Get ready to be pissed at me... |
| Posted By |
Message |
The People's Mod
Career record: 152-91
Season: 47-23 (#137)
Location: Getting choked out or arm barred
|
Okay this is yet another thread about Bisping vs. Hammill, but in this thread I'm going to attempt to show why it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Before you read too much into what I say know that I had actually thought at the end of the fight it would either be a draw, or a split in favor of Matt. Upon retrospect (after being initially pissed off at the decision) I came to realize that it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Round 1 clearly was dominated by Hammill. He showed improved and powerful boxing and complete octagon control. No argument there.
In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill began to gas bad, and Bisping actually fell into his boxing rhythm landing a couple of good combos and sprawling/escaping out of a few good takedowns. In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill got Bisping to the ground several times, but once he got there he just laid on Bisping and did NOTHING. No attempted submissions, just flat out attempts at controlling Bisping on the ground. Bisping attempted several arm bars (thought he was going to sink one for sure) and even tried at a few triangle chokes. Having your opponent in your guard in MMA is not necessarily an inferior position. Many fighters can do a lot of damage with an active guard, and many submissions can be landed from guard. Taking down an opponent is good for showing domination in a fight, but if you take someone down and then do nothing against them it is pointless. Hammill may have let Bisping up a couple of times, but Bisping also had a couple of good escapes to get back to the standing. In rounds 2 and 3 Bisping landed a couple of combos that did some damage, too.
I'm not saying I would have scored the bout for Bisping, but in retrospect I can see why the judges may have done it. I don't agree with Bisping acting like he dominated the fight, and the London based crowd definitely didn't help the decision look legit. However, I say it wasn't as awful as a decision as some may think due to Bisping having an active guard, a couple crisp combos (besides that ugly jab he was throwing.. WTF was that thing???) and ability to escape once put on the ground.
Last edited 9/10/07 2:04PM by hippysmacker
Edit note/reason: n/a
_______________________________________
"It is a shame that in this society we've been taught to judge a man's worth by what he owns instead of who he is." - Evan Tanner
|
|
Post #1 9/9/07 1:24:38PM
|
|
|
Banned
Career record: 168-85
Season: 35-19 (#3064)
Location: Bay Area
|
I posted on MMA.tv that Bisping won the fight so I agree.
_______________________________________
War Tito.
|
|
Post #2 9/9/07 1:30:45PM
|
finndogg
Learning to Sprawl
Career record: 66-60
Season: 19-20 (#5530)
Location: Canton, NY
|
bullshit, hammel was much more dominant as the underdog he deserveved the win. Bisbing won for political reasons to keep the UK fanbase going, and frankly the ufc been doing a lot of that shit lately, for intense the evens/ortiz fight ortiz beat his ass but they gave them a draw becuse it would ruin rashad record and if tito would have lost it could have ended his carrier this dumb shit better end. Bottom line is bisbing should have drove home a loser, end of story
|
|
Post #3 9/9/07 1:37:19PM
|
warglory
MMA Sensei
Career record: 169-115
Season: 31-27 (#2819)
Location:
|
I can understand your position, and props to you for coming up with a well thought out examination. The main problem I have with your assessment, was that virtually all the shots that Bisping threw were almost all blocked by Hammill's superior boxing defense (raising up his arms just in time). Did Bisping get into his groover in the second rounds? Yes, but I thought Hammill landed many more clean strikes than Bisping, and pushed the action WAY more than Bisping. THe third round could have arguably gone to Bisping, but I think the take downs and the pushing of the pace by Hammill should have won him that round too. It should have been a UD in favor of Hammill.
