UFC 150: Henderson vs. Edgar II - Page 7

Fight Metric for Bendo vs. Edgar: http://hosteddb.fightmetric.com/fights/index/3999

I still thought Bendo looked bad last night, but since some nerds take the time out to collect the strikes landed, it's always worth posting.



Jared Hamman toe his hamstring last night during his fight vs. Kuiper.
+ Show Spoiler +

Just watched this tonight with 3 others and all gave it to Frankie. Personally I had it 4-1 for Edgar. It was very obvious in the last round that Edgar thought he had won the fight. Lol at Dana going "I'm not a judge, who gives a shit, I'm not a judge".

Okami and Shields on the same card was just asking for people to slip into comas. Lucky Sir O'nay was on the card.

On August 13 2012 11:00 Funktion wrote: Lol at Dana going "I'm not a judge, who gives a shit, I'm not a judge".

Yeah dude. Dana doesn't care anymore as long as his pockets are filled.

I thought:
Round 1 - Bendo
Round 2 - Edgar
Round 3 - too close to call so draw
Round 4 - Bendo
Round 5 - Edgar

Rounds 1, 2, and 5 were the only rounds that I thought were decisive so it could have gone either way.

On August 13 2012 11:59 RaiNKhAN wrote: Show nested quote + On August 13 2012 11:00 Funktion wrote: Lol at Dana going "I'm not a judge, who gives a shit, I'm not a judge". Yeah dude. Dana doesn't care anymore as long as his pockets are filled.

i think it hurts the sports more if he says he thinks edgar won thats why he dodged it so hard

draws should occur more frequently here more than boxing. if this happens i think fighters will try to finish fights more and take more crazy chances - it could only be better for the sport. as it is seems fighters are way more concerned getting airtime and "franklining or griffining" their careers. i feel lots of fighters just want a decent career at least financially. in boxing if you dont fight for a shot at the belt your whole career is kinda pointless and the money is shit.

Had Edgar winning 2. 3. and 5. but I knew so damn well that Henderson would likely get the win no matter what. (Using 'knew' loosely)

Had $19 equiv. on Bendo at -220 so I'm not complaining about losing a bet but it's really sad to see how odd the judging is.

On August 13 2012 18:22 whamm! wrote: draws should occur more frequently here more than boxing. if this happens i think fighters will try to finish fights more and take more crazy chances - it could only be better for the sport. as it is seems fighters are way more concerned getting airtime and "franklining or griffining" their careers. i feel lots of fighters just want a decent career at least financially. in boxing if you dont fight for a shot at the belt your whole career is kinda pointless and the money is shit.

I agree to the extent that I think uneventful or very even rounds should be scored as draws. I think that 1 to Benson, 2 to Edgar, 3 and 4 as draws, and 5 to Edgar would have been the least controversial and best decision. This was have given Edgar the decision.

i don't understand the qq'ing it's been pretty standard since the early days of boxing that you have to look overwhelmingly better than the champion.

This has especially been proven true in MMA - Being the guy with the belt pretty much gives you those 'to close to call rounds'

Much like traveling in the NBA, or a football star getting that pass interference call when the guy barely touches him...

This is merely a sport, why would this be any different?

^ I agree with you. Champs always get those close rounds.

I wouldn't want a title fight to go to a decision if I was defending a belt in the hometown of the guy I was fighting, as well as if the fight was taking place in Asia while the opponent was Asian.

Awesome article: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/8/15/...sion-judging-scoring-analysis-autopsy

having "take the champs belt" rather than just win it by points is a decent policy if you are trying to push the fighters to make the most exciting fights for the belt

can't really decide where I sit with it. Good point fighting, I usually don't mind, and this policy hurts those types imo..

I like this one better: http://blog.fightmetric.com/2012/08/henderson-vs-edgar-ii-official-ufc.html

Henderson vs. Edgar 2 is old news.

We're aware that Edgar did the majority of the point fighting, and if it wasn't a title fight or if Edgar was defending his belt, then Edgar would have won.

There were a couple rounds that weren't dominating for Edgar, which meant it could go either way in a title fight, which usually means the defending champion gets those rounds.

Either way, Edgar wont get another a title shot at Lightweight, especially since Nate Diaz wont win the decision or submit Henderson. I think Edgar would get owned if he went to 145, so it's a slippery slope for him. I think a good first fight for Edgar at 145 is vs. Ross Pearson, but since he recently loss to Cub Swanson, I'd rather see Cub vs. Frankie at 145.

I forgot to add: Frankie should win one more fight at Lightweight, then move down to Featherweight if Nate Diaz loses to Henderson. A win at Lightweight will snap that 0-2 losing streak and put him in a better place mentally, especially if he moved to Featherweight and lost his first fight while still being on an 0-2 streak.

I don't think I like the "take the belt" mentality. It just seems like an excuse for a champ to narrowly lose a round in the cage and win the round on paper. Also in the Edgar vs Hendo case that rule sure didn't apply to Hendo (he didn't "take" the belt) in the first fight so it's hypocritical to have it justified in the second fight. But then I'm also bitter about Frankie beating BJ the first time (50-45 lol). It would just be nice to have some fucking consistency in the judging. Fans shouldn't have to be like, "Oh I think <insert name> won but the judges are <inserts names>, so who knows what will happen".

The article Daut posted was pretty good. Seems like Tony Weeks knows what's up.

On August 16 2012 01:51 Funktion wrote: I don't think I like the "take the belt" mentality. It just seems like an excuse for a champ to narrowly lose a round in the cage and win the round on paper. Also in the Edgar vs Hendo case that rule sure didn't apply to Hendo (he didn't "take" the belt) in the first fight so it's hypocritical to have it justified in the second fight. But then I'm also bitter about Frankie beating BJ the first time (50-45 lol). It would just be nice to have some fucking consistency in the judging. Fans shouldn't have to be like, "Oh I think won but the judges are , so who knows what will happen". The article Daut posted was pretty good. Seems like Tony Weeks knows what's up.

http://mmadecisions.com/judge.jsp?id=55

some notable fuck ups:
12/04/10 TUF 12 L. Garcia def. N. Phan 29-28
06/12/10 UFC 115 E. Dunham def. T. Griffin 28-29
05/29/10 UFC 114 A. Nogueira def. J. Brilz 29-28
05/08/10 UFC 113 J. Stephens def. S. Stout 28-29


it was extremely clear nam phan, evan dunham, brilz and stephens won those fights. he got this fight right but hes been badly wrong before as have many judges.

luckily those fights were a long time ago. of the others on the list i dont see any other blatantly bad ones off the top of my head, but i dont remember every fight in perfect detail to know

I was only referring to the Edgar vs Hendo fight because I never remember who judges what anyway. For all I know he could of been the person who gave BJ the 45-50 result. Not defending him but it's possible he might of worked on and improved his judging methods/skills. Well I remain at least optimistic that some judges out their actually work on their criteria and learn from fights such as those you listed.

Had no idea the decision website existed, seems like a great resource. *looks up UFC 112* I can now correctly say, fuck you Doug Crosby.

it just seems that there seems to be no draw fights ever when there have clearly been a lot of super close fights that even retard judges like myself would call a draw.
and as for "taking the belt", i do agree but ffs this is not boxing where you only have to deal with punches alone