UFC on Fox: Henderson vs. Melendez

unknown13

Henderson won but still most thought before the fight he would have done much better than he actually did. He was great against Nate Diaz. Henderson is the champion of what is turning into a boring division in the UFC.

Edgar moved down, Pettis moved down. Diaz is going to move up. The winner of Grant / Maynard gets the title shot but that is a fight I really don't care about. I think that fight will be on Fox aswell.

Pettis / Henderson in hind sight should be next but Pettis / Aldo has serious potential to be fight of the year and is the better fight.

leggo

MrStuffins wrote: »

I'm not a fan of this way of thinking

"You have to take the belt from the Champion"

No, if you win the fight you become Champion. Each round is scored with a winner and a loser and the criteria are very clear, Striking, Grappling, Aggression & Control. They can't just add in another saying "Oh, and if you're incumbent champ, we'll give you the closer rounds".

If you fight an identical fight against the same opponent and win a close decision first time, should that decision be different second time because you're opponent is now Champion? Absolutely not!

That's looking at it too simplistically. I think people are saying that, in an extremely close round, the champion is probably going to get the benefit of the doubt. When there's doubt over the outcome, it's a more controversial call to award it to the challenger (i.e. the judges will get more stick). So it's human nature and, until such a time as fights are judged by technology (and, hey, I'm sure someone out there is already working on making that a reality), then it's a valid point to say that you have to beat the champ to be the champ.

It's not an ideal solution and yes it leaves a grey area that is unfair. But it's the same human nature that sees referees in football statistically more likely to side with the home side in close decisions. And look, doesn't it give us all something to talk about? Putting my promoter's hat on for a moment, if I'm Dana White, then privately I don't really mind that.

riffmongous

leggo wrote: »

That's looking at it too simplistically. I think people are saying that, in an extremely close round, the champion is probably going to get the benefit of the doubt. When there's doubt over the outcome, it's a more controversial call to award it to the challenger (i.e. the judges will get more stick). So it's human nature and, until such a time as fights are judged by technology (and, hey, I'm sure someone out there is already working on making that a reality), then it's a valid point to say that you have to beat the champ to be the champ.

.

But then surely Frankie would still be champ? There didnt seem to be any champions benefit of the doubt for him in the first fight

edit: nevermind pauldoo said it first

leggo

riffmongous wrote: »

But then surely Frankie would still be champ? There didnt seem to be any champions benefit of the doubt for him in the first fight

edit: nevermind pauldoo said it first

Yeah, look, I agree with you. But if you were to apply logic to that...it's because he's Frankie Edgar. He's the UFC's Rocky Balboa. The odds are always stacked against poor Frankie and yet he comes back swinging.

These things probably shouldn't be a factor, but they are. It's human nature. Same way Luis Suarez will get vilified for biting another player and yet if someone else did it pundits would be saying, "He's not that type of player."

MrStuffins

leggo wrote: »

That's looking at it too simplistically. I think people are saying that, in an extremely close round, the champion is probably going to get the benefit of the doubt. When there's doubt over the outcome, it's a more controversial call to award it to the challenger (i.e. the judges will get more stick). So it's human nature and, until such a time as fights are judged by technology (and, hey, I'm sure someone out there is already working on making that a reality), then it's a valid point to say that you have to beat the champ to be the champ.

It's not an ideal solution and yes it leaves a grey area that is unfair. But it's the same human nature that sees referees in football statistically more likely to side with the home side in close decisions. And look, doesn't it give us all something to talk about? Putting my promoter's hat on for a moment, if I'm Dana White, then privately I don't really mind that.

Something to talk about? Sepp Blatter, is that you?

leggo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Something to talk about? Sepp Blatter, is that you?

What aren't you getting about this? Humans judge fights. Humans make mistakes. It happens. It mightn't have even happened in the fight we're discussing...most people are coming out and saying they had Bendo 48-47. I had it Bendo 48-47.

I'm not saying it's right. It's not nice, but it happens. Like hurricanes! And no amount of moaning from you will change that. Like hurricanes! So moaning about it here just make it sound like you're looking for an excuse to have a moan.

