FightMetric Releases Report for Wanderlei Silva vs. Michael Bisping at UFC 110: Nogueira vs. Velasquez
Another UFC, another three round fight that exemplifies why top level guys should be fighting five full rounds. But I digress...
Wanderlei Silva and Michael Bisping didn't bring many surprises with them to the UFC 110 party. Silva relied on burts of aggression and power hooks; Bisping tried to stick-and-move and turn Silva's aggression against him. Silva ultimately won a very close decision, garnering 29-28 cards from each of the three judges.
How did we get there?
FightMetric's report for the fight produced the following Effectiveness and ten-point must scores:
| Silva | Bisping | TPM | |
| Round 1 |
43 |
55 |
10-9 B |
| Round 2 |
66 |
60 |
10-9 S |
| Round 3 |
87 |
67 |
10-9 S |
| Total |
196 |
182 |
29-28 S |
In round one, Silva outlanded Bisping 11-7, but Bisping racked up more effective strikes 5-2 and put Silva on his back three times.
Round two is the most contensious round of the fight. Silva outlanded Bisping again 18-14, and they both landed seven effective strikes. Bisping, however, mixed 11 of his 14 strikes to the head, while Silva chose to attack the body and legs. Bisping finished two more takedowns in the round, but the Brazilian had one of his own and a near submission guillotine to close the round.
Surprisingly, Bisping may have been at his most effective striking in round three. He matched Silva strike-for-strike (his 17 to Silva's 18) and held the advantage in effective strikes 15-8. Unfortunately for the Brit, Silva gets credit for the most effective strike of the fight when he flattened Bisping Bald Bull style in the fight's final seconds.
Following the fight E. Spencer Kyte twittered the following:
And Michael Bisping fails to get passed [sic] a big name fighter for the third time in his career...
I find Kyte's point both poignant and misguided at the same time. Bisping has lost very close fights to Silva and Rashad Evans (FightMetric's Effectiveness Score tilted 206-182 toward Evans). Dan Henderson blew him up, but that fight looked a lot like the aforementions right up until liftoff. He's not exactly getting the piss taken out of him against the cream of the crop.
And while I think it's a bit of a jump to insinuate Mike isn't competitive with the sport's elite, there is something to be said about his lack of success. He may stop guys like Jason Day and Charles McCarthy (even Denis Kang isn't the cap feather it once was), but that stopping power hasn't translated when he steps up in competition. That poses a huge hurdle for sustained success at the top of the game.
179 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
He doesn't really have stopping power
He overwhelms. Constant pressure. You drown under the punches. Nearly all of his victory’s have been the ref stepping in to stop it (legit stoppages, mind you) or decisions. In his 18 wins, he’s got 2 armbars, a choke and one KO – only four “Fight ends NOW” moments. I personally haven’t watched every one of his early fights to see if the TKO’s were of that “ref jumping in, he’s clearly done variety”, but I can tell you from the past ten some-odd fights, that is an accurate statement.
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Feb 21, 2010 12:37 PM EST reply actions
He’s got plenty of good stoppages. Kang was done, Jason Day was done, he broke Charles McCarthy’s arm, and battered & bloodied Josh Haynes until he couldn’t stand up anymore. These may not the the greatest opponents ever, but they were legitly necessary stoppages.
New Orleans Saints - 2010 Super Bowl Champions. Unbelievable. Who Dat.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Feb 21, 2010 12:55 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, there’s a difference between stoppages and STOPPAGES though. Bisping can overwhelm inferior competition, but he can’t put an swift end to a fight against top guys. Unless you have some sick skill that completely dominates other fights (GSP’s wrestling, Machida’s karate), having the ability to finish is almost a prerequisite.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Oh, no he doesn’t have the ability to KTFO – I get what you’re saying. Carry on.
New Orleans Saints - 2010 Super Bowl Champions. Unbelievable. Who Dat.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Feb 21, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
not a big Bisping fan...
but at the end of the day… he’z doin’ what he lovez for a living…
"If I told you I was good, you would think I am boasting. If I told you I was not good, you would know I am lying" Bruce Lee
It’s odd I guess, because I scored it 3-0 Wanderlei. In my opinion, Wanderlei scored the more significant shots in the 1st round.
Anyway it was a close fight, and it makes things really interesting in the MW division.
by TLow on Feb 21, 2010 12:40 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
So did I
Though, I knew the three takedowns would likely give the round to Bisping on the judges cards (I hate that a guy getting up right away still gets scored on).
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
by Blackout612 on Feb 21, 2010 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
agreed, a TD IMO should only be scored if the person on top can contain and dominate the guy on the bottom.
Everywhere I’m go, all them guys they says to me to kick for to him!
All them is hate him. I don’t know why, but no is just me, is everybady!
