MMA-UFC UFC 167 - GSP vs Hendricks
- Thread starter Jab
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #102
Time to update my GSP vs Condit avatar 
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
I'd assume in those cases it was poorly judged rather than an intentional favouring. 50/50's absolutely agree, but If a judge gave a 60-40 round to a champion it would be match fixing.
Not sure if it was Florian, Cormier or Helwani in the post-fight show who mentioned results on mmadecisons. 16/16 scored it for Hendricks:
http://mmadecisions.com/decision/4707/Georges-St-Pierre-vs-Johny-Hendricks
I have a feeling that DW & the match makers will keep throwing Rory engaging, hard hitters until he's forced to change his gameplan. Woodley, followed by Lombard, Maybe Hendricks thrown in as well for good measure.
Shoey
Senior List
- Nov 2, 2013
- 162
- 94
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Victory, Bulls, Canucks
For me it was 2 all going into the 5th. That last takedown by GSP saved the championship.
Going back to UFC 104: Machida v Shogun, mmadecisions reports that 5/5 media representatives scored the fight for Shogun. However, while 16/16 scored yesterday's fight for Hendricks, all of them scored it 48-47 Hendricks. Hendricks wins if one more judge scores Round 1 for him. Thus it can't be one of the worst decisions ever. An incorrect decision, yes, but a close incorrect decision.
http://mmadecisions.com/decision/1332/Lyoto-Machida-vs-Mauricio-Rua
If you look at the media scores above, a majority of them gave Shogun 49 or 50. Dana would have given Hendricks 49 yesterday, but he's very much in the minority.
Jay C
Cancelled
- Feb 1, 2011
- 970
- 391
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Victory, Storm & Stars
Also scored the fight for GSP (rounds 1,3,5). If I was scoring the fight as a whole Hendricks wins as he dominated rounds 2 & 4, while GSP gets the close rounds.
As far as judging solutions, they have to figure out a way of rewarding more decisive rounds not scoring them equal as close rounds, whether you score more 10-8 rounds or you bring in a half point system.
As far as judging solutions, they have to figure out a way of rewarding more decisive rounds not scoring them equal as close rounds, whether you score more 10-8 rounds or you bring in a half point system.
I agree, I think judges should be more generous for rounds that are clearly more decisive to one fighter, ie. if a fighter is close to being finished. 10-8's are rarely given out, and on the rare occasion they are, they are used incorrectly for the most part, as evidenced in a fight recently which escapes me right now.
I think the easiest solution is 5 judges. With 5 rounds and 3 judges, UFC title bouts have only 15 decisions, compared to boxing's 36. Having 5 judges for UFC title bouts means that you now have 25 decisions, a 67% increase on the status quo.
I'd rather that than have some iffy 10-8.5 or 10-8 rounds. That becomes too subjective in my opinion.
I'd rather that than have some iffy 10-8.5 or 10-8 rounds. That becomes too subjective in my opinion.
But if the judges are inherently wrong in the publics eyes, what then is the difference between 2 out of 3 judges being wrong and 3 out of 5 judges being wrong? More judges isn't the answer IMO, I think either a change in scoring to better reflect damage inflicted could be a better avenue if refined correctly.
I think there is pressure to keep the 10-point must system as it is. The UFC VP very recently said that he supported retention of the system. Imagine if we had round 1 yesterday scored 10-9 JH, 10-9.5 JH and 10-9.5 GSP. Don't you think that would cause more controversy?
I put forward that the aim of the system to achieve consensus. Yesterday, Johny lost the fight by a single point, yet the fight wasn't that close. Having 9 or 15 decisions in a UFC fight is a small sample size. Boxing has 30 or 36 decisions, and in theory, should be more likely to come to a correct decision.
I think consensus is less likely if judges are encourage to give more 10-8 rounds or use half points. What would the criteria be for a 10-8 round?
