Decision on Belcher/Herman fight was .................

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Decision on Belcher/Herman fight was .................
POLL: Who won the matchup
Belcher really won 48% (37)
Herman really won 52% (40)
InSearchofSunrise
9/18/08 10:31:14PM
Terrible. And this is coming from a guy who was rooting for Belcher and picked him in a UD win. Herman really won that. Alan got the better of the standup. So what. He did not dominate the standup, or win it by a lot. He got the better of it. But Ed Herman took him down, plural times, every round. And every single round ended with Ed Herman on top. Think about it. The UFC is suppossed to tell you who the best real fighter is. Well if this was a real fight, and you broke up the rounds into different fights. Every time, Belcher is doing better on their feet, but Herman is also getting shots, then is taking him down, and holding him and hitting him. Ed would win the fight. Its weird that the image of Herman on top position did not sway them to score in his favor. Herman took more shots, but hes a tough guy, not complicated fighter, he pretty much comes straight ahead, will take shots, he tucks in his chin, and gets the takedown. When you have a guy on the ground, your controlling him. And this is coming from a guy who likes stand up fighting. But you gotta keep it real. They got get better judges yall.
nellyhiphophead
9/18/08 10:44:33PM
i had hermen winning 2 rounds to 1 but that 3rd ould of gone both ways. not the biggest screwover but i think hermen won the fight.
kopower
9/18/08 10:44:51PM
It was a close fight that could have gone either way. I've seen worse decisions in the UFC (Hammill vs Bisping). Yeah Ed dominated the ground, but Belcher dominated with kicks and punches. i agree with the split decision. Belcher landed some big shots and even though Ed dominated him on the ground, he was unable to lock anything up and finish him. Maybe if the fight went on with Herman in the mount another 30 seconds Ed could have pounded him out or subbed him. That wasn't the case though
Twenty20Dollars
9/18/08 10:56:46PM
I picked belcher to win but i was a bit shocked that belcher won the fight, i thought for sure herman won the fight, but neither guy should be happy with that fight it wasnt too impressive for either guy.


Also i had nate diaz winning UD not a split decision, judging seemed a bit off that night.
nickcuc547
9/18/08 11:08:25PM
herman won no doubt. don't get me wrong, the fight was a close fight, but if you score it round by round there is no way herman didn't win the first and third rounds.
nickcuc547
9/18/08 11:09:30PM

Posted by kopower

It was a close fight that could have gone either way. I've seen worse decisions in the UFC (Hammill vs Bisping). Yeah Ed dominated the ground, but Belcher dominated with kicks and punches. i agree with the split decision. Belcher landed some big shots and even though Ed dominated him on the ground, he was unable to lock anything up and finish him. Maybe if the fight went on with Herman in the mount another 30 seconds Ed could have pounded him out or subbed him. That wasn't the case though



i think that one was almost as bad as hammil vs. bisping, no joke.
Wolfenstein
9/18/08 11:18:33PM
Herman was getting the worse of the standup no question. In the first rond Belcher dominated for four minutes on the feet. When Herman got him down he tried for a Darce and couldn't get it. A gfailed submission attempt isn't nearly as damaging as getting punched and kicked over and over. In fact I think too many points are given for takedowns and submission attempts. I mean if you don't do anything with it the guy isn't any worse for wear.

The 2nd round was all Belcher.

The third round Belcher dominated him again on the feet and Herman got about 20 seconds of ground and pound. But for a good 4 minutes he was getting rocked and beaten on his feet. He almost got put away. Herman just didn't mount him fast enough. He really never got to land anything clean.

Herman finished rounds strong but never got to inflict any serios damage. Belcher dominated about 80% of each round. I picked Herman and I was praying it would go his way, but I knew if I were a judge I would have scored it for Belcher.
copcopps
9/18/08 11:23:17PM
Herman won because I want more points
InSearchofSunrise
9/18/08 11:47:15PM

Posted by Wolfenstein

Herman was getting the worse of the standup no question. In the first rond Belcher dominated for four minutes on the feet. When Herman got him down he tried for a Darce and couldn't get it. A gfailed submission attempt isn't nearly as damaging as getting punched and kicked over and over. In fact I think too many points are given for takedowns and submission attempts. I mean if you don't do anything with it the guy isn't any worse for wear.

The 2nd round was all Belcher.

The third round Belcher dominated him again on the feet and Herman got about 20 seconds of ground and pound. But for a good 4 minutes he was getting rocked and beaten on his feet. He almost got put away. Herman just didn't mount him fast enough. He really never got to land anything clean.

Herman finished rounds strong but never got to inflict any serios damage. Belcher dominated about 80% of each round. I picked Herman and I was praying it would go his way, but I knew if I were a judge I would have scored it for Belcher.