You know how this wouldn't have happened? If Melendez hadn't let it get to the scorecards, i.e. if Melendez had convincingly beaten the champion, he'd be the champion. Now shh.

stealinhorses

I really have to re-watch the first Bendo-Frankie fight. I had Henderson winning that one convincingly, but I've only watched it once in the middle of the night. I thought Edgar won the rematch though. I think the consensus is the other way around, once again showing that a lot is up to personal opinion/bias/lack of knowledge, etc.

El Guapo!

I really enjoyed the event overall. Some great fights in there.
I had Melendes winning the main event but it was incredibly close. Bendo does seem to have some luck on his side when it comes to close decisions. (He never beat Edgar imo). Either way though, it was a very entertaining fight. I just don't like Bendo though. His face just irritates me!

Delighted Thompson finished Diaz. I hate the Diaz smack talk and taunting during fights. I'm looking forward to seeing what Thompson does next.

Mike Brown was awesome. What a crackin fight that was! It was a real back and forth battle. Really enjoyed it.

MrStuffins

leggo wrote: »

What aren't you getting about this? Humans judge fights. Humans make mistakes. It happens. It mightn't have even happened in the fight we're discussing...most people are coming out and saying they had Bendo 48-47. I had it Bendo 48-47.

I'm not saying it's right. It's not nice, but it happens. Like hurricanes! And no amount of moaning from you will change that. Like hurricanes! So moaning about it here just make it sound like you're looking for an excuse to have a moan.

You know how this wouldn't have happened? If Melendez hadn't let it get to the scorecards, i.e. if Melendez had convincingly beaten the champion, he'd be the champion. Now shh.

Who is moaning? It's called discussion. No need to start with that rubbish. Some have valid points to make, like how being a Champion shouldn't matter when it comes to when the judges score fights, and others partake in mad ramblings, like insinuating that either one of the reasons why this might happen is because judges want to give us something to talk about, or that it's a good thing it happens because then we have something to talk about.

It's a weird way of looking at it to say the least.

Also, you make a couple of mistakes in your post. Firstly, I never said judges don't make mistakes. We weren't talking about mistakes, I posted about the way of thinking that the Champ should have his title taken from him and he should automatically be awarded closer decisions.

Another mistake is, judging by your "moaning" comment, you presume I disagree with the decision. I have no idea where you got that from.

El Guapo!

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it hard to get excited about Bendo? He comes across as a fake type of guy and isn't very likeable, but apart from his personality there's something about him that just doesn't make me excited about watching his fights. I can't put my finger on what it is though.

What I'd love to see happen is for Pettis to come back to 155 and beat him, (which I think he would do....again). Then I'd like to see how the LW division goes from there, while Bendo moves up to 170. He's already huge for a LW and I think he'd actually have some decent fights at WW.

rain on

El Guapo! wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it hard to get excited about Bendo? He comes across as a fake type of guy and isn't very likeable, but apart from his personality there's something about him that just doesn't make me excited about watching his fights. I can't put my finger on what it is though.

What I'd love to see happen is for Pettis to come back to 155 and beat him, (which I think he would do....again). Then I'd like to see how the LW division goes from there, while Bendo moves up to 170. He's already huge for a LW and I think he'd actually have some decent fights at WW.

Yeah I don't find him compelling as a champion at all, he's an excellent fighter but I never look forward to his fights. A finish every once in a while would go a long way imo.

ASJ112

I miss WEC Bendo, his last 4/5 fights he seems happy to just do enough to win rounds. He has such a great guillotine choke but doesn't seem to even consider going for it anymore when given the chance. Its a shame Pettis has gone down to 145 as he really would have pushed the pace against him, but Maynard will give him a great fight if he gets past TJ Grant.

leggo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Who is moaning? It's called discussion. No need to start with that rubbish. Some have valid points to make, like how being a Champion shouldn't matter when it comes to when the judges score fights, and others partake in mad ramblings, like insinuating that either one of the reasons why this might happen is because judges want to give us something to talk about, or that it's a good thing it happens because then we have something to talk about.

It's a weird way of looking at it to say the least.