I put forward that the aim of the system to achieve consensus. Yesterday, Johny lost the fight by a single point, yet the fight wasn't that close. Having 9 or 15 decisions in a UFC fight is a small sample size. Boxing has 30 or 36 decisions, and in theory, should be more likely to come to a correct decision.
I think consensus is less likely if judges are encourage to give more 10-8 rounds or use half points. What would the criteria be for a 10-8 round?
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2013/09/jones-vs-gustafsson-official-ufc.html
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2013/09/jones-vs-gustafsson-official-ufc.html
I need to change my avatar back to Pettis because he makes a good point. Pettis when asked about the Henderson vs Melendez fight that:
"You can't squeak by and win the belt. You have to take the belt away from the champ."
This is effectively what screwed Hendricks over. Since St-Pierre is the dominant champion the judges are focusing on what St-Pierre is doing well and scoring his performance meaning if it is a close round they'll give it to the champ rather than the challenger because they have been focusing on the champion. It's a common psychological called confirmation bias where people assimilate information that fits their beliefs and value. We as fans all do the same thing when analysing everything from fights, football matches to the newspaper articles we read. The only way Hendricks can win the first round is he absolutely dominates.
This article by Nick the Tooth has a good explanation on some of the current problem
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/judging-the-judging-paradox-with-nick-the-tooth
It wasn't a substantial difference but St-Pierre looked slimmer from his previous bouts which would disadvantage him against Hendricks. Since Hendricks is shorter and has a longer torso he has the wrestling advantage due to not only his wrestling credentials but his lower centre of gravity (St-Pierre has mentioned numerous times he has long limbs and is somehow believes he is an ectomorph).
Personally I gave the first round to Hendricks due to the damage Hendricks was able to when St-Pierre initiated the clinch. For example when St-Pierre grabs a single around the 3:00 minute mark Hendricks was connecting with damaging uppercuts to the head. Once St-Pierre got Hendricks to the fence Hendricks used some vicious elbows that caused teh initial swelling and cut to the right eye of St-Pierre forcing him to change positions. This lead to a reversal of the clinch with Hendricks holding St-Pierre against the fence and using knees that caused more damage than St-Pierre's single when he was in the dominant clinch position.
From here Hendricks scores the take down which he was only able to connect a couple of punches from. I can't give a full technical breakdown of the whole round let alone the fight but based on the criteria used for scoring provided by Nick the Tooth in the Fightland article you can get an idea of how to break down passages to more clearly score a round. I gave St-Pierre rounds 3 and 5 but this was a really close fight and Hendricks showed he why many of us had a feeling he could be different from previous challengers. I think more needs to be taken into account when judging in terms of assessing damage from strikes. St-Pierre's face compared to Hendricks showed that there is a a difference between significant strikes and "significant strikes".
However I will say this with regards to St-Pierre's legacy. When Floyd Mayweather who is not known for finishing fights beat Alvarez convincingly by decision people talked about how he gave Alvarez a masterclass. In recent times when St-Pierre has dominated world class fighters in the second deepest weight division (lightweight is the deepest) people have rued St-Pierre's finishing ability as a weakness. It's all about perspective and Jack Slack in this excellent article breaks down the most rounded MMA fighter's striking genius:
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/jack-slack-an-almost-complete-georges-st-pierre-striking-primer
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2013/09/jones-vs-gustafsson-official-ufc.html
I need to change my avatar back to Pettis because he makes a good point. Pettis when asked about the Henderson vs Melendez fight that:
"You can't squeak by and win the belt. You have to take the belt away from the champ."
This is effectively what screwed Hendricks over. Since St-Pierre is the dominant champion the judges are focusing on what St-Pierre is doing well and scoring his performance meaning if it is a close round they'll give it to the champ rather than the challenger because they have been focusing on the champion. It's a common psychological called confirmation bias where people assimilate information that fits their beliefs and value. We as fans all do the same thing when analysing everything from fights, football matches to the newspaper articles we read. The only way Hendricks can win the first round is he absolutely dominates.
