UFC 181. Hendricks Vs Lawler / Pettis Vs Melendez

Devastator

John_D80 wrote: »

You can speak for absolutely everyone who watched this fight?? Ok, if that's the case, point taken.

5th was a no brainer. 4th was lawlers also, more strikes landed and totally nullified any attempt at control by Hendricks. 3rd and second were both clearly Hendricks. 1st was close but I gave it to Lawler.

Whenever the exchanges were going Lawlers way Hendricks thought he could get through by lay and pray and controlling Lawler on the mat but he got burned by Lawlers greatly improved defensive wrestling and TDD.

Apologies if my opinion differs from the masses but try not to be offended old boy. Obviously if the majority disagree, then I absolutely must be wrong. :-)

well I can speak for absolutely everyone watching the fight live and posting what they thought on here & twitter(who I follow).

I'm not offended how or why could I be?

I just don't see it as YOUR opinion as you already knew result

Davei141

chrisbonnie wrote: »

i miss the 25 year old GSP. He'd beat the pi$$ out of the two of them eejits on the same night, and barely break a sweat.

Hendricks didnt go out to win the fight, he went out not to lose. Delighted Lawler got the decision. Yeah, it was close, but at least he went there to win.

I laugh every time i see this parroted. It is so meaningless. Lawler was pretty inactive during large parts of that fight, so much so that Pat Milletech came over to tell him to take the fight to Hendricks and Rogan and Co started speculating that he busted up his hand. Hendricks tried to stall also during parts of it but people are very quiet on the Lawler front.

Davei141

Mellor wrote: »

Yes it is true. He landed more total strikes.
[url]www.fightmetric.com:8081/events/fight-info/5056/[/url]
Hendricks had more significant strikes.
23-19
But Lawlor had more total strikes. 30-23

Apologies. After watching that round again it is easy to use stats to skew how a round went, Hendricks won that round with the better strikes IMO and Lawler would have got his stats up with a lot of strikes at the very end when Hendricks was going for the TD, Hendricks Won 4+ minutes of that round.

Lawler performed far better in the first fight and still lost 3-2 fairly, take from that what you will.

John_D80

Devastator wrote: »

well I can speak for absolutely everyone watching the fight live and posting what they thought on here & twitter(who I follow).

I'm not offended how or why could I be?

I just don't see it as YOUR opinion as you already knew result

Its MY opinion.

Lawler pushed the action from the off and took the fight effectively to hendricks. Many off the people complaining about the result are the same people who crib about wrestlers killing fights by laying and praying. For once the guy who tried to kill the fight didn't win and i'm delighted for it.

This was obviously what hendricks WANTED to do but it bit him in the arse this time. Lawler wanted to fight, Hendricks was just trying not to lose (if that makes any sense!! lol).

A friend of mine who was at the fight, posted on facebook afterwards that anyone he was with or sitting near, called it for Robbie Lawler

John_D80

Davei141 wrote: »

Apologies. After watching that round again it is easy to use stats to skew how a round went, Hendricks won that round with the better strikes IMO and Lawler would have got his stats up with a lot of strikes at the very end when Hendricks was going for the TD, Hendricks Won 4+ minutes of that round.

Lawler performed far better in the first fight and still lost 3-2 fairly, take from that what you will.

In fairness, both men were better in the first fight.

Sticking your head in between a guys thighs and holding onto his leg doesnt count as a takedown attempt when you're just lying there trying to maintain a neutral position and counting out the clock.

Devastator

Trying to agree with someone else's opinion does not make it your own.

Bit of advice - try watching fights in future without knowing the results and what other peoples opinions are, its much more fun!!

Awkward Badger

Only seen the Hendricks Lawlor fight now, fell asleep last night. Absolutely delighted for Lawlor and thrilled Hendricks didn't managed to steal the win with all the dud takedowns, clinches and time wasting.