Also, you make a couple of mistakes in your post. Firstly, I never said judges don't make mistakes. We weren't talking about mistakes, I posted about the way of thinking that the Champ should have his title taken from him and he should automatically be awarded closer decisions.

Another mistake is, judging by your "moaning" comment, you presume I disagree with the decision. I have no idea where you got that from.

What? I didn't say it happens because it gives us something to talk about. I simply said that it does give us something to talk about, and if I was Dana I wouldn't mind that because talking points generate interest and engagement in his product. So despite public showings of anger when the judges clearly get it wrong, he's probably not fighting to change things all that much. Which would lessen the possibility of things changing anytime soon (currently standing at around 1%) even further.

All I've done is offer a logical explanation why it happens, why it's not going to change, and why - because of that - it's absolutely pointless to complain or cry for change since it's not going to happen. And, also, following on from that: why fighters shouldn't leave their careers in a judge's hands. Because it's a better career trajectory to plan with the mindset that the judges may get it wrong and that they need to be aggressive and win convincingly (i.e. the real world), than to just sit back and moan about a redundant issue that won't ever change while judges are still human (i.e. Mr Stuffins world).

You seem to think it's best that we fight for an end to natural human fallibility. Good luck with that.

El Guapo! wrote: »

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it hard to get excited about Bendo? He comes across as a fake type of guy and isn't very likeable, but apart from his personality there's something about him that just doesn't make me excited about watching his fights. I can't put my finger on what it is though.

Yeah, I actually tweeted about this last night, he has exciting fights but needs an edge big-time. Though I think another 'controversial' decision victory is starting to give him that edge.

If I was Dana, I'd tell him to drop the wishy-washy, nice guy act and start being a bit of a dick to antagonise the people who are sick of seeing him win. He could be a money fighter if he started a whole "I'm the champ, like it or not!" deal. Sure it's a bit gimmicky and WWE...but we're suckers for good fight promotion all the same (shout-out to Chael Sonnen and Nick Diaz).

MrStuffins

leggo wrote: »

What? I didn't say it happens because it gives us something to talk about. I simply said that it does give us something to talk about, and if I was Dana I wouldn't mind that because talking points generate interest and engagement in his product. So despite public showings of anger when the judges clearly get it wrong, he's probably not fighting to change things all that much. Which would lessen the possibility of things changing anytime soon (currently standing at around 1%) even further.

All I've done is offer a logical explanation why it happens, why it's not going to change, and why - because of that - it's absolutely pointless to complain or cry for change since it's not going to happen. And, also, following on from that: why fighters shouldn't leave their careers in a judge's hands. Because it's a better career trajectory to plan with the mindset that the judges may get it wrong and that they need to be aggressive and win convincingly (i.e. the real world), than to just sit back and moan about a redundant issue that won't ever change while judges are still human (i.e. Mr Stuffins world).

You seem to think it's best that we fight for an end to natural human fallibility. Good luck with that.

It seems you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

For a start, I never once mentioned judges making mistakes. Where are you getting this from? Are you still presuming I think the judges made the wrong call here? Because I don't know where you're getting this. You seem to be arguing with me over something I never said.

All I said was, I disagree with the line of thinking that the Champ should be given close decisions simply because they are Champ. The criteria for judging is well established. If the judges can't follow them, they shouldn't judge. Simple.

leggo

MrStuffins wrote: »

It seems you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

For a start, I never once mentioned judges making mistakes. Where are you getting this from? Are you still presuming I think the judges made the wrong call here? Because I don't know where you're getting this. You seem to be arguing with me over something I never said.

All I said was, I disagree with the line of thinking that the Champ should be given close decisions simply because they are Champ. The criteria for judging is well established. If the judges can't follow them, they shouldn't judge. Simple.

My very first post dealt with that: that it's more controversial and therefore a more difficult decision to give the challenger a call that's essentially a toss-up. A toss-up means that there is no clear winner as per the criteria you mentioned, so we instead rely on our subjective opinions, giving precedence to natural opinions and biases (e.g. does Octagon Control matter more than attempted takedowns? etc).