This article by Nick the Tooth has a good explanation on some of the current problem
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/judging-the-judging-paradox-with-nick-the-tooth
It wasn't a substantial difference but St-Pierre looked slimmer from his previous bouts which would disadvantage him against Hendricks. Since Hendricks is shorter and has a longer torso he has the wrestling advantage due to not only his wrestling credentials but his lower centre of gravity (St-Pierre has mentioned numerous times he has long limbs and is somehow believes he is an ectomorph).
Personally I gave the first round to Hendricks due to the damage Hendricks was able to when St-Pierre initiated the clinch. For example when St-Pierre grabs a single around the 3:00 minute mark Hendricks was connecting with damaging uppercuts to the head. Once St-Pierre got Hendricks to the fence Hendricks used some vicious elbows that caused teh initial swelling and cut to the right eye of St-Pierre forcing him to change positions. This lead to a reversal of the clinch with Hendricks holding St-Pierre against the fence and using knees that caused more damage than St-Pierre's single when he was in the dominant clinch position.
From here Hendricks scores the take down which he was only able to connect a couple of punches from. I can't give a full technical breakdown of the whole round let alone the fight but based on the criteria used for scoring provided by Nick the Tooth in the Fightland article you can get an idea of how to break down passages to more clearly score a round. I gave St-Pierre rounds 3 and 5 but this was a really close fight and Hendricks showed he why many of us had a feeling he could be different from previous challengers. I think more needs to be taken into account when judging in terms of assessing damage from strikes. St-Pierre's face compared to Hendricks showed that there is a a difference between significant strikes and "significant strikes".
However I will say this with regards to St-Pierre's legacy. When Floyd Mayweather who is not known for finishing fights beat Alvarez convincingly by decision people talked about how he gave Alvarez a masterclass. In recent times when St-Pierre has dominated world class fighters in the second deepest weight division (lightweight is the deepest) people have rued St-Pierre's finishing ability as a weakness. It's all about perspective and Jack Slack in this excellent article breaks down the most rounded MMA fighter's striking genius:
http://fightland.vice.com/blog/jack-slack-an-almost-complete-georges-st-pierre-striking-primer
Crimson Azure
Premium Platinum
I had GSP winning 1, 3 & 5. JH won 2 & 4.
Watched a second time after scoring the first watch to JH 48/47. On second watch I can't see how JH won the 1st and he definitely lost 3 & 5.
Watched a second time after scoring the first watch to JH 48/47. On second watch I can't see how JH won the 1st and he definitely lost 3 & 5.
Gubbz
Team Captain
Considering GSP's comments after the fight that rumour doesn't seem so stupid now huh.
Gubbz
Team Captain
Anyone have a gif of the Winslow tentative stoppage?
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
Just re-watched the fight and no doubt in my mind that the first was Hendricks round. Ring control was about even, one take down a piece a bunch of dirty boxing/knees in the clinch about cancelled each other out, but Hendricks landed about 8 of the top 10 most damaging shots of the round. About 5 big elbows when George had him up against the cage and a strong upper cut in when George had a single, a hard knee to forehead plus a straight left when standing, to GSP's head kick and a solid straight right.
Don't forget that GSP's corner told him after the 3rd round that he was down 2-1. So they scored the 1st for Johny. Thus their opinion was that GSP had to win the last two rounds. When he lost the 4th, he needed to finish in the 5th. So I bet at the end of the fight that GSP's corner thought they had lost.
RearNaked
Premiership Player
Lots of gsp fab boys in here
RearNaked
Premiership Player
Pretty sure they hired afl umpires to judge the fight coz if you scored that fight for the greasy French blanket u have to be blind. The worst decision since the afl decided to kick essendon out of the finals
- Thread starter
- #123
You're just still pissed that GSP smashed Diaz all over the ring until he retired in tears, as usual.
RearNaked
Premiership Player
Similar threads
