Who Won The Fight: GSP Vs. Hendricks

[AirCanadaMouse]

Do you agree with the decision that GSP won or did Henricks get robbed?

[REDDzone]

IDK if I would say robbery, but I scored it for Hendricks live, for sure.

Every single media member reported on mmadecisions.com (15-20 total) had it for Hendricks too, btw. It'll be interesting to see how this poll looks.

[CPT]

IIRC, the close round 1 was the one in question, and Hendricks may have won his two rounds by bigger margins (but not 10-8s), but I think it's pretty much agreed upon that they split rounds 2-5 2-2.

I just rewatched round 1 with the sound off, and it's really tough to call. I think Rogan overreacting and the graphic showing Hendricks way ahead on significant strikes (FightMetric had GSP up 19-18, but actually gave Hendricks the round and the fight) swayed a lot of people. You also have the thing that happens when someone does better than expected as an underdog, and people tend to want to reward that performance, even if it doesn't necessarily reflect who won the round.

TBH, I was kind of expecting something to happen where I would be like "oh, right, that's why Hendricks won the round" and it never did. A 10-10 would have been reasonable (preferable even), and I can't get too bent out of shape either way.

Was a close fight, not a robbery, though it is interesting that every single media card had it for Hendricks. I don't know if those same biases could have affected all of them, nor do I know if my own biases have me looking for any possible way to give it to GSP (I never considered myself a huge GSP fan, but I do dislike Hendricks).

Anyone else willing to go back and watch (with the sound off) and see what you think? I may rewatch the rest, but I don't even know that rounds 2-5 are necessary.

[CPT]

Original thread:
viewtopic.php?f=270&t=1269807

Just skimmed through it. I personally flip-flopped on rounds 1 & 2, and would still accept just about any combination of scores for the two rounds. So my last post wasn't entirely correct, as it seems both 1 & 2 were the swing rounds, with the Hendricks backers giving him both, and GSP backers a split.

[Cammo101]

I originally scored the fight for Hendricks, but in a pretty close fight. I haven't watched it since. Definitely not the highway robbery that Lawler beating Condit was.

[Jasen777]

I think GSP won the fight because 2 of the 3 judges gave it to him. I had it 48-47 Hendricks live though IIRC.

[High 5]

I felt strongly that Hendricks won after I saw the fight 3+ years ago. I hadn't seen any of it since, but I decided to rewatch round 1 since that was the round that caused the split decision.

GSP gets an immediate takedown and briefly threatens a choke, but Hendricks escapes without much trouble. Then they neutralize each other in the clinch for almost a minute before Yamasaki separates them. So GSP would have a small lead about 1:30 into the round.

Then Hendricks stuffs a takedown and starts delivering some punishment. He hits him with some strong elbows and turns him around against the cage, lands some knees, and then gets a nice takedown of his own. GSP pops up and they trade knees and then break. That's 3:00 into the round and Hendricks is clearly ahead in my mind.

The final 2 minutes I would break up as GSP winning the striking for 40 seconds, them going even in the clinch for the next 30 seconds, and then Hendricks winning the striking for 40 seconds to end the round. The total of those two minutes I might score slightly in GSP's favor. He seemed to land a little more, but at the same time I think Hendricks landed the more meaningful strikes.

Overall it was a closer round than I'm sure I thought it was originally, but I'd still give the nod to Hendricks. He won the grappling and I think he landed the more significant strikes without much of a volume disadvantage. He had the most dominant portion of the round for sure.

[Nemesis21]

I scored it for Hendricks.

[CPT]

I felt strongly that Hendricks won after I saw the fight 3+ years ago. I hadn't seen any of it since, but I decided to rewatch round 1 since that was the round that caused the split decision.

GSP gets an immediate takedown and briefly threatens a choke, but Hendricks escapes without much trouble. Then they neutralize each other in the clinch for almost a minute before Yamasaki separates them. So GSP would have a small lead about 1:30 into the round.

Then Hendricks stuffs a takedown and starts delivering some punishment. He hits him with some strong elbows and turns him around against the cage, lands some knees, and then gets a nice takedown of his own. GSP pops up and they trade knees and then break. That's 3:00 into the round and Hendricks is clearly ahead in my mind.

The final 2 minutes I would break up as GSP winning the striking for 40 seconds, them going even in the clinch for the next 30 seconds, and then Hendricks winning the striking for 40 seconds to end the round. The total of those two minutes I might score slightly in GSP's favor. He seemed to land a little more, but at the same time I think Hendricks landed the more meaningful strikes.

Overall it was a closer round than I'm sure I thought it was originally, but I'd still give the nod to Hendricks. He won the grappling and I think he landed the more significant strikes without much of a volume disadvantage. He had the most dominant portion of the round for sure.

Fair take.

A (dumb) thought popped into my head when thinking about this round (and others like it).

If the whole fight was just an exact copy of round 1 five times, would Hendricks deserve to win 50-45?

I know it's not supposed to work like that, but if that idea would make you uncomfortable, does that make a case for 10-10? Should that more or less be the standard for a 10-10?

Is this fight just another example of why 1) the system is bad, and 2) not using all tools available (10-10s, more liberal 10-8s) makes it even worse?