You can say "that person shouldn't be a judge" all you want...but that natural bias is a part of human error (and I've given a follow-up example of similar bias in sports, citing referees being statistically more likely to give 50-50 decisions to the home side in football).

For those bringing up exceptions like Frankie Edgar, I would suggest that said bias also works in other ways, such as if a fighter is considered an underdog going into a fight, they're going to find it more difficult to win close calls.

It happens and will never stop happening until you remove human error from the equation. You need to accept that.

Therefore, the challenger must convincingly win in order to beat the champion, or they are at the mercy of this unavoidable margin or error.

We're going around in circles now because you either can't seem to swallow that fact and are just repeating your point or deliberately misinterpreting my argument. If you'd like to offer a counterpoint that actually offers a solution to natural human bias, then please feel free to do so. But I'd suggest you'd likely be a millionaire if you could figure that out and not discussing this on boards with me right now. Soooo....

*Apologies if I'm coming across as a bit of a dick right now, but it's probably not a good idea to act the smart arse with someone when you can't actually answer the points they've raised to begin with. That's how this happens.

MrStuffins

leggo wrote: »

*Apologies if I'm coming across as a bit of a dick right now, but it's probably not a good idea to act the smart arse with someone when you can't actually answer the points they've raised to begin with.

Then maybe you should avoid doing it again in the future.

And you're not coming across like any more of a dick than you normally do, don't worry!

leggo

Again, substituting being a smart arse when you can't provide an actual counter-argument.

Cop on man, you bring it on yourself.

MrStuffins

leggo wrote: »

Again, substituting being a smart arse when you can't provide an actual counter-argument.

Cop on man, you bring it on yourself.

Counter argument to what? You haven't disagreed with anything I've actually said. You're having a disagreement with yourself.


Just because you write a few long winded posts, doesn't mean a thing.

Again, all I said was I disagree with the "Take from the Champ" mentality. Nothing else. The rest is irrelevant to me.

paddythere

The consensus is not the other way around. Most ppl saw it this way also

leggo

MrStuffins wrote: »

Counter argument to what? You haven't disagreed with anything I've actually said. You're having a disagreement with yourself.

No, I think you'll find I'm disagreeing with the principles behind redundant statements like this:

MrStuffins wrote: »

If the judges can't follow them, they shouldn't judge. Simple.

...which is like saying something pleasant-sounding but banal and ultimately empty like, "Racism is wrong. Racists should be shot." The problem is valid, the proposed solution doesn't actually solve a thing and shows lack of understanding of the problem.

Yes, we all know that sometimes there can be errors of judgement and bias that may favour the champion in certain situations. Yes, we would all like an ideal situation where this isn't the case. But the statement quoted (I'm not making that quote up, right? You did actually say this?), with the basis I've added to the argument (that you say yourself you don't disagree with), basically translates into: "Humans shouldn't suffer from human error."

That's the point you're making right now. You do realise that, don't you? Or do you not know what you're arguing anymore and just don't want to admit you may have jumped the gun and not understood the problem as much as you let on?

Then you've the cheek to try and be a smart arse about it...:rolleyes:

MrStuffins

leggo wrote: »

No, I think you'll find I'm disagreeing with the principles behind redundant statements like this:



...which is like saying something pleasant-sounding but banal and ultimately empty like, "Racism is wrong. Racists should be shot." .......

Wait, what? I'm not even going to bother to read the rest of your post. This is nuts. You're just getting hysterical now. If you want to continue this rubbish fell free to PM me. Jaysus.


Back on topic, I agree with the decision. Bendo shaded it for me.
But he's definitely they're for the taking. I reckon Maynard should take him if he gets past Grant.

Ush1

I wasn't that excited for this main event at all. Henderson I feel never goes for it really in fights. He's athletic and okay in every department but not a killer like other fighters. I feel Frankie Edgar beat him in the second fight so it all just feels a bit cheapened and the proposal at the end was ridiculous.
Winner of Maynard Grant will be next for him.

Sort of underwhelmed by Cormiers performance, not the huge statement you'd have expected for his UFC debut. Mir looked very slow also, needs to drop some weight I reckon.

