"DO YOU THINK I'M JUST GOING TO SIT THERE AND LET YOU KILL ME JON???"
OT: Don't wanna derail this thread. Im just saying with this big turn around in Lawlers career I wouldn't write off any other surprises. It will be such an awesome and very well deserved moment for him if he pulls this off.
I think the +300 that robbie is high.
If i had a bookie I'd throw 20 bucks on robbie to take it.
Robbie is so goddamn humble and confident. How can you bet against him.
And Hendricks looks a bit dry already and cutting that extra 1.5 lbs is gonna be even harder on him
But man, I was unaware that damage means absolutely nothing in fighting lol. What a dilemma that seems to be...
People act like someone slapping GSP would give him a horrible cut or something. NEWSFLASH: Hendricks hits WAY harder than him, so quit with the "GSP has such a delicate face" bullshit, please. You hit way harder than someone-then your average strike is more significant and therefore should be rewarded more than your opponent's average strike.
If your gonna sit here and try and debate that a GSP jab or lead inside leg kick should be rewarded the same as a Hendricks overhand left I just don't know what to say, other than to chuckle.
And sometimes round by round scoring works great, but sometimes it's a bullshit technicality that guys get lucky/barely and undeservedly skim by with. Hendricks did more in one round than GSP did the whole fight lol but people add up GSP's 2 close rounds that he won and some give him the coinflip round one and say he's the rightful winner. It's clear you can make a case for GSP with the way MMA fights are scored but it's also clear to me that this is a fight that showed the scoring system still needs some tinkering with. A half point scoring system and more 10-10 rounds are something the sport needs imo...because there's just no way in hell GSP should get round 1 10-9 and Hendricks should get the same exact score for round 2...that's a crock of shit and all you GSP fans know it.
Last edited by dbader08; 03-14-2014 at 07:00 PM.
I hope this isn't too big, because it's awesome.
Holy shit does Johnny look bad, it was sad seeing him shaking then the look of defeat when he came up over. Bet the house on Robbie.
Look at GSP's face after the shields fight he's pretty banged up there. Are you going to argue that's because Shields is known for his powerful striking ?People act like someone slapping GSP would give him a horrible cut or something. NEWSFLASH: Hendricks hits WAY harder than him, so quit with the "GSP has such a delicate face" bullshit, please. You hit way harder than someone-then your average strike is more significant and therefore should be rewarded more than your opponent's average strike.
Technically it isn't...but if your smart enough to know how to make a peanut butter/jelly sandwich you should be able to put 2 and 2 together here. Damage is such an obvious barometer for significant strikes (what a shocker), which is a massive part of judging criteria. Sometimes one big strike or only a few can cause alot of damage but usually you can tell if that's the case. GSP had several cuts and bruising all over his face, not just one bad cut or area of swelling...nope, damage everywhere. In a case like that, you can't deny that it shows that Hendricks was consistently landing more significant strikes to the face...and what happened in the fight as far as attacks to the body? Not much at all.
Plus, this is an extreme case where fighter A clearly had WAY more wrong with his face than fighter B. It's not like I'm saying a fighter should win a fight just because he had done a tiny bit more damage...who knows, the guy could have gotten slightly outgrappled or maybe there was some good striking to the body or legs...but in this case, in a fight where a good majority of the striking was done to the face, and there was a huge disparity in what their faces looked like. And I know GSP can hurt and damage people, he's done it before. Like I said, you just have to know how to use your brain and you can't just give a fighter a round based off of one clean strike to the eye that instantly causes alot of swelling or something like that. For instance, in Dunham vs Grant, I thought Dunham won the round where he got a bad cut on his eye (1st or 2nd), but he got the cut and I think it definitely influenced the judges. This is the type of case where this point is more appropriate to bring up and also those types of scenarios are likely the main reason such things even need to be clarified in the scoring criteria imo.
Shields only started having success vs GSP after he severely and blatantly eye poked him...which lead to some pretty clean strikes being landed. Anybody who payed attention to that fight knows that. BJ busted him up too their first fight but...that's BJ...before GSP improved.
This is fighting, guys. Striking someone hard and effectively is going to cause damage, period. To not use it as a barometer for something it goes hand in hand with (significant striking) is pure ignorance. You just have to watch very closely if your a judge, and also have to know that it definitely isn't an automatic deciding factor.
Last edited by dbader08; 03-15-2014 at 09:59 AM.
I hope this isn't too big, because it's awesome.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)