UFC 181. Hendricks Vs Lawler / Pettis Vs Melendez

John_D80

Devastator wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/ufc/11279360/UFC-181-14-things-we-learnt-from-Lawler-Hendricks-judging-and-CM-Punk.html


3. The 49-46 score from judge Glenn Trowbridge did not make a lot of sense. For the record, I scored it 48-47 Hendricks, identical to judge Sal D'Amato. I reckon D'Amato is one of the best in the business.

Anybody who claims that Sal D'Amato is one of the best judges in MMA, immediately loses all credibility. Christ.

ASOT

John_D80 wrote: »

Anybody who claims that Sal D'Amato is one of the best judges in MMA, immediately loses all credibility. Christ.

Heard D'Amato is up there with Peoples for the Best in the Business award..

MagicIRL

ASOT wrote: »

Heard D'Amato is up there with Peoples for the Best in the Business award..

Reminded me of this gem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0EopVFSy0

ASOT

MagicIRL wrote: »

Reminded me of this gem!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO0EopVFSy0

I only watched it the other night haha thats why it was fresh in my head, ridiculous.

JJayoo

Hendrick was doing some nice damage with the leg kicks

mdwexford

2ndcoming wrote: »

If you compare it to the Hendricks - GSP fight if Hendricks had performed as weakly as Lawler did in this fight there would never have been the controversy that ultimately led to Hendricks winning the title when GSP stepped aside - by soundly beating Lawler.

Regardless of whether people want to see the re-rematch he's surely more deserving of one than Lawler was after losing his title shot fair and square. Like him or not this is the man who basically retired the greatest welterweight champion in UFC history, yet he lost that match and this one despite dominating both.

For me there's still a massive streak of WWE booking when it comes to the big draws on the card. UFC wanted their Cinderella story out of Lawler and they weren't gonna take no for an answer.

So much crap in one post.

Lawler didn't get a rematch, he won two fights to get back to the number one contender spot and deserved another crack.

Hendricks retired GSP, you serious, lmao.
He didn't dominate that fight either.

Yeah because the UFC judged the fight.

Devastator

Hendricks is named no.1 in rankings above Rory mcDonald, this could be an early indication for an immediate rematch

Tubbs4

Devastator wrote: »

Hendricks is named no.1 in rankings above Rory mcDonald, this could be an early indication for an immediate rematch

Ranking are not done by UFC so I hope no immediate rematch. Hendricks even said He did not fight for round 4 and 5. He tried to just do enough for a points win. Leave Rory fight next for the belt and Hendricks earn another shot.

Mellor

Devastator wrote: »

Hendricks is named no.1 in rankings above Rory mcDonald, this could be an early indication for an immediate rematch

Rankings are done by the media, not Dana/Joe Silva.
Hendricks being at No.1 simply means most people voting thought he won.

Mr. Manager

Nothing new to chime in on this so I'll just say that I disagree with the decision. It was close but ultimately gave it to Hendricks. Although he did sweet FA when took Lawler down, he still took him down. Repeatedly.

Watched it with my housemate who's not a huge fan but would know how to score a round and he gave it 3 rounds Hendricks and 2 for Lawler (1 & 5).

TimRiggins

Cereal Rapist wrote: »

Nothing new to chime in on this so I'll just say that I disagree with the decision. It was close but ultimately gave it to Hendricks. Although he did sweet FA when took Lawler down, he still took him down. Repeatedly.

Watched it with my housemate who's not a huge fan but would know how to score a round and he gave it 3 rounds Hendricks and 2 for Lawler (1 & 5).

But Lawler was able to fight off more takedowns, and Hendricks did nothing on the ground. It seemed that his plan was to take him down and nothing more. He didn't seem to be making a huge effort to transition or to use his position to hurt Robbie. The judges are scoring it, especially on the ground as effective control of the fight.

Wrestler style fighters are coming into fights and thinking they only need to take their opponent down to win a fight. Hendricks is a great fighter but really let himself down Saturday night I think.

Mr. Manager

TimRiggins wrote: »

But Lawler was able to fight off more takedowns, and Hendricks did nothing on the ground. It seemed that his plan was to take him down and nothing more. He didn't seem to be making a huge effort to transition or to use his position to hurt Robbie. The judges are scoring it, especially on the ground as effective control of the fight.

Wrestler style fighters are coming into fights and thinking they only need to take their opponent down to win a fight. Hendricks is a great fighter but really let himself down Saturday night I think.

I agree with all of the above. Hendricks was scoring better on the feet though I thought. His striking was crisper and he found the home a lot more than Lawler did.

Neither fighter really hurt each other and I don't think anyone was in real danger of getting knocked out except withing the first 90 second flurry.

