GSP can at times be entertaining, but often I find his fights somewhat boring. And to me having the same champion in place for a long time gets a bit tedious. So it's safe to say - I was in Hendricks corner.

But...I don't get the controversy. GSP won. The two clearest rounds for me were the 3rd, 4th and 5th. Of which, GSP clearly won the 3rd and 5th.

The 1st and 2nd were a little greyer, but I don't see how anyone could claim Hendricks comprehensively won those two rounds. He was only truly dominant in the 4th round.

Hendricks hits much harder, and George wears those shots on his face, but a few cuts and bruises does not mean a victory.

Messiah, VIK, Phil

During the 5th round with Rogan stating GSP needed to finish the fight to win really confused me at the time. The controversy should be about why Rogan and White felt the need to make it clear how they felt about who won the fight to the public.

"The two clearest rounds for me were the 3rd, 4th and 5th."

--------------------


Maths is apparently not my strong point.

Im actually glad reading these comments, after I posted last night I watched all the post fight stuff and I was sat there thinking fack did I really get this well wrong? The way Dana was talking it was a no brainer Hendricks won but nah he was good but didnt do enough.

Hendricks wasnt comprehensive and that talk of 70% or whatever he was saying was pure bullshiet from him. I was actually impressed by GSP in that fight and as I say Im not a big fan of his.

Hendricks wasnt comprehensive and that talk of 70% or whatever he was saying was pure bullshiet from him. I was actually impressed by GSP in that fight and as I say Im not a big fan of his.


------

I was as well. I was thinking "quit standing up with his you idiot!" But he did well. He traded with Hendricks and tagged him a few times even if it wasn't with a stupid amount of power. It was a good fight ruined by the controversy of the controversy.

*him

thats the one thing that annoys me and probably a lot of people about GSP, he wins by the scoring system a lot. Hes tap tap tap but its all point scoring and thats what wins not how many cuts you can put on a lads face. Personally I find it pretty boring but the rules are the rules.

I think thats my problem Messiah - this isnt Olympic scoring boxing though, this is MMA. A take down should actually mean something (take the guy down and do something with it), a strike should actually mean something. For me the only strike i felt GSP done any sort of damage (and more by luck) was the leg kick he scored mid fight. His jabs done nowt. This is why for me Hendricks won by a mile, Hendricks done damage, he controlled the fight. For me GSP sticking out his jab for 4 rounds doesnt retain the belt.

Also i am not to sure why GSP didnt take it to the ground and bore us into submission like normal, was very surprised to see him trading. Please dont get me wrong i understand that GSP ground game is very technical, but god it is bad MMA watching imo.

Simon...u miss the old Anderson Silva now?