UFC 75

[MikeyPatriot]

Oh yeah, thanks Performify for convincing me to lay a bet on Houston. Very happy I did.

[Performify]

Only thing better than having Houston demolish Sakara as predicted was having him give us the shout-out in the post-fight interview. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Results on the night:

Marcus Davis (-200) : no action
Gleison Tibau (-180) : .9u to win .5u - WIN +.5u
Thiago Silva (-330) : 3.3u to win 1u - WIN +1u
Kotani (-200) : 2u to win 1u 0 - loss -2u
Jess Liaudin (-115) : 2.3u to win 2u - WIN +2u
Henderson vs. Jackson : small play for action junkies if you can find above even odds.*
Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic (-450) : no action
Michael Bisping (-260) : 2.6u to win 1u - WIN +1u
Houston Alexander : 3.4u to win 2u - WIN +2u

Total on the night: 5-1, +4.5 units

From the undercard coverage, it looks like Kotani had a nice triangle locked in early and held it for almost two minutes but couldn’t finish. Little more push there and would have been a perfect night. Still, solid results, glad to see I’m back on the winning track [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I’ll have to watch the Bisping fight again, maybe twice, to see exactly how bad that decision was or wasn’t.

-P

[Performify]

For those curious on Bisping / Hamil, according to Gerbasi on UFC.com:

“All three judges gave the first round to Hamill, with Bisping rebounding to win the next two on the cards of Jeff Mullen and Chris Watts. Judge Cecil Peoples was the lone dissenter, awarding all three rounds to Hamill.”

http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=news...l&gid=7713



I'm rewatching the fight right now. Our commenters are in an absolute riot that the fight was a fix. I thought it was pretty even and could go either way, but I had money on Bisping.


-P

[MikeyPatriot]

Performify,

Nice job with your picks. Good to see you have a solid card.

[Mac]

I'd be curious to hear explanations from the judges who gave it to Bisping. I had multiple units on Hamil and was disgusted with the outcome - looked like money in the bank. While the judging components are clearly defined (octagon aggression, takedowns, etc), the decisions will always be fairly subjective because there are no clear judging metrics. Regardless, Bisping did not win that fight.

- Mac

[ehafner]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you had inside info on Hamill's camp, I still think Bisping is a good bet. Hamill hadn't shown any sort of decent standup before this fight.

IMO, Hamill clearly took Rd. 1, Bisping took Rd. 3. The decision sways depending on how you took round 2. For instance, here's Sherdog's take on the second round:

"Round 2
The Ohioan catches a Bisping low kick and takes him to the floor. Bisping goes high with his hips, using a rubber guard. Hamill stands and invites Bisping to trade. The Brit obliges, and throws a one-two. Right elbow cracks Bisping's skull. Hamill shoots and rips Bisping to the mat. Bisping gets to his feet and throws a left, right combo that glances. Hamill looks tired with a minute left in the second. Sloppy double jab lands for Hamill. Bisping unloads with a flashy combo but nothing lands. Tough round to score, but Sherdog.com awards it to Bisping due to aggression, 10-9."

I'd have to watch the fight again to really make a firm decision, but the fight is a lot closer than all the "Hamill got robbed" crowd is saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ whoever thinks Bisping was the aggressor at any point in that fight. He was circling the octagon like a little girl.

[MikeyPatriot]

Mac,

There are clear judging metrics. Check out the unified rules. Judging a fight will always be subjective, however, and the ten-point must system isn't a great way to score it.

ehafner,

Are you saying you can't circle around the ring while also being the aggressor?

[homeslice]

[ QUOTE ]


I'd have to watch the fight again to really make a firm decision, but the fight is a lot closer than all the "Hamill got robbed" crowd is saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface this by saying I had no money on this fight.

We obviously, didn't watch the same fight...Hamill got robbed! Hamill was far and away the better fighter. Hamill was the aggressor at least 80% of that fight. After seeing that, I'd be wary of betting on this sport...

[ehafner]

Well, I believe you can't be called the aggressor when you're circling constantly...while your opponent controls the center or the ring and is constantly pressing the action.

[MikeyPatriot]

homeslice,

"Being the better fighter" (un)fortunately isn't the criteria used by the judges to determine the winner. Using the 10-point system, I think it's very easy to say Hamill won round 1 and Bisping won round 3. Round 2 is debatable, and you can make a case for either side. Yes, Hamill took down Bisping multiple times during the first half of the round. However, he let/Mike got up. The last 2 minutes of the round had Bisping solidly working his jab and controlling the standup fight. Unfortunately for Hamill, 2 of the 3 judges have backgrounds in karate/point-scoring fighting. Bad beat.

For those of you saying Bisping had a hometown advantage with the judges, guess which judge scored the fight 30-27? Yep, the only English judge on the panel.