With all due respect I could not disagree more. The standup was not that different from either guy. Belcher had more diverse and better standup, and stronger shots, but Ed Herman is very tough. Its one thing if your hitting a chump. Another thing if your hitting a tough guy who can take it, and give it back to you. Herman got his hits in, and used it to consistenly grab and slam Belcher to the canvas. Again you wanna see a true winner. EVERY SINGLE round ends with Herman in dominant control, and Belcher looking like he needs to modify his gameplan and capability to get out of this positions. You dont get the feeling that Belcher is jumping up, it seems that if it where longer rounds Herman with either via a sub of tko. It seems crazy to me that a guy who is close in the standup, and taking a guy down, and slamming him consecutively and finishing every round in that position would get screwed like that. Yeah Belcher landed some shots, thats a misjudgement to Herman's toughness to think he was that messed up from it. Remember this is the guy who took a kick right to the mid section referring to the start of the Finale, versus Kendall Grove, when they battled, and drove right through that and got a takedown. It was a close fight, but a clear victory for Herman. I think the voting backs that up. Either way , both have improved.
Pitbull09
9/18/08 11:52:41PM
I don't understand some posters on here. For past months, many people have been arguing on judging usually relating to takedowns being too much of a factor. Look at this fight.

Round 1
Belcher does the better of stand up, 2:50ish into the fight it goes into the clinch until finally Ed Herman take Belcher down. Key part is what he does after. For the rest of the fight Herman goes for a Darce choke. Though he fails every time and Belcher keeps getting up, he made a lot of attempts that could have ended the fight
First round- Herman 10-9 (Keep in mind Belcher was doing well the first half of this round)

Round 2
Belcher dominates standing like the previous round except this time his strikes are way mroe accurate and he doesnt go over his head. Eventually, he punches low until Herman guards and then shoots up and catches Herman hard. Herman backs and is put in the clinch. Striking continues in Belcher's favor.
Second round- Belcher 10-9 (Belcher won this round 10-9, however he dominated the whole round unlike Herman's first round that did little damage to Belcher. Herman was rocked badly in the second.)

Round 3
Belcher continues his strikes, less active then last round but still effective. Eventually Herman gets a takedown but Belcher gets up. Belcher continues striking. Herman takes him down again near the end of the round, gets full mount and reigns punches down (many missing or blocked.)
Third Round- Belcher 10-9 (Belcher still did the most damage in this round. Herman's first takedown should factor in little or at all as he did nothing once he got Belcher down. Also, Belcher was striking well through about 3 minutes of this round. Some people seemed to forget all about that because Herman took him down and got 30 seconds of GnP. Was it effect though? Belcher was in trouble for that position but he blocked the punches well and didnt get hurt to badly. I mean once the bell sounded, Belcher had no problem getting up.

So anyone who gives it to Herman, I would say you favor takedowns way to strongly in fights. This has been the problem for awhile now with judges and I admitt after that fight I was cursing at my TV because I thought it was going Hermans way even though he got beat up bad in that fight.
You can't cancel out crisp striking because a guy was able to take him down sometime in the round. It what they do once it is on the ground that matters and almost every thing Herman did wasnt effective.


Also, did anyone notice they said on the site he won by unanimous decision instead of split?
AnDeRsonDaSiLvA
9/19/08 12:10:37AM
cecil peoples 29-28 belcher, how many times must this man **** up before he gets canned?
InSearchofSunrise
9/19/08 10:00:54AM
I cant believe people a few people think Belcher was dominating the standup. He was getting the better of it, but Ed Herman was walking right through him, slamming him, keeping him down, and landing shots. I think some rounds he slammed him many times.
InSearchofSunrise
9/19/08 10:02:29AM

Posted by Pitbull09

I don't understand some posters on here. For past months, many people have been arguing on judging usually relating to takedowns being too much of a factor. Look at this fight.

Round 1
Belcher does the better of stand up, 2:50ish into the fight it goes into the clinch until finally Ed Herman take Belcher down. Key part is what he does after. For the rest of the fight Herman goes for a Darce choke. Though he fails every time and Belcher keeps getting up, he made a lot of attempts that could have ended the fight
First round- Herman 10-9 (Keep in mind Belcher was doing well the first half of this round)

Round 2
Belcher dominates standing like the previous round except this time his strikes are way mroe accurate and he doesnt go over his head. Eventually, he punches low until Herman guards and then shoots up and catches Herman hard. Herman backs and is put in the clinch. Striking continues in Belcher's favor.
Second round- Belcher 10-9 (Belcher won this round 10-9, however he dominated the whole round unlike Herman's first round that did little damage to Belcher. Herman was rocked badly in the second.)