When you spend the last two rounds holding on and hiding to kill time while the crowd boo's the ref keeps breaking it up to try make you fight you don't deserve to have a title.

Davei141

John_D80 wrote: »

Its MY opinion.

Lawler pushed the action from the off and took the fight effectively to hendricks. Many off the people complaining about the result are the same people who crib about wrestlers killing fights by laying and praying. For once the guy who tried to kill the fight didn't win and i'm delighted for it.

This was obviously what hendricks WANTED to do but it bit him in the arse this time. Lawler wanted to fight, Hendricks was just trying not to lose (if that makes any sense!! lol).

A friend of mine who was at the fight, posted on facebook afterwards that anyone he was with or sitting near, called it for Robbie Lawler

It is pretty obvious most people wanted Lawler to win (myself included) and are now trying to do mental gymnastics to justify the result. The same crowd that were extremely pro Robbie and booed Hendricks constantly? Shocking.

Davei141

John_D80 wrote: »

In fairness, both men were better in the first fight.

Sticking your head in between a guys thighs and holding onto his leg doesnt count as a takedown attempt when you're just lying there trying to maintain a neutral position and counting out the clock.

Not defending that at all. But when Lawler stood there for ages doing nothing after 2 minutes he was "conserving his energy".. people can at least be consistent to both fighters.

Awkward Badger

Davei141 wrote: »

It is pretty obvious most people wanted Lawler to win (myself included) and are now trying to do mental gymnastics to justify the result. The same crowd that were extremely pro Robbie and booed Hendricks constantly? Shocking.

Its not mental gymnastics though. Its like this, if you leave a fight to be that close it can go either way. Hendricks was anti fighting in those last two rounds. And it cost him big time. At the end of the last two rounds he didn't so much take down Robbie as put himself in a position where Robbie could T-Off while Hendricks covered up. It was probably wasn't far off in round 4 to being stopped because Hendricks wasn't fighting or making much of an effort to defend himself. For me Robbie won the first and last two rounds. No mental gymnastics required.

John_D80

Devastator wrote: »

Trying to agree with someone else's opinion does not make it your own.

Bit of advice - try watching fights in future without knowing the results and what other peoples opinions are, its much more fun!!

So you can tell someone what is and is not their own opinion? You dont see me saying that you are only jumping on the bandwagon do you?

Do you wanna actually discuss the fight without getting personal? Or would you rather carry on telling me I cant formulate my own opinion when you know SFA about me? If its the latter,jog on please.

Believe me I did not have to try very hard to see where this fight was won and lost. For once, the guy who came too fight (rightly) won and the guy who came to roll around and clinch for 5 rounds got burned.

Devastator

Davei141 wrote: »

It is pretty obvious most people wanted Lawler to win (myself included) and are now trying to do mental gymnastics to justify the result. The same crowd that were extremely pro Robbie and booed Hendricks constantly? Shocking.

Me 2, I even bet on Lawler to win but I thought I lost my money last night. I call a fight as I see it and IMO Hendricks won. At the end my thoughts were that it could have been 4-1 to Hendricks depending on how 1st round went.


I thought the crowd were more booing the attempted TDs and therefore lack of action coming from it and cheered when the fighters were moved back to the middle. Maybe just giving them benefit of the doubt I tend not to listen to carefully to crowd or commentators during a fight lol

Devastator

John_D80 wrote: »

So you can tell someone what is and is not their own opinion? You dont see me saying that you are only jumping on the bandwagon do you?

Do you wanna actually discuss the fight without getting personal? Or would you rather carry on telling me I cant formulate my own opinion when you know SFA about me? If its the latter,jog on please.

Believe me I did not have to try very hard to see where this fight was won and lost. For once, the guy who came too fight (rightly) won and the guy who came to roll around and clinch for 5 rounds got burned.

I'm not being personal, if your taking something that way then really thats your problem. I'm not here to argue I just find it laughable!

