Quake3World

I shouldn't have to answer that question..why would I be talking about the fight if I didn't watch it? I just thought you were being a smartass and kept asking me a pointless question over and over.


Also:


notice how there isn't a section for "most damage"

also, just to make myself clear, this doesnt mean that I agree, but this is what took place... GSP, had more hit points and had more takedowns

Hendricks was strong enough to finish him... but he gambled by letting up in the later rounds and lost. You MUST make it clear if you want to take away someone else's belt.

Tsakali wrote:notice how there isn't a section for "most damage"

If Hendricks had his fighting gloves enhanced with the with +20 damage force-multiplier charm , he'da won.

In addition, I think it was a great fight, and just like Jon Jones' last fight, it proved that he wasn't riding some kind of easy train... they both proved that they can handle the pressures of a challenging fight...

and I may even argue that not overexerting themselves by trying to end a fight midway, they kept their energy up for what apparently matters the most as the sport stands: points.

So in that sense, it makes it an interesting equalizer that can better showcase and accommodate multiple fighting styles... if you think you're badass enough to finish a fight, you goddamn better see it through, or else, all you've done was exert yourself for nothing.

Should that change? i dunno, that's a diff. question all together....and the more i think about it, the more I think it should stay the way it is, even though awarding significant damage would make for a more existing spectator sport.

Tsakali wrote:I shouldn't have to answer that question..why would I be talking about the fight if I didn't watch it?

I asked because people talk out of their ass all the time, quoting headlines or the opinions of others. I find asking that simple question up front might help qualify ones opinion.

Tsakali wrote:Also:
[img]UFC%20Judges%20score%20cards[/img]

notice how there isn't a section for "most damage"

Notice how this isn't your opinion

Tsakali wrote:also, just to make myself clear, this doesnt mean that I agree, but this is what took place... GSP, had more hit points and had more takedowns

I saw the fight, I know what happened. You're know presenting the obvious like it's some sort of revelation. But to clear things up, you don't agree or disagree?

Tsakali wrote:Hendricks was strong enough to finish him... but he gambled by letting up in the later rounds and lost. You MUST make it clear if you want to take away someone else's belt.

Maybe he convinced everyone but the judges employed by the UFC that could possibly have an agenda? Who knows? I think EVERYONE (who wasn't a die hard GSP fan) was convinced Hendricks did more than enough.

Tsakali wrote:In addition, I think it was a great fight, and just like Jon Jones' last fight, it proved that he wasn't riding some kind of easy train... they both proved that they can handle the pressures of a challenging fight...

and I may even argue that not overexerting themselves by trying to end a fight midway, they kept their energy up for what apparently matters the most as the sport stands: points.

So in that sense, it makes it an interesting equalizer that can better showcase and accommodate multiple fighting styles... if you think you're badass enough to finish a fight, you goddamn better see it through, or else, all you've done was exert yourself for nothing.

Should that change? i dunno, that's a diff. question all together....and the more i think about it, the more I think it should stay the way it is, even though awarding significant damage would make for a more existing spectator sport.

Why did it take 24hrs to formulate this response?

cause I have a life., just now i had the time to sit down and fuck about in q3w.

Ask gwamps ohw many rounds he thinks Hendricks won comfortably. If he thinks it was enough to win then he's chatting shit

Tsakali wrote:cause I have a life., just now i had the time to sit down and fuck about in q3w.

All that said. Do you agree with the judges decisions?

Hendricks edged out round 1 and easily won round 2. Round 3 could have gone to either of them. Hendricks edged out round 4 and round 5 went to GSP. While I think Hendricks should have got the decision due to landing far more significant strkes, always being the aggressor and being the only one to hurt his opponent, GSP still remained active with strikes and grappling throughout the fight.

It was not a robbery. A robbery is where someone gets completely dominated in every round and then wins by decision. Matt Hammil vs Michael Bisping and Nam Phan vs Leonard Garcia being perfect examples.

I agree with your assessment of the fight. But your idea of a robbery seems to be that everything has to be stolen. Hendricks was clearly the aggressor for the majority of the fight and inflicted the most damage, which should translate to the most points. But he still lost. Ok, maybe he wasn't REALLY robbed. He was just robbed.

In a 5 round fight, someone who only obviously won 3 of those rounds can't be "robbed" in losing the decision.

So when someone takes $50.00 when they only earned $20.00, they really didn't steal anything.

Got it.

That's pretty much the most retarded thing you've ever said, which is quite an achievement.

It came down to the 'evens' rounds which is reflected on the cards, final decision coming down to 1 round. At the very most it was a close fight. To say its a robbery shows how clueless gwanps is about a sport he obviously follows and listens to the media bandwagon instead. Even the most hardcore of Hendricks fans wouldn't admit that he had won by a clear margin, a lot will say he shouldve edged it. Even the stats reflect this if you care to look, that shit goes beyond the opinion of a mashed up face

To compare it to earning money is utterly stupid, ill try and say its more like betting on individual rounds and losing out because of the odds at 'evens'. It's not robbery when you're beaten by the game.

Tsk hit the nail on the head, being champ is like having home advantage in these sports but 1st you need to understand that it wasnt a clear decision

LawL wrote:In a 5 round fight, someone who only obviously won 3 of those rounds can't be "robbed" in losing the decision.

5 rounds = $50.00 @ $10.00 per round. By your assessment GSP only earned $20.00 of that $50.00. However, by decision GSP got the win ($50.00)... An analogy I thought would be simple enough for even you to follow. Apparently not.

Bottom line. Hendricks earned the win, but it was given to GSP. If robbed isn't the term you feel fits the outcome, oh well. I guess were left arguing semantics.

His kicks just weren't making an impact

lol

YourGrandpa wrote:5 rounds = $50.00 @ $10.00 per round. By your assessment GSP only earned $20.00 of that $50.00. However, by decision GSP got the win ($50.00)... An analogy I thought would be simple enough for even you to follow. Apparently not.

Bottom line. Hendricks earned the win, but it was given to GSP. If robbed isn't the term you feel fits the outcome, oh well. I guess were left arguing semantics.

A close fight can't be a robbery. And not one single judge gave GSP all 5 rounds, so your retarded comparison of saying "GSP got the win ($50)" doesn't work, dumbo.

LawL wrote:A close fight can't be a robbery. And not one single judge gave GSP all 5 rounds, so your retarded comparison of saying "GSP got the win ($50)" doesn't work, dumbo.

GSP was awarded the entire win. There isn't a percentage of win placed on GSP's record. So assigning a fictitious value of $10.00 a round on a 5 round fight is certainly reasonable. Especially since there's no way to get a partial win. So when a fighter only wins 40% of the fight and is awarded 100% of the win, that fighter /the judges have robbed the fighter who won 60% of the fight.

Go away, Brian.

So JH should've had a 60% chance of winning the fight. Robbed my arse that's as close as it gets.

YourGrandpa wrote:GSP was awarded the entire win. There isn't a percentage of win placed on GSP's record. So assigning a fictitious value of $10.00 a round on a 5 round fight is certainly reasonable. Especially since there's no way to get a partial win. So when a fighter only wins 40% of the fight and is awarded 100% of the win, that fighter /the judges have robbed the fighter who won 60% of the fight.

He won a split decision where not a single judge gave him all 5 rounds, so your retarded analogy of giving $10 a round doesn't add up to $50, taking your comparison into even greater levels of buffoonery.

LawL wrote: He won a split decision where not a single judge gave him all 5 rounds, so your retarded analogy of giving $10 a round doesn't add up to $50, taking your comparison into even greater levels of buffoonery.

You've either missed the entire point or are flailing for reason. But the judging is what's in questioned here. So using it to validate a point is moronic. No matter how the judges scored the bought, YOU said it was a 3 to 2 win for Hendricks. I was basing my analogy on what you said, not the score cards. Dividing the match into equal parts and using your 3 to 2 assessment was a very basic way (so you would understand) to indicate how Hendricks was robbed.

You're the one using the judging to validate a point with your dumbass stealing analogy awarding $10 a round and saying GSP took $50, except not a single person awarded GSP 5 rounds.

I'm using my own eyes, superior knowledge of MMA and logic to arrive at the conclusion that a competitive fight cannot be deemed a robbery.

SHOOTIN SPREE A COMIN!!!!