|
|
Post #4 9/9/07 1:41:12PM
|
warglory
MMA Sensei
Career record: 169-115
Season: 31-27 (#2819)
Location:
|
Posted by finndogg
bullshit, hammel was much more dominant as the underdog he deserveved the win. Bisbing won for political reasons to keep the UK fanbase going, and frankly the ufc been doing a lot of that shit lately, for intense the evens/ortiz fight ortiz beat his ass but they gave them a draw becuse it would ruin rashad record and if tito would have lost it could have ended his carrier this dumb shit better end. Bottom line is bisbing should have drove home a loser, end of story
Dude, Evans and Ortiz were more interested in examining the pressure fluctuation of punching the air rather than punching each other. It was an abysmal display and received the correct call.
|
|
Post #5 9/9/07 1:44:41PM
|
sakurabaforever
I'm banned and have no life
Career record: 24-14
Season: 0-0 (#-)
Location:
|
Posted by warglory
Dude, Evans and Ortiz were more interested in examining the pressure fluctuation of punching the air rather than punching each other. It was an abysmal display and received the correct call.
 Awesome.
|
|
Post #6 9/9/07 1:48:06PM
|
Gladiator
In Full Mount
Career record: 209-132
Season: 46-24 (#691)
Location: Joplin, MO
|
Posted by Jackelope
Okay this is yet another thread about Bisping vs. Hammill, but in this thread I'm going to attempt to show why it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Before you read too much into what I say know that I had actually thought at the end of the fight it would either be a draw, or a split in favor of Matt. Upon retrospect (after being initially pissed off at the decision) I came to realize that it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Round 1 clearly was dominated by Hammill. He showed improved and powerful boxing and complete octagon control. No argument there.
In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill began to gas bad, and Bisping actually fell into his boxing rhythm landing a couple of good combos and sprawling/escaping out of a few good takedowns. In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill got Bisping to the ground several times, but once he got there he just laid on Bisping and did NOTHING. No attempted submissions, just flat out attempts at controlling Bisping on the ground. Bisping attempted several arm bars (thought he was going to sink one for sure) and even tried at a few triangle chokes. Having your opponent in your guard in MMA is not necessarily an inferior position. Many fighters can do a lot of damage with an active guard, and many submissions can be landed from guard. Taking down an opponent is good for showing domination in a fight, but if you take someone down and then do nothing against them it is pointless. Hammill may have let Bisping up a couple of times, but Bisping also had a couple of good escapes to get back to the standing. In rounds 2 and 3 Bisping landed a couple of combos that did some damage, too.
I'm not saying I would have scored the bout for Bisping, but in retrospect I can see why the judges may have done it. I don't agree with Bisping acting like he dominated the fight, and the London based crowd definitely didn't help the decision look legit. However, I say it wasn't as awful as a decision as some may think due to Bisping having an active guard, a couple crisp combos (besides that ugly jab he was throwing.. WTF was that thing???) and ability to escape once put on the ground.
Flame away...I've got my flame shield up
ya thats all well and good but its the same argument people have for why forrest (tito), guida (griffin), bj penn (gsp), chris lytle (matt serra), and nick diaz (karo) should all have won their fights. better striking (aruable in this case), more sub attempts, and take down defense havent outweighed the takedowns and top position in the past. the inconsistency is what kills me!! they all the sudden start scoring more for effective striking and TK defense when bisping is getting dominated in his hometown IMO is obvious bias, takedowns and control always win out in the past... period.
|
|
Post #7 9/9/07 1:54:29PM
|
Canadian-Pain
Learning to Sprawl
Career record: 130-96
Season: 32-24 (#3797)
Location: Vancouver
|
always thought take towns were more important then striking (its not scored like boxing)
Bullshit call, Hamill won (and i was cheering for Bisping for the record)
|
|
Post #8 9/9/07 2:14:07PM
|
loonytnt
MMA Sensei
Career record: 126-99
Season: 33-24 (#4027)
Location: idaho
|
hammil hit him more times....and did way more dmg....and the takedown, come on hammil won this fight hands down all 3 rounds
hammil had great stand up, way better then bis, im not even going say his full name... bis did not do anything to him hammil pushed the fight did more dmg had more takedowns, he owned him on the feet and on the ground why did he lose? hands down hammil killed him
|
|
Post #9 9/9/07 2:25:22PM
|
cincyassasin
MMA Regular
| 1 |  |  |
1 |
Career record: 166-109
Season: 42-25 (#2153)
Location: Cincinnati
|
Posted by Jackelope
Okay this is yet another thread about Bisping vs. Hammill, but in this thread I'm going to attempt to show why it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Before you read too much into what I say know that I had actually thought at the end of the fight it would either be a draw, or a split in favor of Matt. Upon retrospect (after being initially pissed off at the decision) I came to realize that it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Round 1 clearly was dominated by Hammill. He showed improved and powerful boxing and complete octagon control. No argument there.
