[roaddawg]

Originally Posted by goodtimes

Ya they were behind Shogun for the majority of the fight, maybe because he was winning? And if I was deaf and just watched the fight, I would still think Shogun beat the crap out of Machida. I don't think people realize how sluggish and injured Machida looked in the last 2 rounds, especially the last round. While the first round was very competitive, it was obvious that in every exchange Machida was slowing down, while Shogun kept the same pace. Anyways, there is a difference between biased commentating and commentating that is trying to accurately explain how the fight is going. Should Rogan and Goldie say every fight is a tie in order to avoid looking biased?

And I really don't buy the argument that strikes to the head should overwhelmingly trump strikes to the body and legs, saying that because Machida was headhunting more in the fight he deserved the decision. By that logic, Sean Sherk was winning against BJ Penn in their title fight, because he kept winging the right hand and landing it occassionally while BJ was only throwing jabs, obviously not a fight finishing punch. Or Liddell should have beat Jardine because most of Jardine's attack was low kicks. I just don't see how anyone can defend the decision for Machida, and seeing as how 80% or so of people watching the fight think Shogun won, I think it's safe to say he was robbed.

Oh come on you know damn well the commentating was biased from the get go. They were all over Shoguns sausage before the middle of the 1st round despite blows being exchanged.

rd