Yep
My take is that if merely scoring a takedown counts, then all of the times Wanderlei stuffed him should be worth points in the same way. Basically, I think neither should count.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
by Blackout612 on Feb 21, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
yeah, it should cancel each other out. Funny enough, supposedly (I think I read this on another post) a submission defense counts more than a submission attempt, if that’s the logic than a TD defense should also count, but I agree, it should just cancel each other out.
Everywhere I’m go, all them guys they says to me to kick for to him!
All them is hate him. I don’t know why, but no is just me, is everybady!
I agree that it’s lame to merely award a takedowns because it’s a takedown, but a couple of times Bisping slammed him. Even though Silva got up right away, those deserve to be rewarded.
by John Nash on Feb 21, 2010 1:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Eh
Borderline, maybe. I feel like takedowns should only be considered in the case that the round is close and the judges need something to go by (and even then, I feel like judges shouldn’t be so shy about 10-10 rounds).
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
I think that a TD should be worth something, but not NEARLY so much as it is. For me, a takedown where the guy just gets up should be worth about as much as a stiff jab.
Sure, that seems fair
But I feel that takedowns either need to be a clearly damaging slam, or followed up with at least one successful offensive maneuver (a pass or any sort, an elbow, or a sub attempt).
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Unless the takedown itself does damage then it is no more useful than the act of standing up after a takedown.
I dislike Matt Hughes. Shogun beat him like a dirty horse.
Exactly
In a way, you’re scoring as much for getting up right away (so it should negate).
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Beyond the obvious chin and power issues, I think Bisping chokes up in bigger fights. Against lesser opponents Bisping absolutely overwhelms them with strikes and doesn’t stop to give them a chance to do much of anything, but as soon as he faces an upper level guy he’s not landing anywhere near as frequently and both Henderson and Wand simply walked him down.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 12:40 PM EST reply actions
He's like Crocop
The more seriously he takes his opponent, the less aggressive he is.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
by Blackout612 on Feb 21, 2010 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
well, personally
I think if he went in after Wand, it would have turned into a slugfest, which is in Wand’s favor. He’s got some KO power, which is something we’ve never seen from Bisping.
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Feb 21, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think it’s terribly unfair to think he “choked up” against Wand last night. It was an incredibly close and competitive fight. To say the Bisping choked gives little credit to a great performance by Wand and completely overlooks the strong performance by Bisping himself.
His suggestion is that Bisping wasn’t as aggressive/forward moving as he is when he’s successful. You might be making too much out of the choice of terminology.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
I think it's a stylistic thing more than a choking thing
The guys he has tried to jab & jog against are all well-known brawling KO artists (Leben, Hendo, Wand). Bisping doesn’t want to engage those type of guys and rightfully so considering his pillowfists and questionable whiskers.
If he starts running away from other pillowfisted types, I’ll be the first to call him a choker. But until then, It’s like the old saying goes “box with a brawler and brawl with a boxer”. Bisping is playing it smart and not engaging guys in a game that greatly favors their skills and physical gifts.
before this fight I thought Bisping was a poor man’s Rich Franklin. I suppose I have a little more respect for him after last night, but since he was nearly finished twice by Silva and generally didn’t have the chin, footwork, or determination Franklin showed in his fight with Silva… I guess now I should say Bisping is a lower middle-class man’s Rich Franklin.
Bisping says :
“If you guys wouldn’t use the metric system, I would have won.”
by Riney on Feb 21, 2010 12:53 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
But you forget
Also the fight he clearly lost to Matt Hamil in the way of a clear work and what many to this day still consider one of the worst decisions in the history of MMA.
But really, wins against Leben and Kang aside. I think Bisping does just enough to be annoying, but nothing ultimately and consistanty effective. I don’t see him able to beat any of the top contenders like Marquardt, Sonnen, Maia etc. I see him being competitive against Miller, Grove, Quarry, Belcher and up and comers like Gerald Harris and CB Dollaway.
If you think the Hamill fight is one of the worst decisions in the history of the sport, I would counter that you haven’t watched enough fights. He didn’t “clearly lose” that fight in any way shape or form.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Feb 21, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I watched nearly all of them since before UFC 1
You can counter all you want, it doesn’t change my opinion of it. And you will find many who agree with me.
And I can show you hard data that says otherwise.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Fights are judged based on a set of numbers now?
by ufc4 on Feb 21, 2010 2:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Ah yes of course
But since I am a human and not a computer, the Data will not match my eyes or perspective. Nor the perspective of the hundreds of others that I have seen say the same thing in various blogs and writings since then.
Millions of people believe Barack Obama is Muslim, too.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Well...
I scored the fight for Bisping as did many others, and fight metric data gives it to him on the ten point must. So to say it’s one of the worst robberies in the history of the sport when there are plenty of people that scored it as the judges did is clearly just hyperbolic nonsense.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 3:18 PM EST up reply actions
FM gives it to Wanderlei Silva on the ten point must.