In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill began to gas bad, and Bisping actually fell into his boxing rhythm landing a couple of good combos and sprawling/escaping out of a few good takedowns. In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill got Bisping to the ground several times, but once he got there he just laid on Bisping and did NOTHING. No attempted submissions, just flat out attempts at controlling Bisping on the ground. Bisping attempted several arm bars (thought he was going to sink one for sure) and even tried at a few triangle chokes. Having your opponent in your guard in MMA is not necessarily an inferior position. Many fighters can do a lot of damage with an active guard, and many submissions can be landed from guard. Taking down an opponent is good for showing domination in a fight, but if you take someone down and then do nothing against them it is pointless. Hammill may have let Bisping up a couple of times, but Bisping also had a couple of good escapes to get back to the standing. In rounds 2 and 3 Bisping landed a couple of combos that did some damage, too.
I'm not saying I would have scored the bout for Bisping, but in retrospect I can see why the judges may have done it. I don't agree with Bisping acting like he dominated the fight, and the London based crowd definitely didn't help the decision look legit. However, I say it wasn't as awful as a decision as some may think due to Bisping having an active guard, a couple crisp combos (besides that ugly jab he was throwing.. WTF was that thing???) and ability to escape once put on the ground.
Flame away...I've got my flame shield up
Look I picked Bisping to win but if you watched the fight you have to call Bullshit on that hometown crowd influenced judges decision. Hamill may have begun to lose the standup about 1/2 way through the second but was still the aggresser and scoring his take downs.....How do 2 judges score it 29-28 for Bisping and the one judge who watched the fight had it 30-27 Hamill. I think if you watched it agin you'd see what you missed, there's no way Bisping wins the 1st round, I will agree he out boxed Hamill in the 3rd but he was outright dominated in all aspects during the 1st, the second was closer but Hamill dominated most of that round as well. Like I stated before I picked Mike but he simply did not win that fight in any way shape or form.
|
|
Post #10 9/9/07 2:58:03PM
|
Twenty20Dollars
MMA Sensei
Career record: 168-91
Season: 47-23 (#640)
Location: KC,MO
|
home town favored. Just happy i didnt lose on the pick haha. bisping drop to 185.
|
|
Post #11 9/9/07 4:10:12PM
|
The People's Mod
Career record: 152-91
Season: 47-23 (#137)
Location: Getting choked out or arm barred
|
Yeah guys, I'm not arguing here that Bisping should have won the fight. I'm just bringing up points on why the judges could have given him points over Hammill. Like I said, I thought at best he could have earned a draw.
I just wanted to point out some ways that somebody can score points by having an active guard and by garnering some good escapes.