Notice how he left out how Herman was also getting shots in. If you read this you would think Herman did not touch him the whole fight, which is not true. Also Herman did not just take him down, he took him down repeatedly within rounds, and he ended EVERY SINGLE round that way.

Round 3
Belcher continues his strikes, less active then last round but still effective. Eventually Herman gets a takedown but Belcher gets up. Belcher continues striking. Herman takes him down again near the end of the round, gets full mount and reigns punches down (many missing or blocked.)
Third Round- Belcher 10-9 (Belcher still did the most damage in this round. Herman's first takedown should factor in little or at all as he did nothing once he got Belcher down. Also, Belcher was striking well through about 3 minutes of this round. Some people seemed to forget all about that because Herman took him down and got 30 seconds of GnP. Was it effect though? Belcher was in trouble for that position but he blocked the punches well and didnt get hurt to badly. I mean once the bell sounded, Belcher had no problem getting up.

So anyone who gives it to Herman, I would say you favor takedowns way to strongly in fights. This has been the problem for awhile now with judges and I admitt after that fight I was cursing at my TV because I thought it was going Hermans way even though he got beat up bad in that fight.
You can't cancel out crisp striking because a guy was able to take him down sometime in the round. It what they do once it is on the ground that matters and almost every thing Herman did wasnt effective.


Also, did anyone notice they said on the site he won by unanimous decision instead of split?






Notice how he left out how Herman was also getting shots in. If you read this you would think Herman did not touch him the whole fight, which is not true. Also Herman did not just take him down, he took him down repeatedly within rounds, and he ended EVERY SINGLE round that way.
Aaronno9
9/19/08 10:14:34AM

Posted by Pitbull09


Also, did anyone notice they said on the site he won by unanimous decision instead of split?



Apparantly their was a mistake with the score cards and it was actually a UD for Belcher. I really thought he won tbh, id go as far as to say he dominated the stand up. He was rocking herman constantly, but he was just getting to cockey and not trying to finish, or keeping his hands up which did lead to herman landing some decent shots. I just think Herman didnt really do anything when he got the takedowns, and belcher stuffed quited a few and managed to get up a few times aswell.

It was close, but i dont think it would of been a bad decision either way. Could of easily been a draw if the scoring system was differant.
mikevolz
9/19/08 11:11:21AM


what fight were you watching?
MMA
9/19/08 11:17:27AM
To be honest, I really don't understand why people were calling it a robbery. The fight could have went either way and the luck was on Belcher's side this time.
AchillesHeel
9/19/08 11:25:43AM

Posted by MMA

To be honest, I really don't understand why people were calling it a robbery. The fight could have went either way and the luck was on Belcher's side this time.


I agree. I thought Belcher deserved the win, but if it had gone the other way I wouldn't have thought it was a bad decision. If both guys get a couple of wins in the UFC, I'd say this is good rematch material, 8 or 10 months from now.
scoozna
9/19/08 12:52:38PM
I'm pretty surprised by this thread. I picked Herman to win but, I really thought that Belcher scored much more when standing and was more aggressive overall. It was close, so I wasn't surprised by a split decision.
mkiv9secsupra
9/19/08 12:59:18PM
Belcher spent more time outstriking Herman than Herman did outgrappling Belcher on the ground. Belcher stuffed a good bit of takedowns as well so Hermans takedowns didnt affect the score as much as it could have if he didnt get stuffed so many times....

I was wanting Herman to win but i thought Belcher won.
candynuts
9/19/08 1:40:48PM
It was close, and after the fight I thought that the judges would score the fight differently (as in split decision). I actually had a feeling that Belcher was going to get the nod and did, I agree, but I could probably also make a case for Herman to win it, so it was a close fight nonetheless.
Pitbull09
9/20/08 2:34:54PM

Posted by InSearchofSunrise


Posted by Pitbull09

I don't understand some posters on here. For past months, many people have been arguing on judging usually relating to takedowns being too much of a factor. Look at this fight.

Round 1
Belcher does the better of stand up, 2:50ish into the fight it goes into the clinch until finally Ed Herman take Belcher down. Key part is what he does after. For the rest of the fight Herman goes for a Darce choke. Though he fails every time and Belcher keeps getting up, he made a lot of attempts that could have ended the fight
First round- Herman 10-9 (Keep in mind Belcher was doing well the first half of this round)

Round 2
Belcher dominates standing like the previous round except this time his strikes are way mroe accurate and he doesnt go over his head. Eventually, he punches low until Herman guards and then shoots up and catches Herman hard. Herman backs and is put in the clinch. Striking continues in Belcher's favor.
Second round- Belcher 10-9 (Belcher won this round 10-9, however he dominated the whole round unlike Herman's first round that did little damage to Belcher. Herman was rocked badly in the second.)