There is something about Matt Brown that makes his fights so exciting. Always trying to finish people, really interested to see who he gets next.

MrStuffins

Ush1 wrote: »

Sort of underwhelmed by Cormiers performance, not the huge statement you'd have expected for his UFC debut. Mir looked very slow also, needs to drop some weight I reckon.

I think Mir should be done. It's been a long time since he's been really relevant in the HW division. He looked terribly slow against Cormier but really about as quick as he's looked in a few years now. Nothing looks fluid about what he does anymore, he looks like a huge lad who has just learned to strike.

Cormier did as was expected and I really don't think he should drop to 205. The LHWs are a different kettle of fish and I think he could be a Top 5 HW but be way behind the likes of Jones, Machida etc at LHW.

He was too quick and (strangely) to strong for Mir. Also, Mir frustrated a lot as he'd spend most of a round getting beat up in the clinch, would separate, then would plod forward like Lurch from Addams Family with a couple of punches and clinch up again.

p to the e

Ush1 wrote: »

I wasn't that excited for this main event at all. Henderson I feel never goes for it really in fights. He's athletic and okay in every department but not a killer like other fighters. I feel Frankie Edgar beat him in the second fight so it all just feels a bit cheapened and the proposal at the end was ridiculous.
Winner of Maynard Grant will be next for him.

Sort of underwhelmed by Cormiers performance, not the huge statement you'd have expected for his UFC debut. Mir looked very slow also, needs to drop some weight I reckon.

There is something about Matt Brown that makes his fights so exciting. Always trying to finish people, really interested to see who he gets next.

Won't the winner of Pettis - Aldo be next for him?

I think Cormier comes from the Randy Couture school of MMA. Get them against the fence and keep them there. He is well able to stand and strike aswell but if someone like Mir is content with being put against the cage time after time then Cormier won't have a problem either. Just a note: this is the first time Mir has ever lost two in a row.

Matt Brown has really rejuvenated himself to be a beast at WW. A big step up in competition might be good for him e.g. Demian Maia. Failing that a fight with Patrick Cote or Gunnar Nelson would be cracking.

Did anyone see the Masvidal - Means fight? I had a sneaky bet at 14/1 that it would be fight of the night. I know it didn't win but would still like to see it.

MrStuffins

I think Dana confirmed the winner of Maynard v Grant is next up. Aldo gets a LW title shot should he win alright, but the Pettis fight isn't til August AFAIK so there's plenty of time for another LW Title fight.

Shazbot

MrStuffins wrote: »

I think Mir should be done. It's been a long time since he's been really relevant in the HW division. He looked terribly slow against Cormier but really about as quick as he's looked in a few years now. Nothing looks fluid about what he does anymore, he looks like a huge lad who has just learned to strike..

I think that sums up Mir nicely. He's extremely slow and stiff when striking. He didn't even attempt a takedown against Cormier. The fight was just frustrating to watch. It was disappointed to see this fight not hit the mat. It was almost like Cormier was afraid to test the waters. I'd say Cormier's wrestling would have stifled Mir's BJJ and it would have atleast made the fight more interesting to watch.

Cormier was underwhelming in his debut. We know he can do better, he should have easily outstuck Mir without forcing it against the cage. Herb Dean did a great job resetting the fight when there was stalling.

Is it just me or is Chad Mendes being match off with people way below his level. He's been sitting at the top of the FW heap but hasn't fought a top 10 FW since Aldo. I know fighters pulled out to injury but only Guida was in the top 10. I'd like to see him get someone in the top 5 next but they're all tied up until July.

I had the main event as even going into the 5th and I thought Henderson edged it. I was hoping Melendez would win but he seemed to slow in the 4th and 5th. No one really went after it in the 5th. It's difficult to argue the decision from either side. It was very close and I wouldn't complain if it went to Melendez.

The loss of Pettis from LW is frustrating because I really wanted to see that rematch. Then again, Aldo v Pettis has the making for fight of the year. I'd say Maynard will beat Grant and that should make for an exciting fight between Bendo and Gray.

riffmongous

MrStuffins wrote: »

I think Mir should be done. It's been a long time since he's been really relevant in the HW division. He looked terribly slow against Cormier but really about as quick as he's looked in a few years now. Nothing looks fluid about what he does anymore, he looks like a huge lad who has just learned to strike.