MagicIRL

I was always under the impression that once you scored the takedown it was the responsibility of the person on their back to get back to their feet, not the responsibility of the person on top to deal damage and/or risk losing the position.

Anyway, I like when belts change hands. Hendricks will be back, and if he keeps fighting like he did in the standup, he's going to be great to watch!

user2011

Melendez $200,000 :eek: wtf would he of got $400,000 if he had of beat Pettis?

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/ufc-181-fighter-salaries-lawler-pettis-melendez-top-202733745--mma.html

Mellor

user2011 wrote: »

Melendez $200,000 :eek: wtf would he of got $400,000 if he had of beat Pettis?

No. It's was a flat $200k.

valor

WHy does he have a flat 200k deal, seems pretty weird, no win incentive but higher salary than the champ?

MartyMcFly84

I am pretty sure Wandy had a flat rate too.

The incentive to win is to be champion. If you are a champ you get all the sponsorship that comes along with it, and if you hang on to it you are in a great position to renegotiate your contract when it comes up for renewal.

I am sure there is plenty of locker room bonuses handed out to reward wins also.

Many established fighters are happy with a fixed income for the fight, win lose or draw.

Devastator

valor wrote: »

WHy does he have a flat 200k deal, seems pretty weird, no win incentive but higher salary than the champ?

Thats the contract that he negotiated and signed. I believe this is the 1st fight on his new deal

Mellor

valor wrote: »

WHy does he have a flat 200k deal, seems pretty weird, no win incentive but higher salary than the champ?

It's pretty common for big draw fighters to have flat deals. The logic being that their worth to the PPV, as a draw, isn't dependant on the result.

In championship level fights, even top 3 fights. There's a much greater incentive to win than the purse. And other financial benefits are probably worth more thna the purse too

2ndcoming

mdwexford wrote: »

So much crap in one post.

Lawler didn't get a rematch, he won two fights to get back to the number one contender spot and deserved another crack.

Hendricks retired GSP, you serious, lmao.
He didn't dominate that fight either.

Yeah because the UFC judged the fight.

GSP was a bloody mess at the end of that fight and the fact he was still able to stand at the end was the only reason he somehow held on to the belt. He got a hiding and he hasn't been seen since and probably won't be so I'll let you decide whether that constitutes being retired.

In my opinion and many others he did dominate that fight and 23 minutes of this one. He did what champions have done in fighting since time began, he did what he felt was enough to win and after that he prevented the challenger from doing enough to take his belt. Champions shouldn't lose their belt based on popularity or because people dislike their tactics, they need to be beaten and soundly. Just ask GSP.

Wrongway1985

2ndcoming wrote: »

GSP was a bloody mess at the end of that fight and the fact he was still able to stand at the end was the only reason he somehow held on to the belt. He got a hiding and he hasn't been seen since and probably won't be so I'll let you decide whether that constitutes being retired.

In my opinion and many others he did dominate that fight and 23 minutes of this one. He did what champions have done in fighting since time began, he did what he felt was enough to win and after that he prevented the challenger from doing enough to take his belt. Champions shouldn't lose their belt based on popularity or because people dislike their tactics, they need to be beaten and soundly. Just ask GSP.

GSP was stepping out of the world of MMA for sometime before he eventually did this is well documented.

After the Condit fight which he was also left looking battered he'd wiped out the division. It was most likely GSP's choice to fight an undeserving Nick Diaz and the UFC are not gonna decline another GSP PPV draw even if it's not the expected, in this time Hendricks became a clear #1 contender and was disgusted he was ignored.

GSP stuck around and gave him a shot won the fight controversially yeah but the division was cleared out again so to say Hendricks retired him is pure scutter.

Hendricks certainly didn't dominate 23 minutes of the recent fight I don't know how you've clocked up and rounded that off. I scored it 48-47 Hendricks myself giving Lawler round 1 and 5, I need to watch it again but people mainly saying including Hendricks that the fight was most likely lost in round 4.

I don't get your last point about asking GSP tbh. Popularity didn't win Robbie the belt, it went to the Judges Hendricks won the previous fight this way. It was a controversial decision but c'mon we have seen much much worse.

Matt Hughes was on the MMA hour about the win and even though he was prominently a wrestler in his own career maintains we might be seeing a change in Judges not overscoring the takedown, I know he is friends with Robbie but don't think he was being biased.

Would like to see an immediate rematch myself I'd watch that fight again no problem makes more sense than a rematch with MacDonald IMO.

p to the e

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

I don't get your last point about asking GSP tbh. Popularity didn't win Robbie the belt, it went to the Judges Hendricks won the previous fight this way. It was a controversial decision but c'mon we have seen much much worse.

