UFC 167 GSP vs. Hendricks (UPD Post 774: GSP announces semi-retirement/title forfeit)

[Brainiac]

1-It's true that GSP bruises easily. He said it himself.

2-It all comes down to the points system and how the judges assess the fight. Now, mind you, GSP knows this system inside out and he fights accordingly. Had the system been different, you can bet your a** that GSP would have fought differently.

So, don't blame the fighters, blame the scoring system.

 

[Kriss E]

1-It's true that GSP bruises easily. He said it himself.

2-It all comes down to the points system and how the judges assess the fight. Now, mind you, GSP knows this system inside out and he fights accordingly. Had the system been different, you can bet your a** that GSP would have fought differently.

So, don't blame the fighters, blame the scoring system.

As I said, even under the ten point system, GSP should have lost.
That's why I mentioned the official stat provider, you know, the same company that provides the UFC and its judges about the amount of strikes landed, gave the win to Hendricks.

 

[General Fanager]

As I said, even under the ten point system, GSP should have lost.
That's why I mentioned the official stat provider, you know, the same company that provides the UFC and its judges about the amount of strikes landed, gave the win to Hendricks.

its not about the system.

Everyone knows Hendricks won 2 and 4. GSP had the 3rd.

it all came down to how you judge the 1st and 5th. Personally I think Hendricks won it but I could see it either way TBH.....

 

[Kriss E]

its not about the system.

Everyone knows Hendricks won 2 and 4. GSP had the 3rd.

it all came down to how you judge the 1st and 5th. Personally I think Hendricks won it but I could see it either way TBH.....

Of course it's about the system, that's how they judge who won the fight and each round.
If they didn't follow the system, then Hendricks wins by a landslide.

 

[General Fanager]

Of course it's about the system, that's how they judge who won the fight and each round.
If they didn't follow the system, then Hendricks wins by a landslide.

Hendricks knew the system, thought he won so he coasted in the 5th. Its his own fault.

 

[durojean]

I'm not so sure he coasted... He was more tired than he let it seem. I thought...

 

[Haaabs]

As I said, even under the ten point system, GSP should have lost.
That's why I mentioned the official stat provider, you know, the same company that provides the UFC and its judges about the amount of strikes landed, gave the win to Hendricks.

Judges also consider who's "the aggressor" or who's setting the pace, stats don't show that. Yea, JH's strikes hurt more, but GSP was the one in the middle of the ring while JH was on the outside and employing a counter punching strategy when he got gassed.

If we only went off stats, why have judges?

 

[idk]

If Judges were consistent, GSP would have won the fight by bigger margin. How does he win rd 1 by 10-9 but then rd 3 or 5 by the same score? It makes no sense. If Rd 1 was a 1 point dominance over Hendricks, then surely round 5 is a 10-8 dominance.
Judges are inconsistent and very subjective. They don't even follow the NSAC's own criteria. If they did, Hendricks wins rd 1 because there's a lot more to it then just amount of strikes and submission attempts.

10-9 rounds are the norm. To score a 10-8 round you (generally) have to knock your opponent down. Yes, judges do occasionally hand out 10-8 rounds without a knockdown, but they are exceedingly rare. So the judges consistently scored their rounds 10-9, as is the standard practice. Round two is the one round that might have qualified as a 10-8 round, but because it was early in the match and JH failed to score a knock down none of the judges, not even the judge who gave the first round to JH, scored it as such. Once that is set as a standard it is difficult (in a five round match anyway) to score any other round 10-8 unless they meet that level of dominance.

Hate to tell you this, but efficiency and accuracy are part of the criteria. So yes, it's very important, and he was overly dominant in that category. And again, total disregard for impact, which is also criteria.

Absolutely. My point was not that they weren't criteria, but that they weren't the only criteria. Efficiency and accuracy and aggression and significant strikes all factor into it. As for impact, as I said JH's most "impactful" (is that even a word) strikes were those elbows that cut open GSP. But aside from cutting open a fighter who bleeds from the face at the drop of a hat, what result did the judges see? They didn't see the grimace on his face or the way his eyes glazed over after the second elbow. That's the advantage of television - we could see that. All they saw were some elbow strikes that GSP more or less ignored as he continued to try for a takedown.

But here's where we are again, people are nitpicking one or two stats just to find a way to explain GSP's victor. But that's dishonest. It's like finding a reason why a mistake could be pass for a good decision, or an acceptable one. It's not right. A mistake is a mistake. That's it, that's all. Round 1 should have gone to Hendricks, there is no question about it. Anybody saying otherwise is either biased, or lacks knowledge of the sport.