You can say whatever you want about me, I dont care. You might look pretty foolish saying I jumped on the bandwagon though because if you read back through this thread I was posting my thoughts during & after the fight

Davei141

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Its not mental gymnastics though. Its like this, if you leave a fight to be that close it can go either way. Hendricks was anti fighting in those last two rounds. And it cost him big time. At the end of the last two rounds he didn't so much take down Robbie as put himself in a position where Robbie could T-Off while Hendricks covered up. It was probably wasn't far off in round 4 to being stopped because Hendricks wasn't fighting or making much of an effort to defend himself. For me Robbie won the first and last two rounds. No mental gymnastics required.

He was winning the 4th for a long time out striking Robbie, last round it was close until Robbie started teeing off in the last minute. 4th close to being stopped? and you say no mental gymnastics required? You sure about that? 4th wasn't close to being stopped by a few ground strikes. People have re-written what happened in the last 2 rounds and that is mental gymnastics, Hendricks slowed no doubt but Lawler looked slow for the majority of the fight, a few bursts aside. But Lawler gets a pass because he looked slow while standing up and well because hes Robbie Lawler.

John_D80

Devastator wrote: »

I'm not being personal, if your taking something that way then really thats your problem.

If you can't see how, basically telling a person that they are not capable of forming their own opinions, might be taken personally, then it is you that has a problem mate. Bit disrespectful, even to a stranger.

9 times out of ten I watch the bigger fights live but this time yeah I knew the result before I saw it. So what? Doesn't change what I saw with my own two eyes. I have no particular bias towards or against either fighter either.

Mr Blobby

Stayed up and watched the whole card (which was fantastic)

I'm glad Lawler won.
Before the fight started i was rooting for Hendricks but the second he started time wasting and holding Lawler against the fence while doing absolutely nothing i was done.

I scored rounds 1,5 for Lawler and 2,3 Hendricks. I'll need to watch round 4 again because i'm not sure.

If Hendricks had actually tried to do something with his takedowns and stopped the time wasting he'd have won... But he didn't and instead his game plan consisted of sticking his head between Lawlers legs.

If you're in a Championship fight and you try to time waste in every round you deserve to lose. Seeing Lawler getting fired up at the end showed that we actually have a champion that will go 100% for 5 rounds.

Devastator

John_D80 wrote: »

If you can't see how, basically telling a person that they are not capable of forming their own opinions, might be taken personally, then it is you that has a problem mate. Bit disrespectful, even to a stranger.

9 times out of ten I watch the bigger fights live but this time yeah I knew the result before I saw it. So what? Doesn't change what I saw with my own two eyes. I have no particular bias towards or against either fighter either.

right whatever John. As I already said I'm not trying to argue with you although it doesn't seem to be reciprocal. I'll accept that you think I have a problem to finish this :rolleyes:

John_D80

Mr Blobby wrote: »

I scored rounds 1,5 for Lawler and 2,3 Hendricks. I'll need to watch round 4 again because i'm not sure.

.

You should have kept that to yourself Blobby. Apparently , according to some here, your opinion on the fourth will not be valid as you already know the result. ;-)

John_D80

Devastator wrote: »

right whatever John. As I already said I'm not trying to argue with you although it doesn't seem to be reciprocal. I'll accept that you think I have a problem to finish this :rolleyes:

How very gracious of you sir. :rolleyes:

Awkward Badger

Davei141 wrote: »

He was winning the 4th for a long time out striking Robbie, last round it was close until Robbie started teeing off in the last minute. 4th close to being stopped? and you say no mental gymnastics required? You sure about that? 4th wasn't close to being stopped by a few ground strikes. People have re-written what happened in the last 2 rounds and that is mental gymnastics, Hendricks slowed no doubt but Lawler looked slow for the majority of the fight, a few bursts aside. But Lawler gets a pass because he looked slow while standing up and well because hes Robbie Lawler.