I think this is the main point. This wasn't Sanchez - Pearson. However I do have a problem with the 49 - 46 scorecard given by one judge.

Devastator

2ndcoming wrote: »

GSP was a bloody mess at the end of that fight and the fact he was still able to stand at the end was the only reason he somehow held on to the belt. He got a hiding and he hasn't been seen since and probably won't be so I'll let you decide whether that constitutes being retired.

IMO pretty much all the damage around his face was done in a short period of (I think, could be wrong lol) the 2nd round when GSP went for a takedown, had Heendricks against the fence and JH proceeded to smash his elbow into GSPs face/head for about 30 seconds.

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Matt Hughes was on the MMA hour about the win and even though he was prominently a wrestler in his own career maintains we might be seeing a change in Judges not overscoring the takedown, I know he is friends with Robbie but don't think he was being biased.

I think this debate will grow and grow over next few months, there needs to be more consistency from the judges though. Can't have 2 out of the 3 judges scoring the fight 1 way and the other scoring it to different criteria

Wrongway1985

p to the e wrote: »

I think this is the main point. This wasn't Sanchez - Pearson. However I do have a problem with the 49 - 46 scorecard given by one judge.

Too true, the theories to how Lawler won the fight maybe reasonable/debatable but that judge was a disgrace.

MagicIRL

Why do we have judges? You watch the fight and you get the stats on how many takedowns have landed, been defended, sig. strikes landed, kicks landed etc. They pretty much track everything with technology. Why not use the stats to reach a conclusion, and the judge just supervises?

MrStuffins

MagicIRL wrote: »

Why do we have judges? You watch the fight and you get the stats on how many takedowns have landed, been defended, sig. strikes landed, kicks landed etc. They pretty much track everything with technology. Why not use the stats to reach a conclusion, and the judge just supervises?

Because not all strikes, takedowns, kicks etc. are equal! There's a lot more dynamosm in MMA than just numbers.

darced

This post has been deleted.

stiffler123

Round 1- Close but I gave it to Lawler. Lawler did more damage plain and simple.

Round 2- Hendricks clearly.

Round 3- Hendricks clearly.

Round 4- This is the one that's hard. Hendricks won most of the round, but went for this daft halfass takedown where his head ended up between Robbies legs. He was just eating shots at the end. Robbie finished the round better, I gave it to Hendricks but I can see why judges would give it to Lawler.

Round 5- Lawler clearly.

So while I think Hendricks won, I have never been more happy to hear a split decision go the wrong way. Hendricks tactics in the last two rounds cost him the fight. He was beating Lawler on the feet in rounds 2 and 3, if he kept it standing there's a good chance he would have won. I wonder if his corner is to blame for this. I didn't hear what they were saying between rounds, but I recall them telling him that he had pretty much won the GSP fight when he was going into the 5th round.

Gumbi

stiffler123 wrote: »

Round 1- Close but I gave it to Lawler. Lawler did more damage plain and simple.

Round 2- Hendricks clearly.

Round 3- Hendricks clearly.

Round 4- This is the one that's hard. Hendricks won most of the round, but went for this daft halfass takedown where his head ended up between Robbies legs. He was just eating shots at the end. Robbie finished the round better, I gave it to Hendricks but I can see why judges would give it to Lawler.

Round 5- Lawler clearly.

So while I think Hendricks won, I have never been more happy to hear a split decision go the wrong way. Hendricks tactics in the last two rounds cost him the fight. He was beating Lawler on the feet in rounds 2 and 3, if he kept it standing there's a good chance he would have won. I wonder if his corner is to blame for this. I didn't hear what they were saying between rounds, but I recall them telling him that he had pretty much won the GSP fight when he was going into the 5th round.

You also have to differentiate between 10-9 and 10-8 rounds.

Swashbuckler

2ndcoming wrote: »

GSP was a bloody mess at the end of that fight and the fact he was still able to stand at the end was the only reason he somehow held on to the belt. He got a hiding and he hasn't been seen since and probably won't be so I'll let you decide whether that constitutes being retired.

In my opinion and many others he did dominate that fight and 23 minutes of this one. He did what champions have done in fighting since time began, he did what he felt was enough to win and after that he prevented the challenger from doing enough to take his belt. Champions shouldn't lose their belt based on popularity or because people dislike their tactics, they need to be beaten and soundly. Just ask GSP.

Chael Sonnen was a bloody mess by the end of his first fight against Silva. If that fight had gone to the judges how would that have scored? Last time I checked theres more to judging than how a guy looks at the end of the fight. Nonsense arguement.