So the judges supplied by the NSAC (the group that the UFC trusts to coordinate officials when they go international) lack knowledge of the sport?

Look, it's easy to say the judges were wrong in hindsight. It's easy to say it with the benefit of close-ups and instant replay and fight stats and commentary by Joe Rogan. The judges have none of this. They have their own eyes. JH did not own that round as he owned rounds two and four. It was close, and anyone saying otherwise is either biased, or lacks knowledge of the sport. And because it was close a slightly different perspective on things - and as I said no doubt the champion's advantage where judges tend to score closer rounds to the champion - meant in this case a fundamental change in the outcome of the match.

In a 12 round match a single round (with no knockdowns) counts for just over 8% of the final score. In a five round match it counts for 20%.

 

[General Fanager]

Of course it's about the system, that's how they judge who won the fight and each round.
If they didn't follow the system, then Hendricks wins by a landslide.

Maybe thats true, but both fighters knew the system before stepping in the cage, for one to complain now is staggering.


Its hendricks own fault he lost, or his corner guys.....

 

[Kriss E]

Judges also consider who's "the aggressor" or who's setting the pace, stats don't show that. Yea, JH's strikes hurt more, but GSP was the one in the middle of the ring while JH was on the outside and employing a counter punching strategy when he got gassed.

If we only went off stats, why have judges?

What good does it do to be the aggressor if all you do is eat punches?
Also in the first round, nobody is setting the pace. They're both in the middle of the octagon exchanging punches. Nobody is backing away.
And not everything should be rated the same, I mean, I don't think you should get a point for pushing the fight forward, and also get 1 point if you bodyslam someone to the ground.
I have no idea how they prioritize their points, but surely there must be a priority list and impact should be at the top of it.

If they're going to score fights like that, I'm asking myself why have judges too.

 

[Kriss E]

10-9 rounds are the norm. To score a 10-8 round you (generally) have to knock your opponent down. Yes, judges do occasionally hand out 10-8 rounds without a knockdown, but they are exceedingly rare. So the judges consistently scored their rounds 10-9, as is the standard practice. Round two is the one round that might have qualified as a 10-8 round, but because it was early in the match and JH failed to score a knock down none of the judges, not even the judge who gave the first round to JH, scored it as such. Once that is set as a standard it is difficult (in a five round match anyway) to score any other round 10-8 unless they meet that level of dominance.

Well if they're going to operate in such a dishonest way, then they can go back.
If one round should have been 10-8 but they didn't judge that way because it was round 2, well then they can say I'll give an extra point to Hendricks in the last round to compensate depending on how the rest of the fight goes.
In any event, their system is flawed, so trying to understand how they operate it is pointless. Clearly, even judges score their cards differently.

Absolutely. My point was not that they weren't criteria, but that they weren't the only criteria. Efficiency and accuracy and aggression and significant strikes all factor into it. As for impact, as I said JH's most "impactful" (is that even a word) strikes were those elbows that cut open GSP. But aside from cutting open a fighter who bleeds from the face at the drop of a hat, what result did the judges see? They didn't see the grimace on his face or the way his eyes glazed over after the second elbow. That's the advantage of television - we could see that. All they saw were some elbow strikes that GSP more or less ignored as he continued to try for a takedown.

You know judges have TVs in front of them and get to see the replays too.
But it wasn't just these elbows. Hendricks landed good punches too throughout the round.

So the judges supplied by the NSAC (the group that the UFC trusts to coordinate officials when they go international) lack knowledge of the sport?

They're only used due to their location not because of their extensive knowledge, understanding and rules of the game. You want to fight in Vegas, then you have no choice, and Vegas is where it's at.
But it's the same group that Dana White said he was scared of using again.

Look, it's easy to say the judges were wrong in hindsight. It's easy to say it with the benefit of close-ups and instant replay and fight stats and commentary by Joe Rogan. The judges have none of this. They have their own eyes. JH did not own that round as he owned rounds two and four. It was close, and anyone saying otherwise is either biased, or lacks knowledge of the sport. And because it was close a slightly different perspective on things - and as I said no doubt the champion's advantage where judges tend to score closer rounds to the champion - meant in this case a fundamental change in the outcome of the match.

I don't think that round was nearly as close as some have been trying to make it seem ever since the result came out.
But that's probably because of the way I judge a round, which is clearly different then how some others do. To me, #1 priority is and will always be, impact/damage.
Which of the two guys look more damaged after the first round. It doesn't matter if, under the guide line, one guy landed more significant strikes. I mean a jab can be considered a significant strike for crying out loud. Unless your Liddell, your jab won't hurt that many guys.
Significant strikes is all about target practice. So the impact/damage/power is what it's about to me and it's clear who got the edge there.