_______________________________________
"It is a shame that in this society we've been taught to judge a man's worth by what he owns instead of who he is." - Evan Tanner
|
|
Post #12 9/9/07 4:42:48PM
|
I'm a LEAD FARMER MOTHA F*CKER
| 1 |  | |
1 |
Career record: 135-93
Season: 39-31 (#2217)
Location: Denver, Colorado Birthplace of the UFC
|
Posted by Canadian-Pain
always thought take towns were more important then striking (its not scored like boxing)
Bullshit call, Hamill won (and i was cheering for Bisping for the record)
Also don't forget you score points for getting out of those takedowns andBisbing got up every time
_______________________________________
Broncos will go 12-4
4-0 av bets
He's been known to cure narcalepsy by just walking into a room. His orgin donation card list his beard. He is a lover not a fighter but he's also a fighter so don't get any idea's
he is SpiderSilva
|
|
Post #13 9/9/07 4:46:20PM
|
keith-hackney1
Belt Contender
Career record: 180-150
Season: 39-31 (#2153)
Location: hampshire, england
|
Posted by Jackelope
Okay this is yet another thread about Bisping vs. Hammill, but in this thread I'm going to attempt to show why it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Before you read too much into what I say know that I had actually thought at the end of the fight it would either be a draw, or a split in favor of Matt. Upon retrospect (after being initially pissed off at the decision) I came to realize that it could be argued that Bisping deserved a split decision.
Round 1 clearly was dominated by Hammill. He showed improved and powerful boxing and complete octagon control. No argument there.
In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill began to gas bad, and Bisping actually fell into his boxing rhythm landing a couple of good combos and sprawling/escaping out of a few good takedowns. In rounds 2 and 3 Hammill got Bisping to the ground several times, but once he got there he just laid on Bisping and did NOTHING. No attempted submissions, just flat out attempts at controlling Bisping on the ground. Bisping attempted several arm bars (thought he was going to sink one for sure) and even tried at a few triangle chokes. Having your opponent in your guard in MMA is not necessarily an inferior position. Many fighters can do a lot of damage with an active guard, and many submissions can be landed from guard. Taking down an opponent is good for showing domination in a fight, but if you take someone down and then do nothing against them it is pointless. Hammill may have let Bisping up a couple of times, but Bisping also had a couple of good escapes to get back to the standing. In rounds 2 and 3 Bisping landed a couple of combos that did some damage, too.
I'm not saying I would have scored the bout for Bisping, but in retrospect I can see why the judges may have done it. I don't agree with Bisping acting like he dominated the fight, and the London based crowd definitely didn't help the decision look legit. However, I say it wasn't as awful as a decision as some may think due to Bisping having an active guard, a couple crisp combos (besides that ugly jab he was throwing.. WTF was that thing???) and ability to escape once put on the ground.
Flame away...I've got my flame shield up
Almost spot on, it was bispings fight because of his active guard, hamill did take him down at will, but did no damage or agression from the top, that was the difference on the takedowns.
That fight was very tricky to score, Bisping did land all the combo's where as hamill landed straight jabs and single shots. It would take a knowledgable fan like yourself to re-evaluate the fight, and be able to break down the scoring system which lead to bisping's split decision. Im a huge bisping fan, i was not impressed at all, i feel hamil done excellent against our brit. I thought that the scores would be close enough to call it a draw, then plan a rematch in the future.
I just hope bisping trains harder, drops down to middleweight, and finishes his next opponant to begin clearing the slate. If he becomes one of these diago sanchez split decision winners from now on, and cheer at the end of his fights when he has performed like an amature, he'll loose alot of his fan base.
All the mma fans on this site need to put away your personal feelings for hamill or bisping as a fighter and understand that the scoring on this fight wasnt just on takedowns. Another win for bisping but v v unimpressive.
Props to you for this post.
|
|
Post #14 9/9/07 4:46:58PM
|
jocksmall
Standup Guy
Career record: 123-77
Season: 11-9 (#6432)
Location: kentucky
|
noone won this fight so it doesnt matter too much who recieved the decision. it is very subjective and round 2 could have gone either way i pesonally felt like matt won when i watched it. but i think that an effort should be made to find a decisive victor in fights like this. maybe an overtime or if the commision wouldnt allow that, i like the scoring system that looks at the whole fight and emphasizes the effort to finish the fight. matt looked much better i gave him little chance to win.
|
|
Post #15 9/9/07 10:03:06PM
|
|
