UFC 157: Hendo vs Dragon

[Ash]

I dont think anyone "won" the fight... you can throw that bout in with boetsch/lombard, rashad/lil nog, etc

I don't understand why you've equated a less exciting fight with a draw, especially something like Nogueira/Evans. Good fight? Wasn't the best. Close fight? Not even a little. This fight isn't even a hotly contested fight, either. Virtually no media scores were for Dan, and I don't see anyone here claiming he won either.

I agree that Dan lost the fight. Scored it 29-28 Lyoto..

Like anyone who has to fight Lyoto, you must be equally as cautious as he is or youll get KO'ed, while finding a perfect balance of aggressiveness mixed in as well, because you know Machida will never be the aggressor, and just slam in swift/sneaky shots thatll put him ahead on points almost everytime out. Obviously Dan's gameplan was everytime Lyoto was going to just stand there and wait, hed kick that lead leg to score points.

Perhaps im alone in this.. But Round 1 was as close to a 10-10 as ive ever seen via inactivity. Lyoto's trip takedown out of the clinch right at the end probably gave him that round on all 3 scorecards.. And was the difference in the fight ultimately. If Dan gets him down out of that clinch at the end of Round 1, and the rest of the fight stayed exactly the same, Dan gets it 29-28..

If only..

Are you implying you'd be happy with Dan's performance if he'd gotten the nod in the decision? He was terrible Saturday. I realize a lot of Dan's fans have deluded themselves into believing only the result of a fight matters, so it's hypocrisy to nitpick a loss of his. Not to mention, the implication that Lyoto only won the fight via a takedown at the end of round 1 also implies that he was not handily winning the stand-up portions of the fight.

To go off on a tangent here (not directed towards anyone specific), I was reading elsewhere people griping about this decision and almost exclusively the main gripe was that they felt Dan should've won based on the fact that he was pushing forward a majority of time. That not only isn't how a fight is scored, but actually doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Everyone should know that. For some reason, people seem to assume that the very "effective aggression" and "Octagon control" criteria refer to carelessly plodding forward and ignore the tangibles of the fight. It's why Diaz lost against Condit, and why Dan lost Saturday; if you can't mount any offense, you're not doing anything to win the fight. If you're moving forward, getting picked off, whiffing on punches almost exclusively, and unable to get your opponent to fight the way you want them to, how exactly is that effective aggression or Octagon control?

There's a real disconnect between some people and their understanding of how judging works. I mean, look at any time someone rightly loses a fight (on paper or not) and the people that complain about it; they'll almost exclusively cite criteria that doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Look at the debates about decisions here, be it Condit/Diaz, Rampage/Griffin, or Overeem/Werdum. All 3 subjects are rife with statements that Diaz/Rampage/Overeem should've won the fight followed by illegitimate and illogical reasons. It boggles my mind that people would care enough about MMA to, you know, discuss it and such, but a lot of people have no idea how a fight is scored.

[BulldogWrestler]

Thanks for that, Lord Zardoz

[ATroms]

1) Are you implying you'd be happy with Dan's performance if he'd gotten the nod in the decision? He was terrible Saturday. I realize a lot of Dan's fans have deluded themselves into believing only the result of a fight matters, so it's hypocrisy to nitpick a loss of his. Not to mention, the implication that Lyoto only won the fight via a takedown at the end of round 1 also implies that he was not handily winning the stand-up portions of the fight.

2) To go off on a tangent here (not directed towards anyone specific), I was reading elsewhere people griping about this decision and almost exclusively the main gripe was that they felt Dan should've won based on the fact that he was pushing forward a majority of time. That not only isn't how a fight is scored, but actually doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Everyone should know that.

1) Absolutely not. I made this clear with my first post after i saw the fight that this was easily one of my least favorite/un-enjoyable fights of Dan's career. As far as my comment towards the takedown at the end of round 1.. I think Lyoto's trip takedown gave him the round with all 3 judges, where as it may not have been so clear before it happened. The inactivity by both had it very close to a 10-10, with that takedown being the no-brainer as to who to give the round to. Hell, it made me gave Lyoto the round.

2) Speaking for myself here, i have no gripes about the decision. Lyoto won the fight. Just always keep in mind that i am PRIDE through and through.. Where aggressiveness was one of the 5 main factors in the scoring in their promotion. Im fully aware that it does not factor in nowadays.., and thats why Lyoto won. But that doesnt mean it counts for nothing on a personal level with me. As i stated before, Lyoto is yellow carded into disqualification by my standard. Honestly, this is clearly where you have a dis-connect with any sort of possibility that Dan won (at least) some of those decisions that you find ridiculous back in PRIDE. Hes always been aggressive, always swung to finish, and put guys in vulnerable positions in close fights where he is in control = pleasing PRIDE's judges and scoring system

[Ash]

Thanks for that, Lord Zardoz

Burn.

[Tallica1981]

I don't understand why you've equated a less exciting fight with a draw, especially something like Nogueira/Evans. Good fight? Wasn't the best. Close fight? Not even a little. This fight isn't even a hotly contested fight, either. Virtually no media scores were for Dan, and I don't see anyone here claiming he won either.



