spolier/worst descion in history?

dave1982

wtf was up with the bisbing descinion hamill hammered him for the 3 rounds in fairness and to make things worse he was convined he won saying stick to the wrestling cocky little fcuk hope his next fight is hueston alexander to shut the fool up

cowzerp

The 2 options are too far apart-i thought it was close enough-no one battered anyone though..hamill if i had to call it.

dlofnep

Hamill started out strong.. When he took Bisping down he didn't do much with it. To be honest, I was completely hammered last night and can't remember much of the fight. I'll have to rewatch it.

Bad Dog MMA

Hamil was by far the aggressor in the majority of the fight. I think he kept standing it back up to defeat Bisping definitively because of the bad blood between them.
You could see bisping getting frustrated with his corner staff at the end of the second (i think!) and hanging his head at the end of the fight (in what looked like the realization that he was beaten. )

cmb.

dave1982 wrote:

wtf was up with the bisbing descinion hamill hammered him for the 3 rounds in fairness and to make things worse he was convined he won saying stick to the wrestling cocky little fcuk hope his next fight is hueston alexander to shut the fool up

ok - relax there mate, it was not a good decision, many will agree on that, but worst decision in mma history? lets not overstate the case - there is an arguement for bisping to have won round 2 and 3 - i personally thought that hamill won round 2 myself but judging is subjective

RealJohn

For me, it was a really bad decision too and Bisping talking himself up and talking Hamill down was just as bad.

I liked Bisping and I wanted him to win but I've lost a lot of respect for him after what he was saying.
Respect to Hamill for being gracious in what I'm sure he felt was an undeserved defeat.

muckwarrior

The fact that bisping got hammered in the first round makes the fight seem more one sided than it really was. He definitely won the last round and the second one was close but I'd have given it to hamill for the takedowns.

Nothingcompares

I think Bisping was under a lot of pressure to prove he wasn't just the paper champion of TUF and it obviously got to his head. Perhaps lacking a bit of self-confidence.

The fight was very close, Matt hamill pushed the fight more and was the agressor in terms of movement but Bisping probably threw more strikes and was effective at striking off the back foot. Hamill got a couple of take downs but they were take downs after kicks. Bisping defended a lot of take down attempts and got back to his feet after a lot of them. Bisping had more submission attempts while Hamill did very little in terms of damage on top.

Hamill was a gent and a legend after the fight but Bisping was a pig. TBH I don't really like either of these fighters' personality based on their TUF appearances but Bisping has definitely gone down in my book.

cowzerp

Nothingcompares wrote:

I think Bisping was under a lot of pressure to prove he wasn't just the paper champion of TUF and it obviously got to his head. Perhaps lacking a bit of self-confidence.

The fight was very close, Matt hamill pushed the fight more and was the agressor in terms of movement but Bisping probably threw more strikes and was effective at striking off the back foot. Hamill got a couple of take downs but they were take downs after kicks. Bisping defended a lot of take down attempts and got back to his feet after a lot of them. Bisping had more submission attempts while Hamill did very little in terms of damage on top.

Hamill was a gent and a legend after the fight but Bisping was a pig. TBH I don't really like either of these fighters' personality based on their TUF appearances but Bisping has definitely gone down in my book.

I think that sums up the fight alright..

Fozzy

Not a chance was it the worst decision in history. Hamill easily won the first round, Bisping won the third round but not as easily. Second round could have gone either way, but I can certainly understand how Bisping won it when looking at what the judges have to look for

I think it's more an indication of how the 10-point must system doesn't always work rather than a mistake by the judges

mark.leonard

It was very close, I leaned towards Bisping for the decision, but its hard to call.

Roper

I gave it to Hamil by a point. There's some dispute over the second round but for me, Bisping's takedown defence only started happening in rounds 2 and 3. He was lucky not to get a 10-8 off me in the first as he wasn't in the fight at all, but I scored it 10-9. I had the second 10-9 thanks to Hamil's takedowns and aggression, though Bisping started to find his range. If I was being really, really generous I'd have touched on 10-10. Last round was Bisping's 10-9.

I liked Bisping before this but I hate a bad winner more than a poor loser. He didn't do himself any favours with his "back to wrestling" comments, especially as Hamil dominated him for long periods and showed how much he is improving fight on fight.

dunkamania

It was a bad decision.
When two refs call it 29-28 bisping,and the token local judge calls it 30-27 Hamill,its clear that the current scoring system is inadequate.

The judges award points based on striking grappling aggression & octagon control,its hard to see how Bisping won even a single round considering he had no octagon control and was not the aggressor.The atmosphere in the arena turned very sour after the verdict,it was odd to see the de hard Bisping fans booing the result....

I think the worst part was the comments he made afterwards.