 

[Kriss E]

Maybe thats true, but both fighters knew the system before stepping in the cage, for one to complain now is staggering.


Its hendricks own fault he lost, or his corner guys.....

Come on now. Hendricks fought arguably the best fighter in the world. He wasn't going to bulldoze him. Still he did enough to win the fight. If he didn't, then the standards are ridiculously high.

 

[RC51]

Fight scoring has been the same for years.
It's Not new. I remember when Sugar Ray Leonard went to the Olympics and did that machine gun punching act. He won every fight.
Each one of those punches would not have knocked my little sister but he sure racked up a ton of points.
If you land anything ON THE BUTTON it's a point no matter how hard it is.
JH lost the fight in the last round, he coasted and IT COST HIM BIG TIME.
I am with other that say it's his handlers fault. They must have told him that it's in the bag as long as he does not get knocked out.

 

[General Fanager]

Come on now. Hendricks fought arguably the best fighter in the world. He wasn't going to bulldoze him. Still he did enough to win the fight. If he didn't, then the standards are ridiculously high.

How many times have we heard the term, to be the champ you need to beat the champ??

How many times have we heard the big bald wonder tell fighters not to leave it to the judges??

countless.

Hendricks didnt get it done.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Judges also consider who's "the aggressor" or who's setting the pace, stats don't show that. Yea, JH's strikes hurt more, but GSP was the one in the middle of the ring while JH was on the outside and employing a counter punching strategy when he got gassed.

If we only went off stats, why have judges?

Except for controlling the center of the ring isn't really a criteria at all. Octagon control and effective aggression are, aggression is not important on its own, hence the word "effective". Standing in the center of the ring =/= octagon control. Hendricks dictated where this fight went and he did it with ease. Pretty Boy Floyd, one of the best PFP boxers of all time completely dominates opponents with excellent counter punching and he seldom owns the center of the ring.

 

[habsfanatics*]

How many times have we heard the term, to be the champ you need to beat the champ??

How many times have we heard the big bald wonder tell fighters not to leave it to the judges??

countless.

Hendricks didnt get it done.

Which means it should be fixed, both of these ideas are absurd. It's time to wake up.

 

[Haaabs]

Except for controlling the center of the ring isn't really a criteria at all. Octagon control and effective aggression are, aggression is not important on its own, hence the word "effective". Standing in the center of the ring =/= octagon control. Hendricks dictated where this fight went and he did it with ease. Pretty Boy Floyd, one of the best PFP boxers of all time completely dominates opponents with excellent counter punching and he seldom owns the center of the ring.

I don't think Floyd Mayweather is a good comparison. Floyd's defense is amazing, he doesn't get hit and he lands a lot of shots. JH defense wasn't that good (he got hit by a lot of jabs) and yes he did land shots but not a lot. Hell, you could even compare the way Floyd lands a ton of shots without knocking out his opponents to what GSP did.

Lets put it this way, would you give Floyd the decision if he put himself on the ropes, didn't block the opponents punches and didn't bob and weave and make them miss? Additionally, the opponent is outworking him and landing more shots and some big body shots (GSP had some good leg kicks that hurt JH).

I feel that a lot of people look at Johnny Hendricks face and GSP's face after the fight and make the decision then that Johnny won. GSP cuts and bruises easily. Ignore how they look after the fight and look at what they actually did during the fight.

People are tired of GSP winning. They're tired of his main events where he lies on his opponents for 5 rounds and wins by decision.

Dana White hates fighters that do that. He even said it this season on TUF when Josh Hill won his qualification fight that way. JH costs less, would provide more exciting fights and if he had become the guy who dethroned the champ, then maybe he could pull as many viewers. Dana White was pissed that GSP might retire or wanted time off. I'm not surprised that he reacted that way in the post conference. He thought they finally had the guy who could beat GSP and make the division exciting again.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Which means it should be fixed, both of these ideas are absurd. It's time to wake up.

Amen to that!

Nothing worse than mindless truisms such as these that are endlessly regurgitated by the sheep who can't think for themselves.

 

[habsfanatics*]

I don't think Floyd Mayweather is a good comparison. Floyd's defense is amazing, he doesn't get hit and he lands a lot of shots. JH defense wasn't that good (he got hit by a lot of jabs) and yes he did land shots but not a lot. Hell, you could even compare the way Floyd lands a ton of shots without knocking out his opponents to what GSP did.

