I wish there was this much outrage for Goose vs Bones. No other fighter ran to Gooses defense on Twitter.
There are many paths to freedom, not all are peaceful
GSP and JBJ both won according to the rules; I get that and fully respect it. However, there is no mistaking that they were the ones who got their asses whooped those nights. They won the match (sport aspect), but Hendricks and Goose won the fights (damage inflicted to opponent). I'm not complaining. The way I see it... a challenger has 25 minutes to try and take the belt. If you can't do so in the time allotted, then don't complain. All a champion needs to do is defend their belt, not necessarily win a fight.
Last edited by rahdeezy; 11-18-2013 at 03:52 PM.
I scored the fight for Hendricks.
That being said, as I have come on here and said after just about every close fight....it was just that. A close fight. No one got robbed here. When you watch a fight people see it different ways. Under the current rules it was close.
I think it was closer than Jones Gus, and even Machida Shogun I. Yes I went there. If you go back and watch some of these fights and take the emotion out of it you will they were just simply close fights that you could make a case for either fighter. Just reading some of the post after a close fight it is painfully obvious how peoples feelings about a fighter effects there judgement. Its almost comical most of the time. Especially when they act like they could do a better job judging which would have secured there fighter the win.
Kizer: There is no judging crisis in Nevada
Cagewriter's Elias Cepeda, asked Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) executive director Keith Kizer if there was a judging crisis in Nevada, Kizer was unqequivocal.
"No," he explained.
"I don’t see controversy in the GSP-Hendricks decision. The media seems split on who won. The LA times scored it for GSP. All seemed to agree that Hendricks won rounds two and four and that St. Pierre won three and five. The first round could have gone either way."
"Even if you disagreed with the scoring, how is that something to criticize the commission for?"
"Before the fight, both the St. Pierre and Hendricks camps were fine with the proposed judges... [Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and former NSAC executive director] Marc Ratner and Dana White have also told me that they believe Sal D'Mato and Tony Weeks were two of the best judges, if not the best, in MMA. You can tell they feel that way by where the UFC has taken them."
Kizer also addressed White's frustration leading to less shows in Las Vegas.
"I don’t think it's likely," said Kizer. "I don’t think its what he meant but in any case, we are a public agency and so we are happy to hear everyone's comments and input."
And if you want beef, then bring the ruckus
Kizer's solution since taking the reigns: Act oblivious to any problem. Keep the status quo. Retain as much revenue as possible without spending commission money on academic studies to improve the sport. Constant evolution should be in progress to retain fans as well as gain more.
Example: Knees on the ground and knees when fighters are rising should be acceptable as they are not make-believe techniques. If a fighter is put in a vulnerable position by another fighter, there should be no game playing of avoiding damage by simply touching the ground. The same is done when a fighter turns the back of his head to his opponents' punches, but that is more acceptable than a reduction in a fighter's arsenal.
The tired sentiments of passivity towards judging favoritism of champions is unacceptable for myself to believe in. To be the champ you have to beat the champ, but it does not matter just how close it is. It has nothing to do with the tie-goes-to-the-runner mentality people have accepted as normalcy. I agree and accept that the first round was close, but accepting bias from judges is not right.
Last edited by Sniggles; 11-19-2013 at 10:09 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)