But I don’t understand. Were you not the one live-blogging the fight? I thought you said you scored it for Silva last night.
Pretty sure he’s talking about Bisping/Hamill.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You're right
I got confused as to what I was reading. My bad!
So to say it’s one of the worst robberies in the history of the sport when there are plenty of people that scored it as the judges did is clearly just hyperbolic nonsense.
Agreed.
Miletich-Burnett immediately jumps to mind as one of many old school decisions that were MUCH worse than anything we have seen in the modern era.
nog's gift over ricco is the worst ive seen.
I don’t think i have ever been as shocked at a decision in my life… i have yet to get over it. lol
I'm like PacMan fightin you silly kids... throw ya Hatton the ring, and get knocked outlike Ricky did.
lol.
I would still believe it being an much higher % of the public and experts saying otherwise
Do you have the statistics for all of the people and experts that watched it and how they scored it too?. Maybe fight metric and some data?
I'm not sure I see how this fight
Is an example of how we need 5 round nontitle fights. It seemed pretty clear to me (and the judges) that Silva was the better fighter. I am personally very skeptical about that anyway unless it is for a title contender fight, which I didn’t get the feeling this one was…
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Feb 21, 2010 12:56 PM EST via mobile reply actions
How can you say Silva was CLEARLY the better fighter?
Fighter A – 38 strikes landed, 27 strikes to the head, 7 strikes to the body, 4 strikes to the legs, 5/9 takedown attempts, 1 pass to side mount
Fighter B – 47 strikes landed, 20 strikes to the head, 5 strikes to the body, 22 strikes to the legs, 1/1 takedown attempts, 1 pass to half guard, 1 near submission
If you can distinguish one fighter as CLEARLY better than the other from those lines, more power to you.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
because you can’t look at things in numbers only, the visual is a big aspect of the fight as well. Wandy knocked him down and almost subbed him, he was clearly the better fighter (and better fighter sometimes lose on the score cards too, just saying).
Everywhere I’m go, all them guys they says to me to kick for to him!
All them is hate him. I don’t know why, but no is just me, is everybady!
I guess this is one of those you know it when you see it type things.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
Yep
“Octagon control”, capitalizing at the end of close rounds to give himself extra credibility with the judges— he fought a UFC fight and did so brilliantly.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Which is one of the most dangerous statements of the 20th century.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
It’s the problem with any sport that has a non-objective way to win. Any sport where there are judges is going to have this problem. You can rejigger the number of rounds or the judging criteria—- doesn’t matter too much in the end. Any time the winner of a contest depends on the perceptions of three people, it’s going to get stupid fast.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
The replies to this pretty much sum up what I would have said. You didn’t address the crux of my post tho, how was this fight even remotely an example of why you think we need 5 round nontitle fights?
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Feb 21, 2010 1:20 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Anytime a close fight goes to a decision people are going to yell about how we need 5 round non-title fights, or 12 round non-title fights, or unlimited rounds like PRIDE had originally, or something equally ridiculous.
Problem with this is it’s impossible to know which fights should get more rounds and which shouldn’t until the fight is over, so saying a fight should have more rounds is really easy in hindsight but not so much beforehand.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
No, it isn’t “impossible to know”. This is one of the strangest counterarguments to five round non-title fights that keeps rearing its ugly head.
For starters, the parties involved in negotiating the fight – promoters, managers, and fighters – certainly could decide on their own.
And if you want a “system” for it, there’s a myriad of criteria you could set up for this sort of thing.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
They do this in boxing
on a regular basis, ring size etc.
I can think of many systems that would work better than the current system, where shamrock/petruzelli is 5 rounds and Evans/Silva is 3.
That’s what I don’t get about people making the argument against it, the current “system” is arbitrary and ridiculous, why be afraid of the change?
Not to mention it insults the intelligence of everyone involved in the fight business. “We can’t have five round fights because WHO WILL DECIDE WHO GETS TO FIGHT THEM!!!”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I hereby nominate MonkeyCHops as 5-round MMA fight criteria judging czar of the universe.
by ufc4 on Feb 21, 2010 2:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
How is the current system arbitrary?
In the least bit?
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
Is there some natural law of the world that men can only fight for 25 minutes if a title belt is on the line? Because if not, the rule is made by someone as is completely arbitrary.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Hmm, I’d like to know how they did decide on 3 5min nontitle rounds and 5 5min title rounds… That’d be interesting. But to say it was an arbitrary decision is a little assuming on your part isn’t it? They might have actually had a reason, maybe not a reason you would have agreed with, but a reason none the less. Therefore not arbitrary at all. OR they picked random numbers out of a hat which is also possible.
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Feb 21, 2010 2:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
3 rounds is probably the number most fighters can handle cardio wise. The longer the fight goes the lower the chances of a finish. So 3 rounds is probably a pretty good line; you get three rounds of good action b/c they don’t have to save anything for the next two rounds; fighters with less than awesome cardio can compete, etc.
