There are reasons why you shouldn't leave it in the hands of the judges if possible!
Edit: again I didn't see the fight. But judges typically score the fight based on who controlled the round. There are stats on this fight that clearly agree with the judges.
http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC171
It has that Lawler only had more significant strikes in round 4, but Hendricks controlled more of the round.
Overall it says the Hendricks had more strikes landed, more significant strikes, controlled more of the rounds, and had the only take downs.
Given your description of the event I do believe that judges score fights differently than you would. Example take downs do score points in the eyes of the judges even if you don't keep hem there or finish it there.
I thought he won three of the five rounds by a margin of 10-9 while Hendricks won two rounds by the same margin. That would make Lawler the winner and I am not sure what the judges were looking at when they scored it for Hendricks. Like you I saw it much the same way, Hendricks with some strong leg kicks and a few strong punches but Lawler also stunned Hendricks a few times with punches as well and there was obvious damage on Hendricks. Also while take-downs do count for something and can give a fighter the round that's really only if other things are equal which they were not in those rounds and Hendricks was not able to follow up and do anything with those take-downs.
Yes robbie should have won. He's gonna have to change his name to "Robbed Lawler". ****** Hendricks knew he lost. That's why he fell to his knees because he was so surprised, the same way when he thought he won the GSP fight. His face was worse than Gsp but lawler wasnt bitching about it like Hendricks. Why didn't Hendricks mention how his own face was a lot more damaged than lawyers? And yes, the last takedown in round 5 was only to prevent himself from getting knocked out. It was more of a defensive takedown rather than offensive. How the **** does that weak *** takedown offset all the damage that lawler imposed on Hendricks and is the move that won the fight??? The **** is sooooo backwards. LAWLER is king at 170 lb.
Robbie WAS robbed in plain site. An excellent example of what's wrong with mma judging. The bout was by and large stand up boxing. Robby was clearly dominating the striking for at least 20 mins of this fight, compu box is a joke, judges who have never been in a fight are a joke. Robby was rolling with the punches, in the pocket, ring control..most hendricks "landed" shots were glancing or blocked by lawlers superior boxing. It's a shame I was baffled, did Hendricks have a sympythy card, from the last fight, did danas rants play into the judges minds? Ufc was clearly biased towards johnny because he's built up more of a fan base then Lawler, why? Because he has a ******* beard? Both great exciting fighters but cmon. Wtf really happened here, at least Lawler was gracious in the descision.
Yes. Robbie probably won 1st round and for sure won 3rd too, and 10-8 the 4th
Absolute and dissappointing robbery, welterweight division sucks now, fu king judges.
Johny Hendricks was clearly destroyed and those lame takedowns at the end saved him of being Knocked Out, IMO
hell yes. Worst decision ever. Hendricks got beat down bad.
There is no way anyone in their right mind could have scored Hendricks a winner. Robbie has easily 2X as many significant blows.
I agree completely with you. Lawler won, clearly. I watched it in crowded bar and Hendrix fans were completely silent for most of the fight. Even when the decision was read, I took a look around and everyone had their mouths open. Fun fight but the decision was anticlimax. Very disappointing decision.
No. 3 rounds were Hendricks. 1 could of went either way. 1 was Lawlor's.
Totally. It's like Johnny Hendrix vs GSP kind of robbery. This time it's Hendrix doing the PR talk after the surprise victory. It's like the judges are trying to mess up the whole MMA sports.
Robby won that fight, robbed like Pacquiao vs Bradley.
on the standup I think lawler clearly won... there was three times or so where I Hendricks looked to be on the verge of giving up... he got rocked a few times ( had a good poker face tho ), Hendricks did land some hard leg kicks but lawler never was in any trouble. Hendricks landed some takedowns ( didn't do squat with it ) if anything I think Robbie had a good guard and should get points for defending well.. Hendricks got it against the cage a few times ( again I don't think he scored to much there either. Robbie won the boxing match, was better on the ground ( takedowns shouldn't be scored if u don't anything with it ), he got back up, had the better boxing. call me nuts but I think lawler won that ( Hendricks had a good last round but I don't think it was enough)
ps, Hendricks was bitching about how gsps face looked wrecked and how he was ok... now look at Hendricks face? and lawlers???? lawlers clear...
I personally think that Lawler should have won that fight. But it doesn't really matter what me, you or anyone else thinks. There are official judges who are professionals at what they do. It is what it is. Nothing you can do.
I HAD JOHNNY WINNING ROUNDS 2 AND 5, I THOUGH ROBBIE DID ENOUGH TO TAKE IT.