Notice how he left out how Herman was also getting shots in. If you read this you would think Herman did not touch him the whole fight, which is not true. Also Herman did not just take him down, he took him down repeatedly within rounds, and he ended EVERY SINGLE round that way.

Round 3
Belcher continues his strikes, less active then last round but still effective. Eventually Herman gets a takedown but Belcher gets up. Belcher continues striking. Herman takes him down again near the end of the round, gets full mount and reigns punches down (many missing or blocked.)
Third Round- Belcher 10-9 (Belcher still did the most damage in this round. Herman's first takedown should factor in little or at all as he did nothing once he got Belcher down. Also, Belcher was striking well through about 3 minutes of this round. Some people seemed to forget all about that because Herman took him down and got 30 seconds of GnP. Was it effect though? Belcher was in trouble for that position but he blocked the punches well and didnt get hurt to badly. I mean once the bell sounded, Belcher had no problem getting up.

So anyone who gives it to Herman, I would say you favor takedowns way to strongly in fights. This has been the problem for awhile now with judges and I admitt after that fight I was cursing at my TV because I thought it was going Hermans way even though he got beat up bad in that fight.
You can't cancel out crisp striking because a guy was able to take him down sometime in the round. It what they do once it is on the ground that matters and almost every thing Herman did wasnt effective.


Also, did anyone notice they said on the site he won by unanimous decision instead of split?






Notice how he left out how Herman was also getting shots in. If you read this you would think Herman did not touch him the whole fight, which is not true. Also Herman did not just take him down, he took him down repeatedly within rounds, and he ended EVERY SINGLE round that way.



You obviously missed my point. I'll rephrase. Herman did land a clear shot for about every 5 clear shots Blecher got. Also, the shots Herman landed clearly didn't catch Belcher at all while Herman was continuously rocked.
Concerning the takedowns, I also did address that. You shouldnt win fights because you take a guy down at the end of "every single" round. It means nothing if you do it at the end of the round and inflict no damage to the opponent which is what happened with Herman. Herman didnt pull the Darce choke off and he GnP the last 30 seconds of the third round.
If you think thats the deciding factor, I think you ignored the standup game completely to score this.
Pitbull09
9/20/08 2:39:14PM

Posted by mkiv9secsupra

Belcher spent more time outstriking Herman than Herman did outgrappling Belcher on the ground. Belcher stuffed a good bit of takedowns as well so Hermans takedowns didnt affect the score as much as it could have if he didnt get stuffed so many times....

I was wanting Herman to win but i thought Belcher won.



Ha, I wrote all that and you said my point with this small of a post
Pookie
9/20/08 3:18:54PM
You get just as much credit for gettin up from a takedown as someone who takes you down, its the damage(using this term loosely) done before they get up that is supposed to be scored.

Close match, but id give it to belcher because he beat the other guy up and he didnt really take too much damage.
RhythmAndStyle
9/22/08 12:07:19PM
to tell you the truth..Herman didn't do as much as Belcher..didn't land as many strikes..the person in control of the match was Belcher..there was no way of sayin that Herman should of won that...
jiujitsufreak74
9/22/08 2:30:01PM
i picked Herman, but i thought Belcher won that fight. he did the most damage and rocked Ed several times
MattHughesFan
9/22/08 3:08:45PM
I picked Herman but i think Belcher definitely won. In a fight were both fighters really didn't do much damage it goes to whoever controlled the fight and scored more points, Belcher was in control for most of the fight on his feet, yes Herman had complete control when he took Belcher down but more of the fight was standing up, and Belcher won that. Belcher also threw more punches and kicks, i give rounds one and three to Belcher, and round 2 to Herman. It was a close fight but not close enough to the point where a winner could not be clearly seen.
Zadius
9/24/08 12:15:06PM
I don't object to the decision, and this is coming from a guy who picked Herman to win.
sonicsmokesweed
9/24/08 12:22:41PM

Posted by mikevolz



what fight were you watching?




yupp Alan was batterin Ed and chin checkin da hell out of him
disorderlyvision
9/24/08 1:23:33PM
i had herman winning 29-28, but the fight was close enough that i didn't think it was an awful decision to give to belcher. there has definatly been worse decisions.
punkstrings
9/25/08 3:59:39PM

Good Analysis, but I disagree on Round three. Even from your summary of round three, it sounds like Herman won it.

here's my take on Round three.

The striking was competitive the whole time, with Belcher was getting the better of it. But the thing is, Belcher is still getting hit when they are standing, it is definately not one-sided. But at the point Herman takes him down, Herman mounts and is doing all the damage, all Belcher can do is defend, he is doing no offensive from this position. That's why a think the take down and ground and pound carries more weight in this round. Herman 29-28 should have been the result.
Related Topics