I mean, you could do a 10 3 minute rounds if you want to, but most heavyweights would be rolling around like beached whales after a while.
"an excellent example of why most MMA "journalism" is a joke. Pseudonyms like "toxic" and shitty writing like that dopey article"--- Joe Rogan.
I’m not even sure what this is referring to, lol. We’re talking about number of rounds and why and you’re talking about random titles. I thought boxing had that market cornered anyway..
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Feb 21, 2010 2:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It’s how the current system is arbitrary.
The current system is, you fight 5 rounds when there is a belt. It is arbitrary because the promoter can create a belt, and make a 5 round fights, whenever they want to.
I think your point is a bit of a stretch.
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Feb 21, 2010 2:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
It’s not though.
You’re upset about Fagan’s suggestion because Melvin Guillard could be in a 5 round fight, while the current system enables Shamrock petruzelli to be a 5 round fight.
If the fighters, promoters, and commission think fighters are good enough to go 5 rounds, the promoter shouldn’t have to find a shiny object to do it.
To be fair
It should be pointed out that a five round Shamrock fight would never be aired in a major promotion. It’s not really an even comparison.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
It’s not about the comparison. It’s about the fact that the current system allows for some fights that have little to no business going five rounds doing so because of a belt while deserving fighters in the major organization of the sport have to settle for three.
People also seem to forget that the WAMMA title was conveniently conjured for the Fedor/Sylvia fight.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
But that is the whole point.
Why can you have longer fights in lesser promotions when the fighters are obviously worse?
how does it make sense that people fighting for belts in lesser promotions can fight longer than fighters who are much much much better than them, but not at the top?
Well
It’s clearly not that there’s some unknown bylaw that prevents them from holding five round non-title fights. It’s just the way that they do things, and I’m perfectly comfortable with it.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
You’re right, it’s not an uknown by-law. It’s a well known law.
NAC 467.7954 Duration. (NRS 467.030) Except with the approval of the Commission or its Executive Director:
1. A nonchampionship contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts must not exceed three rounds in duration.
2. A championship contest of mixed martial arts must be five rounds in duration.
3. A period of unarmed combat in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts must be 5 minutes in duration. A period of rest following a period of unarmed combat in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts must be 1 minute in duration.
Doesn't matter
It’s clearly the sort of thing that can be flexed, or measures could be made to change it.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Thought they changed it so that 5 round non-title was viable, it just came down to nobody being willing to do it.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 3:24 PM EST up reply actions
It was proposed, I forget if it got through.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I always wondered why they couldn’t do a 10 minute first round like pride had and now I know. I’d love to see that rule changed but I bet the athletic commisions would kick up a fuss.
by Roll for Life on Feb 22, 2010 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
You keep going back to this example but the difference is that the card Petruzelli/Shamrock will be headlining won’t have anything else worth 5 rounds of action on it. If you turn every fight in the UFC into a 5 round fight, not only will controversial decisions still exist but less fights will get shown per card due to grinders like Fitch and Guida getting ten more minutes to lay in their opponent’s guard, taking time away from other fights worth seeing. 3 round fights condense the action and lead to better fights, because guys don’t fight as conservatively as they would over a longer duration. If you don’t believe me go check out the early PRIDE events with unlimited rounds.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
“3 round fights condense the action and lead to better fights, because guys don’t fight as conservatively as they would over a longer duration.”
There’s an argument to be made that a longer fight would encourage more action as guys to avoid going into the deep rounds.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If so, I think that would be the exception and not the rule. More time generally equates to more gameplans of “Let him wear himself out and take over in the later rounds” which makes for more ugly fights.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Care to expand upon the “myriad of criteria”?
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions
In the UFC you could do any main event. Any fight featuring a guy who has fought for a title before. Any fight on the main card. Any main or co-main. Any fight with two guys who have X fights in the UFC. Etc.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
So every Cote fight would be 5 rounds? Or we could get to see 2 more rounds of Maynard and Diaz jabbing each other to death simply because it’s the last fight on the card. Or Clay Guida could get ten more minutes to hump his opponent just because he has a lot of fights and a name.
Truth is nobody was clamoring for this fight to be 5 rounds until after it happened, and nobody would be if it was a clear cut decision. Seeing as how you can’t know before a fight whether or not it will be close, you’re better off pushing for clearer judging criteria then longer fights.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
If you’d like, I can start clamoring for it before every fight that I think should be five rounds. Bloody Elbow would become near unreadable.
“Seeing as how you can’t know before a fight whether or not it will be close, you’re better off pushing for clearer judging criteria then longer fights.”
This isn’t the case whatsoever.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
The number of fights we get to see should not really be more of a concern of making the competition better.
This point almost pisses me off more than “WHO DECIDES FIVE ROUNDERS!”
You’re essentially saying, “I wish MLB games were shorter so I could catch more AAA games.”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Not at all, what I’m saying is I don’t want to miss an up-and-comer’s fight on the undercard simply because some people are under the assumption that longer fights are better fights. It’s not that I’m wholly against 5 round non-title fights, I just don’t see a particularly great way to determine which ones should go longer and which ones shouldn’t.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
There is a very simple way, the same way they decide which boxing fights are longer and that major league baseball games are longer than little league baseball games. Let the people in charge decide who is good enough to fight that long.
And even in boxing, where there are twelve rounds of action, shitty decisions still occur. So the entire purpose of making the fights longer (more definitive winners) is negated. For me, the cons outweigh the pros, as I’d much rather see three rounds of solid action and more fights as opposed to 5 rounds of people either gasping for air in the later rounds or slowing the pace to a crawl.
Without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.
by lowellthehammer on Feb 21, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
Why aren’t you arguing for one round fights then?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You don’t have to miss out on it. If it doesn’t make the pay-per-view card, it’s available afterwards.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
And, if the UFC can expand it’s contract with Spike and whoever else we’ll get 2-3 fights shown there. Assuming that more 5 rounders means moving to only 4 guaranteed fights on PPV you’d still be getting 6-7 guaranteed fights a night. Not so different from what you get on any given other PPV evening now.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Not to mention we’ve had a couple cards where the Zuffa had to show fights that already previously aired on Spike just a couple hours earlier.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
When Joe Fighter and Mike Martial Artist get to go 5 rounds for some po dunk local show because there’s an arbitrary piece of gold and leather at stake while Wanderlei Silva and Mike Bisping – professional fighters in the very essence of the phrase – are subjected to three rounds, there’s something very very wrong with the system.
Oh, and the fight was very close and without a decisive winner.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
You're still not answering the question
Why do you think THIS fight deserved to be a 5 round fight? Did you think it should have been a 5 round fight before it aired? And I’m with lowellthehammer above, what is this “myriad of criteria”? Again, I personally don’t think we should have the 5 round nontitle fights, but if they suddenly instituted it, I wouldn’t be upset.
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
For starters, Bisping has 21 fights, 11 in the UFC. Silva has 45 fights, 8 in the UFC, 28 in PRIDE, and two major title belts. I’m not sure further elaboration is necessary.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
From a marketing perspective it certainly is— this wasn’t even the main event. Is it possible that you think Nog/Cain should have also been five (despite the KO, I would have preferred for that fight to be one, if I had to choose)? Wanderlei’s tank at 185 was a question going in, too.
You know that I’m not in agreement with five round non-title fights. I prefer to see as many fights as possible and feel that it’s good for fighters to have a solid concept of how they need to train for each fight, on the basis of the duration (which we are now fully acclimated to).
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Yes, Cain and Nog should have gone five too.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I’d have been happy if it’d gone five minutes.
by ufc4 on Feb 21, 2010 3:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Yes, I think elaborating on that point is necessary. Why is the number of fights they’ve had have anything to do with number of rounds? So any fight with Melvin Guillard should be 5 rounds?
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
by funnytiger on Feb 21, 2010 2:52 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Do you really need me to elbarate this point for you?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Because there is more to a fight than just the strike score; the fans know it and the fighters know it; only the judges and fight metric seem to think different. Bisping lost that fight, hands down.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
And many people thought Bisping won rounds two and three up until the guillotine and knockdown.
Bisping thought he won the fight, so the “fighters” apparently don’t know it either.
And no, the fight isn’t just the strike tallies (or even all the other numbers I posted). But they provide an additional resource from what your eyes saw once (for most of us) at live speed with our own inherent biases wired in.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Michael Bisping thought he won his own fight?
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
by Blackout612 on Feb 21, 2010 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Pffft!
How ridiculous.
I'm the kind of girl who loves to watch a GOOD fight!
--------
Join the DC Area UFC Meetup Group
http://www.meetup.com/DCUFCGroup
You're leaving out large parts of the scoring of the fight.
For instance, the takedowns while successful by Bisping were completely fruitless. There was zero octagon control exhibited by the takedowns after their taking place, and in fact the immediately standing up says as much as the takedown does.
Basically, if you’re counting Bispings takedowns for points, then you’d have to take Silva’s takedown of Bisping pre-knockout as a valid as well as they were both on the ground about the same amount of time, unlike the one take down you actually listed where there was clearly exhibited control of the opponent on the ground.
Also, as far as strike effectiveness there was also a near TKO on Silva’s side as well.
So if you take your two lines, then add another take down attempt, add in the number of landed strikes while on the ground as a seperate stat, and use show the near TKO, yes it’s CLEARLY shown that one is better than the other.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com
Forgetting the knockdown in that line is an oversight on my end.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
As an aside...
I agree that there should 5 round non-title fights, and would have enjoyed this fight going 5 rounds, but I just don’t think the fight’s outcome was in question.
Associate Writer - WindyCityGridiron.com
I’m glad Bisping lost so I dont have to hear him ramble on about how great he is while trying to tell everyone how modest and endearing he has become.
I scored it 29-28 as well, but I also gave Silva points for not being Bisping.
by DirtyML on Feb 21, 2010 1:12 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
I scored it 32-25. Not only did I give Wand points, I deducted from Bisping.
by John Nash on Feb 21, 2010 1:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 4 recs
Ha
Seems reasonable.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Bisping has to change his game, or he'll have a short career.
He’s got a very questionable head and accompanying style, which compounds the problem. I was hoping Wandy would go legkick-bodyshot-uppercut, because Bisping kept leaning in with his head. You can’t do that with a strong short puncher like Wandy, and with a propensity to get rocked by headshots. Eventually, it catches up with you in a very bad way. Brain trauma is cumulative.
Bisping’s too early on in his career to be so easily KO’d and nearly again tonight; he’s got to protect that head, otherwise this will be a very short career. Nog, Liddell and even Wandy are easier to KO nowadays, because they’ve accumulated head punishment over many years of competition (and they’ve lost some speed along with youth). Bisping hasn’t seen a ton of action yet, and he’s already starting to look easy to KO. He’d better change his style quick, get the head away like Machida does, and focus on developing a devastating ground game. He won’t last as a stand-up game guy; not enough speed, power or strategy.
To Bisping’s credit, he’s a hard worker and has developed world-class conditioning fairly quickly since TUF. Now to find a strategic approach for each fight, seriously build a ground attack arsenal, and design a way to win against each opponent.
Walt Whitman said: “Either define the moment or the moment will define you.” Bisping has positioned himself to garner career-building opportunities, but he’s only gone through the motions, rather than creating a strategic plan and executing on it. You can see the same predictable approaches in his fights, and denial when he feels people don’t give him credit or believe in his ability. I believe the truth is, he’s scared and needs to prove out his capability to himself. But now is the time to channel that energy born of fear, find competitive advantages, and learn to strategically approaching each opponent with a solid Plan A/Plan B in each event, specific to that opponent. Bisping has a moment, a huge life-changing one before him, and he must define it strategically.
by @FightSpectator on Feb 21, 2010 1:29 PM EST reply actions
I think he's too apprehensive
in critical fights. His propensity to try to circle around his opponents is a tad predictable, and he is a better fighter moving forward. He needs to develop his wrestling and maybe add some Judo…. I think he could be a beast if he got the fight to the ground more often. Tiring out opponents who want to knock you out is also never a bad thing. Bisping’s overall game is solid, but he needs to find a way to at least threaten the upper tier MWs with some finishing ability.
I'm like PacMan fightin you silly kids... throw ya Hatton the ring, and get knocked outlike Ricky did.
lol.
I'm Confused...
Here’s what I don’t understand, Mike:
Your final paragraph basically encapsulates everything that my tweet – thanks for the shout out BTW – offers in the 140 character allotment, so how is it misguided? You agree with it, so therefore you’re misguided too? I know you’re not… see how where I get confused?
While Bisping certainly hasn’t been getting blown out, he has yet to beat an opponent above that middle tier, as you said. He’s held his own, but at the end of the day, he’s lost each of those fights…
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 1:41 PM EST reply actions
I don't think his legitimacy as a fighter is at stake
What he showed against Kang makes him a real threat to most anyone at 185. People are growing defensive of him in light of his inability to beat the best fighters he has faced, but I don’t think there’s any shame in losing to the Wanderlei Silva we saw last night.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
I don’t think his legitimacy is at stake either.
What I do think is that Michael Bisping doesn’t have the ability to be a title contender in the UFC because he has yet to get passed anyone else in that range. Lost to Rashad, lost to Hendo and now lost to Wanderlei, who probably isn’t quite in the contender range yet himself.
Do you really think Bisping is a threat to Demian Maia, Nate Marquardt or Chael Sonnen? I can’t see him beating either of those three…
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 1:50 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't pick him against any of those three
But that doesn’t make those bad fights (which is saying a lot, considering a lot of guys pitted against those three would be seen as a pushover or useless in the scheme of things). He doesn’t have it fully put together, and he may not, but being the champ isn’t all that matters to me— fighters can be solid veterans and borderline contenders their whole careers and still have significant value. I can’t imagine Bisping ever vying for the title at 185, and he’s one of the 8-10 fighters I feel would most benefit from a 195 division.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
Am I missing something?
By no means am I saying that only title fights matter or that Bisping can’t have a solid career moving forward. He simply can’t beat the upper echelon of talent in the UFC Middleweight division in my opinion.
He’s still better than a whole truckload of guys at ’85 and a marketable commodity in the UK, both of which will keep him employed for the long haul.
I don’t question his value – just his ability to take that next step.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
Hm
You’re seemingly conjuring a point of contention, when I’m merely applying my opinion to the matter. Nothing I said was a reflection of your opinion.
Blackout612- "Wuts teh UFC?"
Ubernoober- "It like two guy who just stand and swing for fence and try to knock each other shit out it awesome"
My bad – hard to infer tone from text…
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 3:43 PM EST up reply actions
PAST
PEE
AY
ESS
TEE
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Feb 21, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
lol! 8)
Twitter: http://twitter.com/FightSpectator
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FightSpectator
by @FightSpectator on Feb 21, 2010 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry – I’ll try not to make spelling mistakes on Twitter ever again… please don’t call The Grammar Police on me :)
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
I didn't when you did so on twitter
I did when you made the same one on here. One is forgivable, two is GRAMMER NAZI TIEEM
http://mixedmartialartsblogger.wordpress.com/
by Cory Braiterman on Feb 21, 2010 4:29 PM EST up reply actions
I agree wholeheartedly with this, and would add: Hendo and Wandy are no longer in their prime, and neither are contenders for the belt either, IMO. The fact that they’ve defeated Bisping puts him a couple of steps removed from being taken seriously as a major player in the division.
(No disrespect to Hendo and Wany, btw, been huge fans of both for many years.)
Twitter: http://twitter.com/FightSpectator
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FightSpectator
by @FightSpectator on Feb 21, 2010 2:31 PM EST up reply actions
My reply was @E. Spencer Kyte
Twitter: http://twitter.com/FightSpectator
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/FightSpectator
by @FightSpectator on Feb 21, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
The message I got from it was that Bisping can’t hang at the top of the heap. I think he can and is. He just won’t find consistent success with his skill set.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
But losing to the top guys doesn’t equate to hanging at the top of the heap to me. You have to win to be a top talent, otherwise you become a “Jobber to the Stars” to steal from professional wrestling.
Sure, you’re in the bigger fights and facing good names, but no one expects you to win because you never win.
You need to find consistent success to be part of the elite and Bisping won’t as you said, so that to me precludes him from being considered a part of that group.
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
OK, but he lost two really close decisions that could have just as easily gone his way if he avoids a strike here or a takedown there.
In stick-and-ball sports, it’s generally acknowledged in the stat community that there’s no skill in winning close games (1 run games in baseball for instance). It’s not something that you can control, it’s largely a matter of luck. There’s no reason to think that fight sport is different. If Bisping didn’t get dropped at the very end of the Silva fight and stuffs a takedown or two in the Rashad fight, we’re talking about a 20-1 scrappy fighter who just wins, baby.
The point is, we get too caught up in wins and losses sometimes when we judge a fighter. Just look at Wanderlei’s record heading into the Bisping fight.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
If Chuck Liddell was 2/10 of a second faster, Rashad Evans wouldn’t have knocked him out… but he did.
Yes, things would always be different if the ball bounced the other way or Bisping stuffed a takedown or whatever, but it didn’t go that way and we have to look at the facts and not the “coulda woulda shoulda” scenarios.
While Bisping could be a 20-1 scrappy fighter who just wins, baby if a couple things went the other way, he’s not; he’s an 18-3 fighter who has yet to beat a top contender and always comes up just a little short when the chips are down.
He’s the Buffalo Bills in the early ’90s: really good, but not quite good enough.
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 2:07 PM EST up reply actions
We might be saying the same thing with half full/half empty views.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Yes and No
You’re taking the half full stance.
I’m taking the “instead of putting a positive spin on what could have been, I’m looking at his record, his results and the fact that he hasn’t beaten anyone better than Chris Leben / Denis Kang to date” stance.
Quinton Jackson could still be UFC Light Heavyweight Champion is a couple judges scored the fight differently, but he’s not and there is no point speculating about what could have been…
He lost, just like Bisping, and regardless of how close those fights might have been, at the end of the day, he still has yet to make it over that last hurdle and I don’t think he ever will.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
In the poker world, we call this “results orientated thinking” and I tend to stay away from it.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Yeah but this wasn’t a bad beat, Wandy won it fair and square.
by ufc4 on Feb 21, 2010 3:31 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Sticking with Poker
All kinds of guys can say, “I would have won this or that if I had just gotten better cards or he didn’t catch that fifth heart on the river.”
The thing is, that isn’t how it played out and no matter whether you call it “results oriented thinking” or “what actually happened” it doesn’t change that it’s putting a positive spin on a negative event.
In my world, I call it accepting the truth and it’s the only way to live.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
Well yeah, but the point of Mike’s thing is that all you can do in poker is make the right play. You can’t control the cards, you can only make the correct play with the knowledge you have.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
But this isn’t poker. It’s fighting.
A poker player has zero control over the cards.