Cormier did as was expected and I really don't think he should drop to 205. The LHWs are a different kettle of fish and I think he could be a Top 5 HW but be way behind the likes of Jones, Machida etc at LHW.

He was too quick and (strangely) to strong for Mir. Also, Mir frustrated a lot as he'd spend most of a round getting beat up in the clinch, would separate, then would plod forward like Lurch from Addams Family with a couple of punches and clinch up again.

Its hard to believe that Mir is actually younger than Cormier.

I don't see any reason why Cormier would drop down other than not wanting to fight Cain, Mir was much bigger and you would have guessed stronger but Cormier handled him so easily in the clinch, it looked like they were dancing DC was turning him around so effortlessly. There was no need for him to go for a takedown and risk a sub either, other than some good looking kicks Mir had nothing for him. I was surprised to see him gass though, nerves possibly? He alluded to some in an interview

Mir is still a pretty good gatekeeper for HW I think, together with Kongo and Nelson they can keep the top of the HW division pretty stale :pac:

Mellor

stealinhorses wrote: »

Very close battle, probably more so than the Edgar fights. I think Bendo just edged it. Melendez didn't do enough to take the title from the champion, so in that case the belt should stay with Henderson.

Who ever is the champ before the match is irrelevant. It doesn't factor in to it at all.
Each round is scored in isolation. Who ever won 3 (or more) is the winner. Simple as that.

If its a draw round score it as such. But giving a round to Henderson because he is the champ is idiotic.

MrStuffins

Mellor wrote: »

Who ever is the champ before the match is irrelevant. It doesn't factor in to it at all.
Each round is scored in isolation. Who ever won 3 (or more) is the winner. Simple as that.

If its a draw round score it as such. But giving a round to Henderson because he is the champ is idiotic.

And to be honest, I don't actually think this happens in MMA. I can think of a lot of instances where ive disagreed with a decision, including title fights (I disagreed with both Edgar v Bendo decisions), but off the top of my head there isn't a time where i've thought "They've given him that decision because he's Champion".

I think it might be a phrase carried over form Boxing, where it's used a lot of the time as a cop out to defend what can be at times a very corrupt sport.

leggo

MrStuffins wrote: »

And to be honest, I don't actually think this happens in MMA. I can think of a lot of instances where ive disagreed with a decision, including title fights (I disagreed with both Edgar v Bendo decisions), but off the top of my head there isn't a time where i've thought "They've given him that decision because he's Champion".

Well your entire argument is that you think this never happens to begin with, so if you'd have ever thought it then your opinion would be different...

I'll give you a very recent example of human bias potentially coming into play in judging decisions: Urijah Hall was expected to dominate the TUF 17 finale, right? Well when he didn't, Kevin Gastelum won a split decision. Now, personally, I had Hall taking that 3rd round closely. But I also thought at the time, "He didn't dominate as everyone expected so the judges will probably side with Gastelum." And sure enough. Hall should've been judged on what he did in the Octagon, but I'm willing to bet that a certain amount of expectations prior to the fight played a part in people judging how well he fought. So he was judged on what he didn't do, how he failed to live up to our expectations, and sure enough the reaction from fans and media since the fight has echoed this. Even we're guilty of doing this, so how can we expect more from anyone else?

Now I'm not trying to take anything away from Gastelum or start an argument about that specific result, and it's extremely difficult (read: impossible) to prove, but it's a case of if people are on the fence then their natural biases and subjective opinions all of a sudden become a factor. And people are delusional if they think that they don't. Crying that people shouldn't be judges if that happens is, essentially, asking judges not to be human.

Again, with how quickly Fightmetric and so on are coming along (especially now that Zuffa are helping to fund it), there probably soon will be a way of removing this human error. But, until then, this is a factor and should be treated as such. It's why Dana encourages fighters not to let it get to the scorecards: even he acknowledges it, and he's pretty much the top dog in the entire sport.