Are you implying you'd be happy with Dan's performance if he'd gotten the nod in the decision? He was terrible Saturday. I realize a lot of Dan's fans have deluded themselves into believing only the result of a fight matters, so it's hypocrisy to nitpick a loss of his. Not to mention, the implication that Lyoto only won the fight via a takedown at the end of round 1 also implies that he was not handily winning the stand-up portions of the fight.

To go off on a tangent here (not directed towards anyone specific), I was reading elsewhere people griping about this decision and almost exclusively the main gripe was that they felt Dan should've won based on the fact that he was pushing forward a majority of time. That not only isn't how a fight is scored, but actually doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Everyone should know that. For some reason, people seem to assume that the very "effective aggression" and "Octagon control" criteria refer to carelessly plodding forward and ignore the tangibles of the fight. It's why Diaz lost against Condit, and why Dan lost Saturday; if you can't mount any offense, you're not doing anything to win the fight. If you're moving forward, getting picked off, whiffing on punches almost exclusively, and unable to get your opponent to fight the way you want them to, how exactly is that effective aggression or Octagon control?

There's a real disconnect between some people and their understanding of how judging works. I mean, look at any time someone rightly loses a fight (on paper or not) and the people that complain about it; they'll almost exclusively cite criteria that doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Look at the debates about decisions here, be it Condit/Diaz, Rampage/Griffin, or Overeem/Werdum. All 3 subjects are rife with statements that Diaz/Rampage/Overeem should've won the fight followed by illegitimate and illogical reasons. It boggles my mind that people would care enough about MMA to, you know, discuss it and such, but a lot of people have no idea how a fight is scored.

This is a good post. Good point that I have also tried to get through some thick skulls around here. It's not ok to complain about the outcome of a fight if you don't know how they are scored in the first place. the criteria you have in your own head mean **** all.

[Ash]

Honestly, this is clearly where you have a dis-connect with any sort of possibility that Dan won (at least) some of those decisions that you find ridiculous back in PRIDE. Hes always been aggressive, always swung to finish, and put guys in vulnerable positions in close fights where he is in control = pleasing PRIDE's judges and scoring system

This is just specious reasoning, though. You're trying to apply a phantom, illegitimate scoring criteria for fights where one didn't exist in the first place. The PRIDE judging criteria is a myth, at least on the level you're trying to accept it at. To nitpick the way some of those fights were scored is to ignore the point that the judges weren't even using that criteria to begin with.

The fact is, he's been the beneficiary of a lot of dubious decisions and that works on a gradient. Were some of them close? Yes. He could've absolutely won some of those fights. Like, I dunno, the Rich Franklin one. Or the Shogun one. Those fights were close enough to where a decision either way wasn't going to be a big deal. But some of his fights weren't.

[Onion]

Ash, everytime you post, I laugh that you have an AOL IM icon, lol.

You're like the spammers that have the ICQ link.

[Ash]

I really should remove that, I haven't used AIM or MSN in years.

Then again, if it's making people laugh, perhaps it's worth keeping.

[ATroms]

1) This is just specious reasoning, though. You're trying to apply a phantom, illegitimate scoring criteria for fights where one didn't exist in the first place. The PRIDE judging criteria is a myth, at least on the level you're trying to accept it at. To nitpick the way some of those fights were scored is to ignore the point that the judges weren't even using that criteria to begin with.

2) The fact is, he's been the beneficiary of a lot of dubious decisions and that works on a gradient. Were some of them close? Yes. He could've absolutely won some of those fights. Like, I dunno, the Rich Franklin one. Or the Shogun one. Those fights were close enough to where a decision either way wasn't going to be a big deal. But some of his fights weren't.

1) The fact that you call the PRIDE judging system 'phantom' is a bit of an overstatement in my personal opinion. Their rules/judging favored aggressive fighters.. Nothing illegitimate about that im afraid. Every fighter that made the jump from PRIDE to UFC will tell you that, and have stated that in fact. I think its nearly impossible for me to say their criteria was always being utilized, because it wasnt.. But also for you to say it was never being used in the first place is not true either. The more aggressive fighter who finished stronger usually got the nod.. No?

2) The 2 fights that come to mind for me with Dan getting a questionable decision the most are Kondo/Murillo. Kondo enjoyed alot of success in their fight and was clearly up for a given time. On the dvd, Mauro/Bas are speaking toward this throughout the fight.. But then at the end, Bas comments that after all weve said negative about Dan, 'i still think Henderson won the fight'.. And sure enough.. As far as the Welterweight GP final, Murilo had it won until Dan hurt him, and finished stronger. And in that fight, and also the Kondo fight, Dan was : More aggressive, put forth more effort to finish the fight, and finished stronger = wins under PRIDE's scoring system. Ill righteously admit those are losses in the UFC..

I can certainly understand one's skepticism over PRIDE's criteria, and how loosely utilized it was from time to time. It favored a product that was aimed at more entertainment for the fans against a more structured system like the UFC. Id also bring into question why you think PRIDE was gifting Dan decisions? It didnt benefit them in the least. He was never one of the central figures of the org like Wand or Mirko for example. And it was widely spoken of that they favored the Brazilians in decisions over all else. Dan also lost a couple close decisions as well in Wand and Arona..

[Onion]

I really should remove that, I haven't used AIM or MSN in years.

Then again, if it's making people laugh, perhaps it's worth keeping.

I think you should add the ICQ.

As for MSN, it shut down last month. I remember the days when everyone was on MSN.