Results 1 to 12 of 13

Thread: Ufc 167

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,251

    Ufc 167



    Anyone watch it?

    I fell asleep. But I've been able to catch a few links to see every round but the 4th. A lot of controversy. So a few questions.

    Who thinks Hendricks tapped in the 1st?
    Who do you think won what rounds?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  2. #2

    Re: Ufc 167

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Anyone watch it?

    I fell asleep. But I've been able to catch a few links to see every round but the 4th. A lot of controversy. So a few questions.

    Who thinks Hendricks tapped in the 1st?
    Who do you think won what rounds?
    I had GSP winning the 3rd and 5th, Hendricks with the 1st and 4th. 2nd was really close. I gave it to Hendricks but i dont think its nearly as controversial as some do. if it was by "Stockton Rules" (see nick diaz). Hendricks clearly won. He hit more power shots but based on the actual 10-9 fight scoring Pierre did enough that it could go either way. Hendricks biggest mistake was cruising in the 5th because he thought he had already won. He had enough in the tank to try and win that round and basically gave it to GSP. no fighter should be content with going to the judges.

    Hendricks kind of tapped at another point in the fight to. I dont think either were him trying to, but it did make me question it at the time if he did. Basically I dont think he was in any real danger at either time to warrant it.
    -JAB




  3. #3

    Re: Ufc 167

    judges I think all had the same 2-5 rounds, GSP 3&5 Hendricks 2&4, but varied on the first round. I guess I could be mixing up the round I thought was close but I remember Hendricks coming out pretty strong.
    -JAB




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,251

    Re: Ufc 167

    From what I understand the judges had 2 and 4 to Hendricks and 3 and 5 to GSP. Round 1 was the questionable one. Most had it to Hendricks.

    I don't think it was as controversially as some say either. All split decisions are close enough to go either way.

    Hendricks is a total D. If he wanted the fight as bad as he said he did, he should have given 100% in every round.

    I liked this article put it.
    http://www.ufc.com/news/UFC-167-GSP-Hendricks-Musings
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  5. #5

    Re: Ufc 167

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    From what I understand the judges had 2 and 4 to Hendricks and 3 and 5 to GSP. Round 1 was the questionable one. Most had it to Hendricks.

    I don't think it was as controversially as some say either. All split decisions are close enough to go either way.

    Hendricks is a total D. If he wanted the fight as bad as he said he did, he should have given 100% in every round.

    I liked this article put it.
    http://www.ufc.com/news/UFC-167-GSP-Hendricks-Musings
    I probably just mixed them up by the sounds of it.
    -JAB




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,251

    Re: Ufc 167

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I probably just mixed them up by the sounds of it.
    I think you had it right,.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,025

    Re: Ufc 167

    Hendricks got jobbed. But you never leave it in the hands of the judges. Same is true in boxing.

    NSAC needs to be scrapped. If not, it's going to end up making MMA as slimy as boxing.

    I don't blame Dana White one bit for threatening to move out of Nevada. The very same body that sanctioned MMA is the one that's about to destroy it. The Hendricks decision is one in a long line of botched decisions that's killing the sport.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland