Jump to content

Bisping looked Great! Sonnen looked terrible...


Ameriman

Recommended Posts

I don't get it. If Bisping looked as good as he ever has, how can Sonnen possibly look bad in beating him? I really don't get it... Is it just because Sonnen was expected to steamroll him?

 

I think the question works more effectively when asked this way: How can Bisping look good if he was beaten by a fighter who looked bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chael didn't look THAT bad. He's a wrestler that out struck a kickboxer and was able to take Bisping down quite a few times. All Bisping could muster was octagon control but even that wasn't very consistent as he was eating strikes and not even working for anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chael didn't look THAT bad. He's a wrestler that out struck a kickboxer and was able to take Bisping down quite a few times. All Bisping could muster was octagon control but even that wasn't very consistent as he was eating strikes and not even working for anything.

 

And all his control consisted of was holding Chael against the cage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sonnen looked good. Not great, but good. His conditioning wasn't up to par, but I think that makes Bisping look worse because Sonnen was able to control him in the third round when it looked in the second like he didn't have anything left. Bisping looked as bad as he ever has IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone talks about Bisping being at a disadvantage for training for Maia the whole time and nothing of Chael training for Munoz. Munoz is nothing like Bisping. I feel Munoz is having the same problem Kos had early in his career where his wrestling deteriorated from focusing on his other aspects of his game. While Bisping always comes in with a solid wrestling defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it. If Bisping looked as good as he ever has' date=' how can Sonnen possibly look bad in beating him? I really don't get it... Is it just because Sonnen was expected to steamroll him?

 

I think the question works more effectively when asked this way: How can Bisping look good if he was beaten by a fighter who looked bad?[/quote']

 

However you have to frame it up to feel better about it. The fact is he barely edged out the win and with a different group of judges it could have easily been a win for Bisping. Either Bisping is a lot better than people thought or Chael is not as good as what people thought. We will see when he fights Silva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you have to frame it up to feel better about it. The fact is he barely edged out the win and with a different group of judges it could have easily been a win for Bisping. Either Bisping is a lot better than people thought or Chael is not as good as what people thought. We will see when he fights Silva.

 

It's very clear based on the judging criteria that Sonnen won the fight. That's why 3 out of 3 judges gave him the nod. There are three judges so as to rule out the possibility of one or two missing anything important. Three aren't good enough for you? What if there were six judges and they all gave Sonnen the nod? Would you still think that six other judges would have seen it differently? When does it become enough for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very clear based on the judging criteria that Sonnen won the fight. That's why 3 out of 3 judges gave him the nod. There are three judges so as to rule out the possibility of one or two missing anything important. Three aren't good enough for you? What if there were six judges and they all gave Sonnen the nod? Would you still think that six other judges would have seen it differently? When does it become enough for you?

 

If two judges get it wrong, it really doesn't matter about the third. Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sonnen looked just fine Saturday; the fact that Bisping put on a good performance doesn't mean Sonnen put on a bad one. Bisping had excellent TDD through the first two rounds and got the better of the standing exchanges, but Sonnen's wrestling skill let him dominate the third and come away with the win. Pretty simple. With most other fighters no one would even be having this conversation, people just like to hate on these guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If two judges get it wrong' date=' it really doesn't matter about the third. Nice try though.[/quote']

 

I think the third judge matters. A split decision loss is better than a unanimous decision loss IMHO.

 

Also, the opinion of a third judge can change the outcome in many ways. Look at the Edgar vs Maynard 2 decision for instance.

 

Plus, in this fight all of the judges agreed on the verdict. So, the third judge did come in handy in proving just how clear cut the victory was.

 

Nice try, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very clear based on the judging criteria that Sonnen won the fight. That's why 3 out of 3 judges gave him the nod. There are three judges so as to rule out the possibility of one or two missing anything important. Three aren't good enough for you? What if there were six judges and they all gave Sonnen the nod? Would you still think that six other judges would have seen it differently? When does it become enough for you?

 

Look man. I don't really care. I wanted Sonnen to win so I could see Chael vs. Silva 2, but your writting thread after thread because you are butthurt that a large percentage of people that seen that fight felt that Bisping won. Furthermore, stop actting like the judges are perfect. We all know that the scoring system sucks in MMA, so your going to win no argument by bringing up what the judges thought. If anything, the fact that one judge scored the fight 30-27 just proves how flawed the scoring system actually is. By the way, the UFC president and the commentators all thought that Bisping won. Does that mean Bisping won?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look man. I don't really care. I wanted Sonnen to win so I could see Chael vs. Silva 2' date=' but your writting thread after thread because you are butthurt that a large percentage of people that seen that fight felt that Bisping won. Furthermore, stop actting like the judges are perfect. We all know that the scoring system sucks in MMA, so your going to win no argument by bringing up what the judges thought. If anything, the fact that one judge scored the fight 30-27 just proves how flawed the scoring system actually is. By the way, the UFC president and the commentators all thought that Bisping won. Does that mean Bisping won?[/quote']

 

Lol You're the one getting emotional. I'm here to talk about fights on an MMA forum.

 

Moreover, if the judges aren't perfect, then the notion that 3 others would have scored it differently isn't a very good supporting argument for your case is all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol You're the one getting emotional. I'm here to talk about fights on an MMA forum.

 

Moreover' date=' if the judges aren't perfect, then the notion that 3 others would have scored it differently isn't a very good supporting argument for your case is all I'm saying.[/quote']

 

 

I'm fine. I am going to get the fight I want. Your the one acting like your all butt hurt everytime somebody says that they thought Chael lost. The fight could have went either way. Deal with it.

 

As far as the judges, one of the three judges scored it differently, so it does support my argument quite well. Are you saying that the winner is always chosen perfectly under the current system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok ok ok - i dont post much bcos i cba with the hole "troll" crap u lot come out with but i read alot of threads n this one is actualy quite rational.

Bisping did look good bcos hes the only fighter in the ufc that has not been rag dolld by sonnen. okami was, marquart was, silva was, stan was and the funny thing is hes English. But sonnen managed to get the win and keep pushing forwad even when aparently hurt.

However the main reason iv felt i had to post was bcos some special people have said sonen out struck bisping...... based on what? based on the highlights at the end of round 1 which only showed chael? Go watch the fight n watch sonnen get hit n not just hit so it counts on some fight metric system but hit with clean punches which for some reason doesnt mean as much in ufc as it should

RANT OVER

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine. I am going to get the fight I want. Your the one acting like your all butt hurt everytime somebody says that they thought Chael lost. The fight could have went either way. Deal with it.

 

As far as the judges' date=' one of the three judges scored it differently, so it does support my argument quite well. Are you saying that the winner is always chosen perfectly under the current system?[/quote']

 

Listen, you're resorting to an emotional appeal, and I can't compete with that. All I'm doing is looking to influence the discourse on the hottest topic in MMA at the moment in the best place to pontificate about these things. If that's a crime, then I'm hardly the only guilty party. You're just upset because I can express my opinions articulately, and you can't keep up. That's why you've shied away from the discussion and begun to make this about how I'm "butthurt".

 

Also, if one judge was slightly more in favor of the decision than the others, I hardly think that hurts my case. It's not like he scored the fight dramatically differently. The important thing is that all three judges scored rounds one and three for Sonnen. The second was a close round, and this is where you see the beauty of having three judges. When one of them makes a mistake, the other two judges are there to correct him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen' date=' you're resorting to an emotional appeal, and I can't compete with that. All I'm doing is looking to influence the discourse on the hottest topic in MMA at the moment in the best place to pontificate about these things. If that's a crime, then I'm hardly the only guilty party. You're just upset because I can express my opinions articulately, and you can't keep up. That's why you've shied away from the discussion and begun to make this about how I'm "butthurt".

 

Also, if one judge was slightly more in favor of the decision than the others, I hardly think that hurts my case. It's not like he scored the fight dramatically differently. The important thing is that all three judges scored rounds one and three for Sonnen. The second was a close round, and this is where you see the beauty of having three judges. When one of them makes a mistake, the other two judges are there to correct him.[/quote']

 

I am not shying away from anything. You are the one not answering the questions. Do you think that the current judging system is perfect?

 

On USA today they had a poll asking who they thought won the fight. The poll was 53% in favor of the Count. If Sonnen had won as decisively as you proclaim then why is half the forum arguing that Bisping won. It is because the fight could have went either way and thats the reality that you need to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway' date=' back on topic, to answer your question TS, Sonnen is twice the fighter that Bisping is, therefore he can look like **** and still pull out a victory. See? It's more simple than you thought.

 

bispingredcoat.jpg

 

see its ppl like this that make these forums boring, im sure theres lots of ppl like me who read these things without posting having to siv through boring **** like this. How about a good argument about mma opinions rather than just calling some1 a "troll" for disagreeing with you or posting the same old pics n the same old **** every day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not shying away from anything. You are the one not answering the questions. Do you think that the current judging system is perfect?

 

On USA today they had a poll asking who they thought won the fight. The poll was 53% in favor of the Count. If Sonnen had won as decisively as you proclaim then why is half the forum arguing that Bisping won. It is because the fight couldmhave went either way and thats the reality that you need to face.

 

The judging system or the judges? Because I would answer that the judging system is what it's always been and it's shaped the way we look at a fight. The judges assess the outcome of the fight based on the criteria, and render their decision. Would I consider that perfect? No. But I'd suggest that it's the best you're going to get. Judging systems will always be flawed and scrutinized and critisized. Boxing decisions have been critisized since the beginning of the sport and it hasnt gotten any better. The greater uneducated viewing public will always harbor a subjective bias about what constitutes winning a fight.The judges base their judgements on clearly defined criteria that everyone may not agree with. What would you have done?

 

Would you like the outcome of each fight to be based on the votes of the participants of that USA Today poll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The judging system or the judges? Because I would answer that the judging system is what it's always been and it's shaped the way we look at a fight. The judges assess the outcome of the fight based on the criteria' date=' and render their decision. Would I consider that perfect? No. But I'd suggest that it's the best you're going to get. Judging systems will always be flawed and scrutinized and critisized. Boxing decisions have been critisized since the beginning of the sport and it hasnt gotten any better. The greater uneducated viewing public will always harbor a subjective bias about what constitutes winning a fight.The judges base their judgements on clearly defined criteria that everyone may not agree with. What would you have done?

 

Would you like the outcome of each fight to be based on the votes of the participants of that USA Today poll?[/quote']

 

OK. You agree that the system is flawed, so acting like the fights outcome is absoulute is faulty reasoning at its finest. As far as your USA today poll comment, I would rather take the opinion of several thousand people than the opinion of 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. You agree that the system is flawed' date=' so acting like the fights outcome is absoulute is faulty reasoning at its finest. As far as your USA today poll comment, I would rather take the opinion of several thousand people than the opinion of 3.[/quote']

 

You're so quick to point out the fact that the judging system isn't absolutely perfect, yet you can't see the faults in your logic. You'd rather take the opinions of under qualified, likely uneducated, likely biased poll participants than the judgement of qualified officials who do this for a living? Also, only half of those people seem to think what you think. What makes the other several thousand people any less insightful?

 

By the way, I don't recall ever saying anything is absolute, I recall arguing my opinion. Notice that you have ceased making the case that Bisping won and are now reduced to illustrating that the fight was close and that it was hard to tell. Hardly convincing IMO. I'm not making the case that the judges are the sole reason to take this side of the issue, but the judges decision coupled with the tale that Fight Metric tells makes it pretty solid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're so quick to point out the fact that the judging system isn't absolutely perfect' date=' yet you can't see the faults in your logic. You'd rather take the opinions of under qualified, likely uneducated, likely biased poll participants than the judgement of qualified officials who do this for a living? By the way, only half of those people seem to think what you think. What makes the other several thousand people any less insightful?

 

By the way, I don't recall ever saying anything is absolute, I recall arguing my opinion. Notice that you have ceased making the case that Bisping won and are now reduced to illustrating that the fight was close and that it was hard to tell. Hardly convincing IMO.[/quote']

 

You have resorted to faulty logic again by assuming that if a poll is open to fans that they must all be under qualified, likely uneducated, likely biased poll participants. You don't know if those people are not qualified. If they are watching MMA enough to have seen the fight, they are probably intelligent enough to judge a fight. Many of the judges that are scoring these fights anyways are boxing judges, so your premise that the judges are specialized MMA judges is false anyways.

 

I already stated my case but you started asserting falsehoods about the fight like: Sonnen was holding Bisping against the cage longer than he was being pressed against the cage. Instead of arguing with you about it, I dropped the subject. Bisping had octagon control by using wall n stall tactics for two rounds and landed more effective punches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you have to frame it up to feel better about it. The fact is he barely edged out the win and with a different group of judges it could have easily been a win for Bisping. Either Bisping is a lot better than people thought or Chael is not as good as what people thought. We will see when he fights Silva.

 

It's very clear based on the judging criteria that Sonnen won the fight. That's why 3 out of 3 judges gave him the nod. There are three judges so as to rule out the possibility of one or two missing anything important. Three aren't good enough for you? What if there were six judges and they all gave Sonnen the nod? Would you still think that six other judges would have seen it differently? When does it become enough for you?

 

I would add that if your entire case consists of' date=' "Well it was too close to call, and anyone could have won that fight," I don't see what the problem is.[/quote']

 

Here is the original post followed by you initial response. My original post was stating that the fight could have went either way, so whats with this response if you don't have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chael Sonnen won that fight fair and square. I don't like either competitors at all. I watched the fight a total of 4 times, and I promise you Chael Sonnen won that fight from all angles. The only way someone would say Bisping won would be if they had it predetermined in their mind that he would win, or had an emotional attachment to Bisping's carreer and ego, basically his fans. Which I didn't think he had that many of, until he clearly loses a fight to a person that people hate more than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chael Sonnen won that fight fair and square. I don't like either competitors at all. I watched the fight a total of 4 times' date=' and I promise you Chael Sonnen won that fight from all angles. The only way someone would say Bisping won would be if they had it predetermined in their mind that he would win, or had an emotional attachment to Bisping's carreer and ego, basically his fans. Which I didn't think he had that many of, until he clearly loses a fight to a person that people hate more than him.[/quote']

 

I wanted Chael to win, so I had no emotional attachment to Bisping. However, I thought he won the fight. All my friends thought he won the fight as well despite being Bisping haters. Dana White and the UFC commentators all thought Bisping won that fight. The point is the fight was close and the outcome was debatable, so please don't come on here and act like you have the right answer and develop all of this rational on why we didn't see things the way you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have resorted to faulty logic again by assuming that if a poll is open to fans that they must all be under qualified' date=' likely uneducated, likely biased poll participants. [/b'] You don't know if those people are not qualified. If they are watching MMA enough to have seen the fight, they are probably intelligent enough to judge a fight. Many of the judges that are scoring these fights anyways are boxing judges, so your premise that the judges are specialized MMA judges is false anyways.

 

I already stated my case but you started asserting falsehoods about the fight like: Sonnen was holding Bisping against the cage longer than he was being pressed against the cage. Instead of arguing with you about it, I dropped the subject. Bisping had octagon control by using wall n stall tactics for two rounds and landed more effective punches.

 

I looked up the poll you're talking about. It turns out that only 430 people have voted on it, and it's not like they screen who votes. Anyone can. Lol So, you're just going to trust that 430 people you've never met before who may very well have been part of the considerably large casual audience that night know more about judging than JUDGES!? You're ****ing off of it.

I highly doubt that any of those voters were even as familiar with the criteria as the judges, but let's just assume for arguments sake that half of those voters knew the judging criteria better than the judges. How can you be sure that they were on your side?

 

Plus, I admit that the judging system isn't perfect, but I'm confident the judges got it right this time. As confident as I ever have been and I'm more than comfortable calling you out unapologetically on your ******** and pointing out how ridiculous it is to disagree with the judges when Sonnen clearly won the fight based on the criteria.

 

Do you know the criteria? I mean the ACTUAL criteria. I can easily illustrate to you how Sonnen won using direct references. Can you do the same with Bisping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the original post followed by you initial response. My original post was stating that the fight could have went either way' date=' so whats with this response if you don't have a problem.[/quote']

 

That response was to keep you from claiming that three other judges would make a different call, because if your issue is that the judging system as a whole is flawed, how can you make that a part of your case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of them looked ok they just both did a good job of shutting each others game down.

 

Sonnen looked just fine Saturday; the fact that Bisping put on a good performance doesn't mean Sonnen put on a bad one. Bisping had excellent TDD through the first two rounds and got the better of the standing exchanges' date=' but Sonnen's wrestling skill let him dominate the third and come away with the win. Pretty simple. With most other fighters no one would even be having this conversation, people just like to hate on these guys.[/quote']

 

Woah been a while since you've posted here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That response was to keep you from claiming that three other judges would make a different call' date=' because if your issue is that the judging system as a whole is flawed, how can you make that a part of your case?[/quote']

 

Are you saying thats not possible? Dana White is qualified enough to judge and so is the commentators and they all scored it for Bisping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked up the poll you're talking about. It turns out that only 430 people have voted on it' date=' and it's not like they screen who votes. Anyone can. Lol So, you're just going to trust that 430 people you've never met before who may very well have been part of the considerably large casual audience that night know more about judging than JUDGES!? You're ****ing off of it.

I highly doubt that any of those voters were even as familiar with the criteria as the judges, but let's just assume for arguments sake that half of those voters knew the judging criteria better than the judges. How can you be sure that they were on your side?

 

Plus, I admit that the judging system isn't perfect, but I'm confident the judges got it right this time. As confident as I ever have been and I'm more than comfortable calling you out unapologetically on your ******** and pointing out how ridiculous it is to disagree with the judges when Sonnen clearly won the fight based on the criteria.

 

Do you know the criteria? I mean the ACTUAL criteria. I can easily illustrate to you how Sonnen won using direct references. Can you do the same with Bisping?[/quote']

 

You have proven nothing thus far in this conversation.

 

1. Perhaps all of the 430 people that voted were qualified. You don't know, so stop acting like you do. Your entire point is speculative.

 

2. The entire decision process is opinion based. Therefore, I can challenge any decision and be just as correct as you.

 

3. I already illustrated how Bisping won. He had octagon control through two rounds and had the most effective strikes, including the most head shots.

 

Your just a little upset because your hero got owned. Get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article.

 

Not only was Sonnen able to admit that Bisping rocked him, he was willing to admit not only that it was a close fight, but that it could have easily tipped in Bisping?s favor? and he wouldn?t have been running up and down the Magnificent Mile screaming ?robbery.?

 

http://mmaweekly.com/should-bisping-have-gotten-decision-sonnen-wouldnt-have-complained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have proven nothing thus far in this conversation.

 

1. Perhaps all of the 430 people that voted were qualified. You don't know' date=' so stop acting like you do. Your entire point is speculative.

 

2. The entire decision process is opinion based. Therefore, I can challenge any decision and be just as correct as you.

 

3. I already illustrated how Bisping won. He had octagon control through two rounds and had the most effective strikes, including the most head shots.

 

Your just a little upset because your hero got owned. Get over it.[/quote']

 

1. It would be silly to think that all 430 people were as qualified as judges. That's just... Silly.

 

2. The decision is not opinion based, the decisions are predicated on clearly defined, objective criteria.

 

3. Bisping didn't land the most effective strikes, and if you knew the criteria you'd know that. The harder strikes are defined as effective strikes. Clean shots are described by the rules as efficient strikes. The rules clearly state that effective shots are rewarded more. It's obvious that Sonnen landed what were apparently the more effective shots. In the fight replays, there was but one punch that was continuously recycled, and that was the very hard shot that Sonnen landed on Bisping in the first. Couple that with the story that FightMetric tells, and Sonnen landed more effective shots. The rules also say that punches going forward are scored higher than shots going backward. Sonnen landed more shots while he was going forward than Bisping did going backward.

 

The rules also state that clean takedowns are effective grappling, and Sonnen landed two takedowns in the first. It says nothing about wall and stall as effective grappling, but there's an interesting bit in there about laying in guard and how if a fighter lays in guard and the fighter on bottom is landing as many strikes as the fighter in guard, that it shall be scored even. Bisping's wall and stall would have to be scored as laying in guard, as he mounted very little offense from there. Considering that Chael landed more shots while his back was against the fence means that Bisping's tactics were a stalemate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have proven nothing thus far in this conversation.

 

1. Perhaps all of the 430 people that voted were qualified. You don't know' date=' so stop acting like you do. Your entire point is speculative.

 

2. The entire decision process is opinion based. Therefore, I can challenge any decision and be just as correct as you.

 

3. I already illustrated how Bisping won. He had octagon control through two rounds and had the most effective strikes, including the most head shots.

 

Your just a little upset because your hero got owned. Get over it.[/quote']

 

Good article.

 

Not only was Sonnen able to admit that Bisping rocked him' date=' he was willing to admit not only that it was a close fight, [u']but that it could have easily tipped in Bisping?s favor[/u]? and he wouldn?t have been running up and down the Magnificent Mile screaming ?robbery.?

 

http://mmaweekly.com/should-bisping-have-gotten-decision-sonnen-wouldnt-have-complained

 

I find that delightfully admirable of him. I also think that it's absurd that people whose only defense is that it was a close fight and could have gone either way ARE running around screaming robbery...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It would be silly to think that all 430 people were as qualified as judges. That's just... Silly.

 

2. The decision is not opinion based' date=' the decisions are predicated on clearly defined, objective criteria.

 

3. Bisping didn't land the most effective strikes, and if you knew the criteria you'd know that. The harder strikes are defined as effective strikes. Clean shots are described by the rules as efficient strikes. The rules clearly state that effective shots are rewarded more. It's obvious that Sonnen landed what were apparently the more effective shots. In the fight replays, there was but one punch that was continuously recycled, and that was the very hard shot that Sonnen landed on Bisping in the first. Couple that with the story that FightMetric tells, and Sonnen landed more effective shots. The rules also say that punches going forward are scored higher than shots going backward. Sonnen landed more shots while he was going forward than Bisping did going backward.

 

The rules also state that clean takedowns are effective grappling, and Sonnen landed two takedowns in the first. It says nothing about wall and stall as effective grappling, but there's an interesting bit in there about laying in guard and how if a fighter lays in guard and the fighter on bottom is landing as many strikes as the fighter in guard, that it shall be scored even. Bisping's wall and stall would have to be scored as laying in guard, as he mounted very little offense from there. Considering that Chael landed more shots while his back was against the fence means that Bisping's tactics were a stalemate.[/quote']

 

This is just nonsense. Controlling your opponent is octagon control. Therefore, when Bisping had Sonnen pinned against the cage , he had octagon control whether you like it or not.

 

Some strikes are more effective than others. Sonnnen landed a lot of weak but clean shots during that fight. By the way, clean shots is subjective in its own right. How can anybody say that one punch is cleaner than another? Most of his shots went to the body and had little to no impact on Bisping, while Sonnen was in a clear daze throughout the first two rounds. By the way, Sonnnen confirms this.

 

Your objective criteria is interpreted subjectively. Hence, the reason why people felt that the fight could have went either way. The three judges were at odds withy each other through your objective process, so evidently the objective process is flawed. Three other judges who were qualified said that Bisping won. Those being the commentators and Dana White. If it was as cut and dry as you claim, there would be no difference in opinion amongst those "qualified to judge". Furthermore, Sonnnen said the fight could have went either way but you claim it couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that delightfully admirable of him. I also think that it's absurd that people whose only defense is that it was a close fight and could have gone either way ARE running around screaming robbery...

 

It was a close fight. The fact is you saw what you wanted in that fight because your a Sonnen fan. The fact is many people thought Bisping won that fight. You can make 30 more threads like this and your still not going to convince anybody otherwise. You have no facts to back your claim except that he outstruck Bisping and landed two takedowns in the first that he did nothing with. he moved forward but so did Bisping. The big difference is Bisping controlled the fight. He had him pressed against the cage and completetly took him out of his game by making him trade shots with him because of his inablility to put and keep him on the ground. If Sonnen had control, Bisping would have been on his back like the third round because thats what he wanted. Instead they were spending the entire first round on their feet, which is what then Count wanted. The Count was the one that decided and dictated where the fight was going to take place in the first round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just nonsense. Controlling your opponent is octagon control. Therefore' date=' when Bisping had Sonnen pinned against the cage , he had octagon control whether you like it or not.

 

Some strikes are more effective than others. Sonnnen landed a lot of weak but clean shots during that fight. By the way, clean shots is subjective in its own right. How can anybody say that one punch is cleaner than another? Most of his shots went to the body and had little to no impact on Bisping, while Sonnen was in a clear daze throughout the first two rounds. By the way, Sonnnen confirms this.

 

Your [u']objective[/u] criteria is interpreted subjectively. Hence, the reason why people felt that the fight could have went either way. The three judges were at odds withy each other through your objective process, so evidently the objective process is flawed. Three other judges who were qualified said that Bisping won. Those being the commentators and Dana White. If it was as cut and dry as you claim, there would be no difference in opinion amongst those "qualified to judge". Furthermore, Sonnnen said the fight could have went either way but you claim it couldn't.

 

Based on the judging criteria, holding an opponent against the cage without mounting any sort of advantageous offense is tantamount to lying in guard and is therefore NOT octagon control!!! Read this again! Three times if you have to!*

 

Cleanly completed takedowns are effective grappling. If he had been able to do anything with those takedowns, he'd have scored even more points. He wasn't able to, but that doesn't negate the points he got for completing the takedowns. He would also land a series of visibly hard shots any time Bisping would attempt to stand up. Points!*

 

Sonnen at least held Bisping against the cage comparatively as long as Bisping held him up against the cage. Perhaps not AS long, but couple that with the takedowns he completed and he's just taken octagon control. Sonnen was able to stifle any offense Bisping attempted to mount while holding Sonnen to the cage and in fact landed as many shots if not more than Bisping while he was there, so that makes it a stalemate, and stalemates are to be scored evenly.*

 

Clean shots are subjective? That literally makes no sense. Clean shots are subjective, yet you go on to matter-of-factly say that Sonnen landed "weak" shots? If you can't say that a shot that clearly landed is a clean shot, you certainly can't determine which shots are hard and which ones aren't. That's not something you can say objectively if you weren't the one being hit. As for the shot that dazed Sonnen, none of us would know how badly he was hurt if he hadn't admitted it after the fight. Bisping himself had no idea, and if he didn't know, how the hell were the judges supposed to know that Sonnen was dazed? Sonnen in no way testified that he was clearly dazed. In fact, he attested to the fact that the fighter that dazed him had no idea. If you could point out as a matter of fact which shot it was that hurt Sonnen, I'll consider your argument, but Sonnen didn't refer to any specific shots, so what shot was the effective one? We can only judge the fight by how it appeared, not by what fighters tell us after a fight. Now, the shots that Sonnen fired off were clearly harder than the shots Bisping landed, and there was a shot thrown late in the round that appeared to daze Bisping. If you don't think the judges factored that in, you're crazy.*

 

The objective criteria is not flawed. The single judge made a single error in judging the fight when he scored round two for Sonnen. That's why we have two more judges. Judges who are not directly involved in the fighting world and have no vested interest, by the way. That's one of the things necessary for being a judge. Dana White, Goldy, and Rogan could never be judges because they have too much invested in the fight world. I can't believe you don't see that when shaping your argument. There's an obvious reason they're not judges.*

 

Regardless, I'm not interested in people's opinions or who said what. I'm not interested in who got what wrong. I'm interested in the judges who made the right call based on clearly defined criteria. Stop citing Dana White and Joe Rogan, by the way. It makes you sound dumb.

