GDT: UFC 228: Woodley vs. Till

[h2]

Hendricks/GSP was a close fight that could have gone either way. I had it for Hendricks but if someone else had it for GSP fair enough.

If you think you have the definitive scorecard for that fight you are probably biased towards one guy. Or, you are factoring in something completely irrelevant like "that guy was juiced up".

That's a totally rational opinion for that fight. I take issue with the "Hendricks was robbed' crowd. There's no such thing as robbery with a fight that close. You want to dethrone a long-time champ without the judges involvement? Beat him clearly or knock him out.

 

[m9]

That's a totally rational opinion for that fight. I take issue with the "Hendricks was robbed' crowd. There's no such thing as robbery with a fight that close. You want to dethrone a long-time champ without the judges involvement? Beat him clearly or knock him out.

Just like the "juiced up" thing, who the champ was coming in has zero relevance to the scoring.

The first round was incredibly close no matter how you analyze it.

 

[LSCII]

GSP had issues with NSAC administering samples and the randomness of it (which is weird, I admit), Hendricks had issue with any sort of additional testing from the start. GSP has routinely done additional testing. I'm not sure anything else needs to be said about this. One fighter is clean, the other has fallen apart since USADA has been implemented.



Statistics vs Opinion - I'll take the statistics.

Yeah, stats man!!

 

[h2]

Just like the "juiced up" thing, who the champ was coming in has zero relevance to the scoring.

The first round was incredibly close no matter how you analyze it.

I disagree on your take on what is relevant in regards to "juiced up". Performance enhancing drugs are definitely relevant in the fight game, and it's widely accepted by the MMA community that Hendricks was on PEDs. He's the poster boy of the after effects of the USADA implementation. Quit acting like it had no effect prior to implementation, it clearly did.

As for the fight, rounds 2-5 were universally scored the same, it's round 1 which decides everything and it's where people debate about that fight, and it was incredibly close like you mentioned. No robbery there at all.

 

[LSCII]

Seems clear that GSP "won" that fight to me...lol

 

[h2]

Yeah, stats man!!

GSP looked like that after the fight prior vs Condit as well. Visible damage is not a relevant factor when scoring fights, as much as fans love to see it.

 

[LSCII]

I disagree on your take on what is relevant in regards to "juiced up". Performance enhancing drugs are definitely relevant in the fight game, and it's widely accepted by the MMA community that Hendricks was on PEDs. He's the poster boy of the after effects of the USADA implementation. Quit acting like it had no effect prior to implementation, it clearly did.

As for the fight, rounds 2-5 were universally scored the same, it's round 1 which decides everything and it's where people debate about that fight, and it was incredibly close like you mentioned. No robbery there at all.

When one spouse is constantly accusing the other of being unfaithful, it's usually due to a guilty conscious. GSP is the spouse with the guilty conscious here. He was always pointing the finger and trying to push for more testing, but only if it was with a firm he had a partnership with and when he knew about which tests and when. Why is that, do you think?

 

[LSCII]

GSP looked like that after the fight prior vs Condit as well. Visible damage is not a relevant factor when scoring fights, as much as fans love to see it.

I disagree completely. His face looked like a pound of hamburger after that fight and it showed on full display that the strikes Hendricks landed were very effective. On the flip side of that, the complete lack of damage on Hendricks face show how ineffective GSP's punches were. But regardless of that. All the MMA analysts/pundits ringside were stunned by the result. Dana White came out and basically apologized for horseshit scoring by the judges, FFS. You can't make this shit up.

 

[h2]

When one spouse is constantly accusing the other of being unfaithful, it's usually due to a guilty conscious. GSP is the spouse with the guilty conscious here. He was always pointing the finger and trying to push for more testing, but only if it was with a firm he had a partnership with and when he knew about which tests and when. Why is that, do you think?

GSP remains the longest tested fighter in the history of the UFC, and those samples dating back to his first test are still continuously tested as new detection technology is available. GSP continued to undergo strict testing during his hiatus despite not fighting. Yeah, you have a strong case here!

 

[h2]

I disagree completely. His face looked like a pound of hamburger after that fight and it showed on full display that the strikes Hendricks landed were very effective. On the flip side of that, the complete lack of damage on Hendricks face show how ineffective GSP's punches were. But regardless of that. All the MMA analysts/pundits ringside were stunned by the result. Dana White came out and basically apologized for horse**** scoring by the judges, FFS. You can't make this **** up.