Bisping lost the fight simple as that. He was on the back foot the whole fight, got controlled in the wrestling. Hammill was the agressor the whole fight even after he gassed in the third and Bisping never let his hands go even in the third when the chance was there. He squeezed the third round just about by landing more strikes off the back foot but lost the first 2 pretty convincingly. Everyone I spoke to at the Arena said it. Summed it up when English lads said to me "he definitely lost but Im delighted he won"

Scramble

He squeezed the third round just about by landing more strikes off the back foot but lost the first 2 pretty convincingly. Everyone I spoke to at the Arena said it.

Same here. The english lads I was with went mental cheering him when he came out, but when the decision was announced they booed him. One of them passed a comment before the result of the Rampage / Henderson fight that "Bisping has probably won this one as well".

To be honest I couldn't make out what Hamill was saying to Rogan, I must look for it on-line.

Bisping telling him "Back to wrestling" was definitley off considering that if it seemed like such a cakewalk to him then why was he visibly going mental in his corner in between rounds?

rossedge

to be honest, i belived that Matt had won that, but reading this thread id have to see the fight again!

Bisping did come across as a DickHead on the night!

damo

It was a bad decision, but no way is it the worst decision ever, it was a pretty close fight which hammill should have won.

The ufc has been littered with poor decisions due to low quality judges and a judging system designed for boxing matches, not mma.

I thought Guida was robbed way worse in belfast against Griffin.

damo

damo wrote:

I thought Guida was robbed way worse in belfast against Griffin.

He was robbed alright but that was a much closer fight. Hamill convinvingly beat Bisping. UFC.com has a poll up asking who the fans thought won and its currently 90% - 10% in favour of Hamill.

cowzerp

damo wrote:

The ufc has been littered with poor decisions due to low quality judges and a judging system designed for boxing matches, not mma.

Actually the boxing system is much better at scoring the fights and the scoring is more suited to wrestlers than strikers-how you think this is a boxing score system i dont understand..it should be more about who won the fight not who moved forward etc..takedowns mean nothing if you dont make something of it for example..who won the fight should be who bashed who.

Killme00

On this display Bisping will not be a future UFC champ, he really struggled against the bigger guy (Hammill looked huge). I know he doesnt like tocut before fights but he looked small and inaffective (unaffetctive???) compared to Hammill. I think it was a very close but ultimately poor fight and the decision was based on the second round, which Hammill won.

Dragan

For me it wasn't even the decision, as I would never hold a fighter responsible for that. Mike acted in a pretty classless manner after he was announced the winner.

When the ref was waiting to raise the hand of the winner The Count stood there like a man defeated, then he is announced the winner and starts straight into talking ****. Apparently there was a lot of grief at the post fight press conference as well where he once again showed a lack of class.

This is a shame. I like Mike, I think he's a good personality and thought he was a good chap.

dunkamania

cowzerp wrote:

the scoring is more suited to wrestlers than strikers- etc....who won the fight should be who bashed who.

Some of the judges have reputations for not awarding sufficent weighting to the fighter who controls the ground game.

cowzerp wrote:

it should be more about who won the fight not who moved forward

moving forward represents aggression and cage control,assuming the other fighter is not compensating in other ways.

cowzerp wrote:

takedowns mean nothing if you dont make something of it for example

a take down is a pro active act that should score from grappling aggression and ring control,even if you cant advance the position effectively.

cowzerp

cowzerp wrote:

who won the fight should be who bashed who.

Wow, thats a great sytem u suggest there.



So if I came out in the first round and hit u 1 stiff jab and it broke your nose and followed up with an elbow that cuts u and then for the last 4 minutes of that round and the entirety of the next 2 rounds u kick the legs off me, take me down at will and ground and pound without cutting me and basically control 14 of the 15 minutes, u would be quite happy to lose the fight cos by looking at our faces and the rest of my 3 strikes I bashed you????? Get real mate.



Theres a reason theress so much controversy for this fight. Cos Hamill won the fight. Dana White said it himself he gave it to Hamill 29-28, thats why theres an immediate rematch gonna happen.

damo

cowzerp wrote:

Actually the boxing system is much better at scoring the fights and the scoring is more suited to wrestlers than strikers-how you think this is a boxing score system i dont understand..it should be more about who won the fight not who moved forward etc..takedowns mean nothing if you dont make something of it for example..who won the fight should be who bashed who.

Well fair enough, mma's judges are supposed to take into account take downs, control etc. so its not exactly the same as boxing, however the 10 point must system is much better suited to boxing than it is to mma where its much more straight forward who won the round (who outboxed who)....mma has too many variables and needs more educated judges (ie. ex fighters) and the 10 point system needs to be scrapped.

Vince135792003

Dragan wrote:

Apparently there was a lot of grief at the post fight press conference as well where he once again showed a lack of class.
.

Yep I listened to the audio of it. Basically some journalists asked him about the judges decision on what he thought about it and he was agressive bordering on abusive towards them.

cowzerp

Deleted User wrote:

Wow, thats a great sytem u suggest there.
u would be quite happy to lose the fight cos by looking at our faces and the rest of my 3 strikes I bashed you????? Get real mate.

i never said the winner should be who looked more bashed up looking. i said the 1 who beats the other opponent up, its a fight-taking someone down and doing nothing is useless, throwing punches that dont affect your opponent are too! the winner should be the fighter who hits more (effective shots) or submits his opponent-simple really

dunkamania wrote:

Some of the judges have reputations for not awarding sufficent weighting to the fighter who controls the ground game..