Lets put it this way, would you give Floyd the decision if he put himself on the ropes, didn't block the opponents punches and didn't bob and weave and make them miss? Additionally, the opponent is outworking him and landing more shots and some big body shots (GSP had some good leg kicks that hurt JH).

I feel that a lot of people look at Johnny Hendricks face and GSP's face after the fight and make the decision then that Johnny won. GSP cuts and bruises easily. Ignore how they look after the fight and look at what they actually did during the fight.

People are tired of GSP winning. They're tired of his main events where he lies on his opponents for 5 rounds and wins by decision.

Dana White hates fighters that do that. He even said it this season on TUF when Josh Hill won his qualification fight that way. JH costs less, would provide more exciting fights and if he had become the guy who dethroned the champ, then maybe he could pull as many viewers. Dana White was pissed that GSP might retire or wanted time off. I'm not surprised that he reacted that way in the post conference. He thought they finally had the guy who could beat GSP and make the division exciting again.

Nope, I wasn't comparing Floyd with Henricks at all. I was only saying being aggressive isn't a scoring criteria, effective aggression is. Big difference, I'm perosnally with kriss here. I think Hendricks is a pretty good fighter, but far from the class of his division, he's just a knightmare matchup for GSP, a big welterweight with heavy hands who is an outstanding wrestler.

As far as your 2nd paragraph, none of those things happened, GSP wasn't bobbing and weaving anything, he was getting routinely tagged with much heavier shots and Hendricks landed more shots and he has way heavier hands.

I've been watching mma for years, I don't judge fights based on Joe's commentary or the look of either persons face. I judge based on the action in the ring. Hendricks was in complete control without ever facing any danger. I am looking at what they did, Hendricks out performed GSP in striking and out-wrestled him and reversed positions up against the cage. His TDD on that single leg that GSP went for was simply outstanding, you likely score points for GSP for going for the takedown, but I think defending it in the manner which Hendricks did is much more impressive, especially with his balance and ability to land heavy shots on one leg.

Once again, I think Dana White is an arsehole, but, he's right, you can't vacant the title like that and put the division on hold. Either you're in or you're out. If GSP's first declaration was at the end of this fight, it was poor timing. He thought he would steamroll Hendricks and go out on top, he didn't even want to bring it up, but Rogan kept prying. GSP had a plan, it failed, and he should have had enough sense to hold back here. I don't blame him for wanting a break/retire whatever, well within his rights, GSP is all class, I don't think he wanted it to end this way himself, but he already had his plan in motion.

Dana is all about the money, sure, some of his over-the-top antics during the press conference was more about losing his meal ticket than the results of the fight, but I didn't judge this based on Dana White's comments, my mind was made up long before he spoke a word. Dana's a ****** bag, so what, doesn't make the decision a good one.

 

[General Fanager]

Which means it should be fixed, both of these ideas are absurd. It's time to wake up.

of course they should fix it. I just meant fixing it doesnt help Hendricks does it??

Hendricks blew it by coasting. His corner men blew by telling him he was up 3 rounds....

 

[habsfanatics*]

of course they should fix it. I just meant fixing it doesnt help Hendricks does it??

Hendricks blew it by coasting. His corner men blew by telling him he was up 3 rounds....

No the judges blew it, he was up 3 rounds.

 

[General Fanager]

No the judges blew it, he was up 3 rounds.

according to whom? You? Dana White? How would he or his corner men know what was in the judges mind?

 

[habsfanatics*]

according to whom? You? Dana White? How would he or his corner men know what was in the judges mind?

You think those involved in the fight are oblivious to who is winning? Hendrick's corner, rightfully assumed they were ahead. GSP's corner knew they were in trouble, Hendrick's thought he sealed the deal, GSP looked like a man who just lost his belt and knew it.

The fighters know if they won the fight or not.

In Pretty Boys last fight, the same judge who scored a win for Bradley over Pacquiao also scored it a draw in the Floyd fight, and Floyd's reaction was WTF is this ****? You think they have no idea if they just won/lost the fight. Floyd pitched a shut out and one of the judges scored it a draw.

These guys have been notoriously bad on every level for years. They routinely score fights that are ridiculous, if not completely corrupt and you sit by and say, well, it's ok, they both know the rules, are you kidding me? GSP got his arsed whipped, the judges who have been notoriously inaccurate and often bribed couldn't possibly have gotten this one wrong , I'm sorry if I'm not buying it.

 

[19VJ17]

I guess GSP is going into semi-retirement. Live rate now

http://www.tsn.ca/montreal/listen/

 

[ClasslessGuy]

I'm happy for him, it's a good decision, he's tired mentaly and he did the right thing.