I don't mean it would have been stopped, it was close enough to the end of the round it was never going to be stopped but it wasn't just a few ground strikes. It was Hendricks turtled up making no effort to fight while Robbie landed blows, had it continued fights have been stopped for less. I'm no expert on scoring but I'd assume ending the round on top pounding a turtled opponent who's not even defending himself counts for something. Same as if he had an arm-bar at the end of the round it was still an arm-bar even if it was never going to be stopped with the buzzer 5 seconds away.

I'm not giving Lawlor a pass, rewriting anything or using mental gymnastics. Its just my opinion of what happened. I thought Hendricks more than slowed. He went for takedown attempts and clinches to waste time and do nothing. And it cost him imo by handing the last two rounds to Robbie by letting him get the better of him in the clinches and when he took it to the ground and ending the last two rounds on top with himself doing absolutely nothing but holding on and waiting for the buzzer.

That_Guy

Had round 1, 4 and 5 for Lawler myself. Was always working when Hendricks was holding on and doing nothing.

We'll surely get the trilogy fight soon but not sure if I fancy seeing this fight again anytime soon.

Davei141

The end of the rounds were poor from Hendricks but it seems like the end of the round seems to be negating what happened before it. In round 5 i would agree as it was a decisive end from Robbie but round 4 noway. Hendricks was being stupid in parts but surely a round should be judged overall?

Most of the comments in favour of Lawler don't say he deserved to win because he was the better fighter or performed better than Hendricks, that he out struck Hendricks or controlled the fight, they say it is because Hendricks stalled and/or gassed.

I don't want to see that fight again anytime soon either. ^

That_Guy

I do believe that judges shouldn't even be in the venue whilst scoring fights. They can be swayed far too easily by crowd noise. I know I would be as I'm only human.

I would rather judges were in an alternative venue watching the fights with no sound whatsoever.

It wouldn't completely eradicate questionable decisions but it may go some way to having fewer controversies.

I don't feel that last night's decision was questionable rather than one judge scoring 4 rounds for Lawler which I just can't even make a case for.

Stuxnet

You cant keep a belt with your head buried inside a guys crotch for 3 rounds, well done Robbie

mailburner

when I heard 49/46 I'd have put the house on hendricks

I'm so shocked and so happy right now
best xmas present I couldve wished for

ASOT

Rivera said he will be appealing the loss to Uriah and try get it turned over to a no contest, wouldn't mind seeing a rematch I taught he done really well in the first round.

Cyber Ghost

For once Hendricks isn't whining and making his excuses

http://mmajunkie.com/2014/12/ex-champ-johny-hendricks-on-ufc-181-title-loss-i-didnt-fight

I guess he's heeded all the backlash against his bullsh!t

That said, I think it would be unfair not to give him an instant rematch.

ASOT

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

For once Hendricks isn't whining and making his excuses

http://mmajunkie.com/2014/12/ex-champ-johny-hendricks-on-ufc-181-title-loss-i-didnt-fight

I guess he's heeded all the backlash against his bullsh!t

That said, I think it would be unfair not to give him an instant rematch.

Yeah he seemed calm enough about it at the presser, he knows its his own fault. Hopefully he does get a rematch it would be pretty unfair if he didnt, But Rory will be snapping id say since he was promised the next shot.

Cyber Ghost

ASOT wrote: »

Yeah he seemed calm enough about it at the presser, he knows its his own fault. Hopefully he does get a rematch it would be pretty unfair if he didnt, But Rory will be snapping id say since he was promised the next shot.

Yeah but Rory knows Dana is always likely to change his mind based on results/potential revenue.

I think Rory Mac beats either of those two easily based on last night.

scudzilla

Cyber Ghost wrote: »

That said, I think it would be unfair not to give him an instant rematch.

ASOT wrote: »

Hopefully he does get a rematch it would be pretty unfair if he didnt.

I hate all this bollox of when a champion loses he should get an instant rematch, no he shouldn't, it's Rory's turn next, Hendricks should fight someone else and then if he wins he gets a rematch