Again, visible damage is not relevant when it comes to scoring, and Dana White wasn't the judge. People were stunned because Hendricks clearly had the better moments in that fight, but scoring wise it was a wash. This last point is not disputable at all.

 

[LSCII]

Again, visible damage is not relevant when it comes to scoring, and Dana White wasn't the judge. People were stunned because Hendricks clearly had the better moments in that fight, but scoring wise it was a wash. This last point is not disputable at all.

Sure it is. Because like I said earlier, it's subjective. You think GSP won that fight, while others do not agree with you. That's what happens when you go to a decision. Thankfully, Woodley took care of business against Till.

 

[h2]

Sure it is. Because like I said earlier, it's subjective. You think GSP won that fight, while others do not agree with you. That's what happens when you go to a decision. Thankfully, Woodley took care of business against Till.

Decisions can be subjective, but when you actually break down landed strikes and the rest of the scoring metric used by the UFC, GSP has the slightest of advantages in that regard. Ultimately it was a wash and went GSP's way. I don't see a huge controversy here. Sorry.

That's my last comment regarding this fight.

As for TWood-Till, glad to see TWood step up with an impressive title defense. Hard to say if Till was facing the champion too quickly after a dominating start to his career. I'm also impressed with the way TWood has handled himself in the media before and after the fight, he sounds like a champion. Props to TWood!

 

[m9]

I disagree on your take on what is relevant in regards to "juiced up". Performance enhancing drugs are definitely relevant in the fight game, and it's widely accepted by the MMA community that Hendricks was on PEDs. He's the poster boy of the after effects of the USADA implementation. Quit acting like it had no effect prior to implementation, it clearly did.

As for the fight, rounds 2-5 were universally scored the same, it's round 1 which decides everything and it's where people debate about that fight, and it was incredibly close like you mentioned. No robbery there at all.

Hendricks could take steroids every day of his life and it would have no effect on how to score one of his fights. It's a completely separate issue.

 

[h2]

Hendricks could take steroids every day of his life and it would have no effect on how to score one of his fights. It's a completely separate issue.

There is no effect on the official scoring, nor would I argue that, but looking back on that fight in hindsight with that extra context, it changes how I view Hendricks' performance, and that's a completely fair take to have on that.

 

[MD thaivuN]

i had Hendricks winning because Hendricks was the one leading the more damaging shots. Round per round, if strike differential is small, then you have to reward clean landing and damaging shots. Not all strikes are equal.

 

[m9]

There is no effect on the official scoring, nor would I argue that, but looking back on that fight in hindsight with that extra context, it changes how I view Hendricks' performance, and that's a completely fair take to have on that.

It's never even been proven Hendricks was on anything. All you are doing is adding your own biases for no reason.

At the time many people freaked out because they thought Hendricks won easily, but really they made the most common mistake in judging a fight which is giving extra credit because someone is doing better than expected. This has clouded many people's opinion of this fight.

 

[h2]

It's never even been proven Hendricks was on anything. All you are doing is adding your own biases for no reason.

At the time many people freaked out because they thought Hendricks won easily, but really they made the most common mistake in judging a fight which is giving extra credit because someone is doing better than expected. This has clouded many people's opinion of this fight.

I’m not going to go back and forth on that first paragraph, I know where a vast majority of the mma community stands on that topic.

Second paragraph, agree completely.

 

[h2]

i had Hendricks winning because Hendricks was the one leading the more damaging shots. Round per round, if strike differential is small, then you have to reward clean landing and damaging shots. Not all strikes are equal.

I'm not going to disagree with that logic because it makes sense from a fan perspective, but that's not how the UFC officially scores fights.

"Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the ring/fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense." - Taken straight from the UFC website. If striking differential is small as you say, the judges then move on to the other aforementioned categories.

 

[pistolpete11]

I know people don't like Woodley for various reasons, but there's no doubting he' a great fighter. He's got power and he's got wrestling, but his fight IQ is what sets him apart. He knows how his opponent can beat him and he doesn't take any risks that could expose that. It doesn't always make for the most entertaining fights, but it's why he's still the champ. I imagine Covington is next, but I don't see how Colby wins that fight.

Andrade, wow. She is so physically intimidating for a 115lb woman. Good luck, Rose.

Suarez continues her ascent to champion. Funny enough, Suarez vs. Andrade would be a good fight. I hope they continue to build Suarez slowly though. Maybe Tecia next? The 115lb women's division is pretty interesting right now, so no need to rush her to title challenger yet.