 

Sonnen is also not a judge. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a close fight. The fact is you saw what you wanted in that fight because your a Sonnen fan. The fact is many people thought Bisping won that fight. You can make 30 more threads like this and your still not going to convince anybody otherwise. You have no facts to back your claim except that he outstruck Bisping and landed two takedowns in the first that he did nothing with. he moved forward but so did Bisping. The big difference is Bisping controlled the fight. He had him pressed against the cage and completetly took him out of his game by making him trade shots with him because of his inablility to put and keep him on the ground. If Sonnen had control' date=' Bisping would have been on his back like the third round because thats what he wanted. Instead they were spending the entire first round on their feet, which is what then Count wanted. The Count was the one that decided and dictated where the fight was going to take place in the first round.[/quote']

 

You just made this easy for me by stating that Sonnen out striking Bisping is a fact. We already know that he completed two takedowns. EVEN if I let you get away with claiming that Bisping took octagon control, Sonnen won three of four critical criteria.

 

1. Striking (You just admitted he took this)

2. Grappling (Is this really up for debate?)

3. Aggression (Certainly not up for debate)

 

So, octagon control... Just refer to above post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, spittsping brought the best he's got. Spinning heel kicks ffs - his absolute best could not get anywhere near a hung over looking Chael/with his C grade game on at best.

 

In short - spittsping will forever be the gatekeeper - of the top ten - at best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the original post followed by you initial response. My original post was stating that the fight could have went either way' date=' so whats with this response if you don't have a problem.[/quote']

 

Nobody in their right mind could have honestly given that fight to spittsping. Get over it you're making yourself look silly. Historically you're smarter than your current blindness portrays you to be. Pull your head in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the judging criteria' date=' holding an opponent against the cage without mounting any sort of advantageous offense is tantamount to lying in guard and is therefore NOT octagon control!!! Read this again! Three times if you have to!*

 

Cleanly completed takedowns are effective grappling. If he had been able to do anything with those takedowns, he'd have scored even more points. He wasn't able to, but that doesn't negate the points he got for completing the takedowns. He would also land a series of visibly hard shots any time Bisping would attempt to stand up. Points!*

 

Sonnen at least held Bisping against the cage comparatively as long as Bisping held him up against the cage. Perhaps not AS long, but couple that with the takedowns he completed and he's just taken octagon control. Sonnen was able to stifle any offense Bisping attempted to mount while holding Sonnen to the cage and in fact landed as many shots if not more than Bisping while he was there, so that makes it a stalemate, and stalemates are to be scored evenly.*[/quote']

 

 

Octagon Control 1. The fighter who is dictating the pace, place and position of the fight. 2. A striker who fends off a grappler's takedown attempt to remain standing and effectively strike is octagon control. 3. A grappler who can takedown an effective standing striker to ground fight is octagon control. 4. The fighter on the ground who creates submission, mount or clean striking opportunities

 

According to the standards of octagon control, Bisping and Sonnen was a wash. Sonnnen only landed 50% of his takedowns, which means 50% of them were stuffed. This means that on a point to point basis it is a wash. So maybe you need to read what octagon control is before you try to act like an expert.

 

Pressing somebody up against the cage is dictating place and position. It is right here in black and white, so your comments on it not being a criteria for octagon control is false. Secondly, Bisping had him against the cage longer than Sonnen had him against the cage.

 

Dana White and the commentators have been active in the sport way longer than you and you are so deluded that you think that they are not qualified to judge an MMA fight. Then you further that by saying Sonnen is not qualified to judge. And I am the one who sounds stupid.:rolleyes: Here is what some others thought.

 

MMAJunkie.com: 29-28 Sonnen

MMANation.com: 29-28 Sonnen

BloodyElbow.com: 29-28 Bisping

Sherdog.com: 29-28 Bisping, 29-28 Sonnen, 29-29

MMAWeekly.com: 29-28 Bisping

msn.foxsports.com 30-27 Sonnen

USAToday.com: 29-28 Sonnen, 29-28 Bisping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...