MMA in america is far more rewarding to wrestlers or grapplers-strikers can dominate a whole round and lose due to a takedown!! stupid.

dunkamania wrote:

moving forward represents aggression and cage control,assuming the other fighter is not compensating in other ways..

moving forward and getting the head jabbed off you does not represent cage control, if your dominating while pushing forward then-i agree. chuck liddell regularly stays on the back foot and dominates fights.

dunkamania wrote:

a take down is a pro active act that should score from grappling aggression and ring control,even if you cant advance the position effectively.

if you take someone down and they get up should they not be rewarded for ring control too, its harder to get up than it is to be taken down. if you take me down and i end up ground n pounding you then i think i should win that exchange.

Nothingcompares

You have to remember that the judges don't look at a fighter and say "he's usually a wreslter so I'll reward him for being a better boxer today compared to last year". And the judges don't come into the fight expecting xyz to happen and then give credit to someone else when they see something else happening.

Cowzer's point is a good one. A UFC match is a fight, nobody cares how many points you get or anything like that, what's important is how much damage is done. You don't score punches that land but don't hurt, you score punches tha land and hurt. The loser of the fight should be the guy who's the most banged up, not the guy that got taken down and laid on top of for 25 minutes.

siochain

hamill won it, bisbing looked nervous,

Vince135792003

From www.wrestlingobserver.com :

--Dana White is working on a Bisping vs. Hamill rematch (White's exact reaction to the question if he's working on a rematch was, "****, yes. The rematch on this fight is huge.") White saw it as a close win for Hamill according to an article to Kevin Iole, who spoke with him right after the fight.

Deanopride

Points will be decided upon "striking grappling aggression & octagon control".This is what is said at the start of every UFC. This exactly what Hamill did better than Bisping.I was very dissapointed at the decision right after the fight, and sure enough there is a thread on boards,showing this many people cant be wrong.I also liked how the English crowd start booing Bisping,the hometown boy and cheering Hamill,obviously i dont blame Bisping as he is just doing his job and not in control of the decision but it showed the fans knew who won also. Should be a fantastic rematch, great UFC.

dave1982

i think its partly hamills fault for letting bisping get up numerous times ok it looked like he could ko him in 1st round less in the second but i think he should have taken him down in 3rd round and kept him there i think he wanted the ko r tko to shut bisping up

Vince135792003

www.f4wonline.com

UFC 75 on Saturday night shattered all UFC on Spike TV records, doing a 3.1 rating and 4.7 million viewers over the full three hours. This is a full point above what pretty much anyone expected and Spike is blown away.

Drunkmonkey79

damo wrote:

....mma has too many variables and needs more educated judges (ie. ex fighters).

Why is there always someone on this forum who insists on pushing the notion that in order to have any sort of clue about MMA you have to have competed!?
Is it beyond the realms of reality that a non-fighter could do the same job as an ex fighter??

cowzerp

Drunkmonkey79 wrote:

Why is there always someone on this forum who insists on pushing the notion that in order to have any sort of clue about MMA you have to have competed!?
Is it beyond the realms of reality that a non-fighter could do the same job as an ex fighter??

I agree-a non fighter can be more knowledgable than a fighter-but the odds are the fighters would know more, but some fighters wouldnt make good coaches or judges where some non fighters might..

Roper

Drunkmonkey79 wrote:

Why is there always someone on this forum who insists on pushing the notion that in order to have any sort of clue about MMA you have to have competed!?
Is it beyond the realms of reality that a non-fighter could do the same job as an ex fighter??

As long as they are knowledgable and fair there's no problem with anyone judging. Who insists that? When has it been insisted?

dunkamania

I think they should have seperate boxing judges and MMA judges.

Roper

Check out Bisping's reponse and the opinion of one of the judges on www.bisping.tv now

cowzerp

dunkamania wrote:

I think they should have seperate boxing judges and MMA judges.

well i'd more say different striking and grappling judges, 1 striking and 1 grappling judge plus a judge who is more balanced and does not favour either-personally i think a fight should be easy to call and if its not should be a draw.

damo

Drunkmonkey79 wrote:

Why is there always someone on this forum who insists on pushing the notion that in order to have any sort of clue about MMA you have to have competed!?
Is it beyond the realms of reality that a non-fighter could do the same job as an ex fighter??

I dont think i insisted that unless you have competed in mma you 'dont have a clue'.

No its not beyond the 'realms of reality' that a non fighter could do as good a job as an ex fighter, but the ufc is currently full of bull**** descisions and there doesnt seem to be any moves in place to do something about it....reguarding using ex fighters as judges, do you think someone like miletich or couture would have given that decision to bisping? get a grip