 

[pistolpete11]

I thought Hendricks won, but I've never fully understood the scoring system UFC uses. They say "effective striking" is "judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant". In which case, there is more of a case for GSP. But a) I don't agree that all strikes should be equal and b) the judges don't seem to think so either....except for sometimes they do.

To a), if I hit you with a jab and you hit me with a hook that drops/wobbles/hurts me...by rule, those are both legal strikes and we'd be even. Doesn't seem fair.

To b), GSP over Hendricks is an example of them leaning towards the point fighting scoring. But there are other fights where the damage matters more. Conor-Nate 2 might be a good example of that. I think it was the second round that Conor hurt Nate, but Nate came back and ended up landing a lot more legal strikes. But I think all of the judges gave the round to Conor. It's frustrating as a fan sometimes, but I'm not sure how they could fix it either. I just know that I thought Hendricks and Conor won those 2 fights.

 

[m9]

I know people don't like Woodley for various reasons, but there's no doubting he' a great fighter. He's got power and he's got wrestling, but his fight IQ is what sets him apart. He knows how his opponent can beat him and he doesn't take any risks that could expose that. It doesn't always make for the most entertaining fights, but it's why he's still the champ. I imagine Covington is next, but I don't see how Colby wins that fight.

Andrade, wow. She is so physically intimidating for a 115lb woman. Good luck, Rose.

Suarez continues her ascent to champion. Funny enough, Suarez vs. Andrade would be a good fight. I hope they continue to build Suarez slowly though. Maybe Tecia next? The 115lb women's division is pretty interesting right now, so no need to rush her to title challenger yet.

I don't think there's any need for a Torres v Suarez fight - we know exactly how it's going to go. I think you'll see Torres vs KK fight as both are coming off losses.

Andrade v Suarez is a great fight if Rose is still not ready. I think JJ, Rose, Andrade, and Suarez will pair off.. could go in whatever direction you want.

 

[Avs_19]

Rose vs. Andrade, Suarez vs. Gadelha (if she beats Ansaroff), and Joanna vs. Valentina for the 125 belt.

I think Andrade and Suarez will fight eventually. They're both great fighters and seem like bad matchups for Rose.

 

[h2]

I thought Hendricks won, but I've never fully understood the scoring system UFC uses. They say "effective striking" is "judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant". In which case, there is more of a case for GSP. But a) I don't agree that all strikes should be equal and b) the judges don't seem to think so either....except for sometimes they do.

To a), if I hit you with a jab and you hit me with a hook that drops/wobbles/hurts me...by rule, those are both legal strikes and we'd be even. Doesn't seem fair.

To b), GSP over Hendricks is an example of them leaning towards the point fighting scoring. But there are other fights where the damage matters more. Conor-Nate 2 might be a good example of that. I think it was the second round that Conor hurt Nate, but Nate came back and ended up landing a lot more legal strikes. But I think all of the judges gave the round to Conor. It's frustrating as a fan sometimes, but I'm not sure how they could fix it either. I just know that I thought Hendricks and Conor won those 2 fights.

That’s a good take on the scoring system and it’d be nice to have a consistent standard.

I know Pride judged based on the fight entirely and not by dividing rounds like the UFC does. Gsp edged his rounds while Hendricks clearly took his. That would likely lead to a Hendricks win via the pride method.

 

[zombie kopitar]

Haters gonna hate, easy money with my boy Woodley.

 

[pistolpete11]

I don't think there's any need for a Torres v Suarez fight - we know exactly how it's going to go. I think you'll see Torres vs KK fight as both are coming off losses.

Andrade v Suarez is a great fight if Rose is still not ready. I think JJ, Rose, Andrade, and Suarez will pair off.. could go in whatever direction you want.

I think she probably beats Torres, too, but it's still a step up in competition from anyone else she's ever faced. Plus, I think most people still don't know who she is. Give her another fight on the main card of a PPV or main event a Fight Night or something and get her name out there before she's fighting for the title and/or a title eliminator. Build her up instead of rushing her. That's what I'd do anyway, but I wouldn't be surprised if the UFC does rush her. Andrade-Rose and JJ-Suarez would be the only fights to make if they do pair those 4 off though.

Rose vs. Andrade, Suarez vs. Gadelha (if she beats Ansaroff), and Joanna vs. Valentina for the 125 belt.

I think Andrade and Suarez will fight eventually. They're both great fighters and seem like bad matchups for Rose.

I wouldn't mind seeing any of those fights. Although, I think JJ is still a little bit broken from Rose and she's lost to Valentina in Muay Thai at least a couple times. It's the only fight at WFW that might draw an ounce of interest, though.