[MMA-Aficionado]

I just watched the fight for the second time.

Hamill was definitely not robbed. I was rooting for Hamill and he fought a much better fight than expected. After watching the fight again, I would lean slightly (on the present 10 point must system) towards giving the decision to Hamill.

But it was a damn close fight (really hard to say who won rounds 2 and 3 - Hamill of course dominated round one). It is certainly arguable that Bisping won rounds two and three. He certainly messed up Hamill's face in round 2 and Hamill did not land much in round 3 even though he was the aggressor and got some takedowns.

Again if it was up to me, I would give the fight to Hamill by a slight margin. If a different scoring system was used and more weight given to Hamill's dominating first round performance than it would be a different story. But as it stands the ten point must system is used.

To all those idiots saying it was a robbery, you dont know what a robbery is and you are just being emotional (and possibly dont understand how fights in the UFC are scored).

Props to Hamill for fighting a great fight, and one which he probably deserved to win by a slight margin. But he was NOT robbed.

[MMA-Aficionado]

ttt

[b1spingisling]

Robbed is an ugly word indeed. Let's just say, "they accidentally judged in favor of Bisping who was undeserving"

[rpn453]

Agreed. I thought Hamill won when I first watched the fight, and I was cheering for him, but I just rewatched it and made a checklist of everything that was done by each fighter in each round, and Hamill did almost nothing in the last two rounds. Bisping did a little. Hamill looked like he was controlling the whole fight because he was stalking Bisping, but Bisping did more damage in the last two rounds. So I now have Bisping winning 29-28 after watching it again.

[CycoChaos]

Originally Posted by MMA-Aficionado

(and possibly dont understand how fights in the UFC are scored).

The thing is, all I seem to hear about people who defend the decision is striking, which I can see the argument for. It was close in that aspect after rewatching it a few times.

But grappling?
Octagon control?
Aggression?

I give all 3 of those to Hamill. You may be right, maybe I don't understand how they are score. Those are the criteria they list, though

[BEND]

Originally Posted by b1spingisling

Robbed is an ugly word indeed. Let's just say, "they accidentally judged in favor of Bisping who was undeserving"

Thats better

[MMA-Aficionado]

Originally Posted by rpn453

Agreed. I thought Hamill won when I first watched the fight, and I was cheering for him, but I just rewatched it and made a checklist of everything that was done by each fighter in each round, and Hamill did almost nothing in the last two rounds. Bisping did a little. Hamill looked like he was controlling the whole fight because he was stalking Bisping, but Bisping did more damage in the last two rounds. So I now have Bisping winning 29-28 after watching it again.

I think I may go back and watch Ortiz-Griffin the same way. Last time I watched it, I had Tito winning 29-27, with a draw being understandable too. I really thought that first round was a 10-8 though; Griffin took a beating.

Basically its a very hard fight to score. Hamill was certainly the aggressor, but didnt do overly much after round 1. Nor did Bisping though.

But long story short, it was way too close a fight to remotely be called a robbery? Again, the people bitching about it being a robbery are biased, emotional, unknowledgeable morons.

Just another example of the rapidly decreasing level of intelligence and actual MMA knowledge on this site.

[Trikk]

They probably deducted a point from Hamill for being deaf and gave an extra point to Bisping for being british.

[miguel sanchez]

Bisping did absolutely nothing. Hamill beat him standing and took him down a bunch of times.

[d3s3k]

Originally Posted by b1spingisling

Robbed is an ugly word indeed. Let's just say, "they accidentally judged in favor of Bisping who was undeserving"

lool