Michael Bisping has a significantly far greater amount of control over his fights. It’s not like Evans, Hendo and now Wanderlei lucked out in their wins – they beat him, straight up.
He could have had better takedown defense against Rashad, not circled into Hendo’s right or offered more offense and had a couple moments of better defense against Wanderlei…
This whole thing stemmed from Mike saying my tweet was misguided and I still fail to see the err of my statement.
Michael Bisping failed to beat a big name fighter for the third time in his career.
He’s come close, but close doesn’t change the fact that he lost.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
I agree, he totally lost. I’m not really sure why I’m arguing points on which I’m not really taking a side. I just was offering clarification of the poker reasoning
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
It’s not about offering excuses. You’re injecting an argument (and really an entirely different thread of discussion) I’m not making.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
At the same time…The Bills were, in reality, the better team in the first 2 of those 4 super bowls.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 3:35 PM EST up reply actions
But they lost.
The Red Sox wouldn’t have lost to the Mets if Bill Buckner would have fielded that grounder.
The Cubs would have made the World Series if not for Bartman (and Alex Gonzalez!).
Bisping would be 20-1 if some fights when a little different.
But the Buckner booted that ball, Bartman (and Alex Gonzalez) ruined it for the Cubs and Bisping has yet to get over the hump and sits at a still very respectable 18-3.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 3:54 PM EST up reply actions
I’m just saying, they were “good enough” they just didn’t play it out correctly. Which is how I feel about Bisping.
I’m not really arguing for either side here. I’m just a lifelong bills fan who had to chime in when I read someone bringing up those nightmare super bowls
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 3:56 PM EST up reply actions
The point is that losses shouldn’t change your view of a fighter’s ability simply because it’s a loss.
Let me ask you this (and I fully expect a shitstorm of bad discussion to follow): Who was the best NFL team in 2007?
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Two things:
1. Football and fighting – totally different.
2. New England was the better team all season, but New York was better when it mattered most.
Sure, if Tyree doesn’t catch that ball on his head the Pats go unbeaten and whatever. But it did happen, they did lose and they failed to get over the final hurdle.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
And this is where I take my leave. We’ll never agree because we fundamentally look at the world differently.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Can you answer me one last question:
Being the champion is viewed as the pinnacle of all sports, whether it’s football or fighting.
While there is certainly value and merit to being consistently good and near the top, I would bet that Mike Bisping would trade a long career without getting over the hump for one run as the MW Champ.
The Patriots would give back their perfect regular season to have won the Super Bowl.
Are you saying you’d rather be consistently good but never win it all?
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
That’s a weird question to ask because the cream naturally rises to the top, so the best fighters are usually going to end up winning titles.
I think you’re asking is it better to be lucky than good? And no, it isn’t. Let’s take Matt Serra and Jon Fitch. When both guys are done fighting, are we going to look back and say Serra was the better fighter at 170 because he landed a lucky punch to shock GSP and won a title?
Is Ryo Chonan a better fighter than Nate Marquardt because he beat Anderson Silva?
I also care very little about title belts and championships.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
I agree that belts and championships aren’t the be all to end all of competition, but then let’s take it back to the this particular fight:
Is it better to be Michael Bisping and have yet to gotten over that hump or Matt Serra who got lucky with a big punch and can say he beat one of the greatest fighters in the world?
For me, I’d pick Serra because he did two things Bisping hasn’t yet – beat a great fighter and won a title – and has a great story to tell when he gets older.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
That argument works the other way too- if he doesn’t get a couple breaks here and there (ahem,Hammill) he could just as easily be 16-5 or worse, in which case he would be fighting much lower ranked fighters than Silva.
by ufc4 on Feb 21, 2010 3:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Exactly… how different would the career arcs of Stephan Bonnar and Forrest Griffin be if Bonnar was The Ultimate Fighter?
It would change a lot of stuff, but we’ll never know… we could argue about it until we’re blue in the face, but it doesn’t change what actually happened.
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
And I’m not arguing that he won those fights. Just that losing close fights against top competition doesn’t make lower his value/talent.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
So then what about my tweet is so misguided?
I didn’t say he was a worthless bum, I simply stated – with bad spelling – the fact that Michael Bisping has yet to defeat a fighter who is higher up on the food chain than he is…
Still a good fighter, still a highly marketable commodity, but very much has yet to get beyond that final hurdle…
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I already answered this:
“The message I got from it was that Bisping can’t hang at the top of the heap. I think he can and is. He just won’t find consistent success with his skill set.”
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
He can hang with them plenty, but he hasn’t and won’t beat any of them and at the end of the day, you need to win fights…
Canadian Bureau Chief and Staff Writer - MMA Madness - www.mmamadness.com
by E. Spencer Kyte on Feb 21, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
How can his statement be misguided if it’s 100% true?
by ufc4 on Feb 21, 2010 3:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
At this point I am dissapointed that The Axe Murder is not wearing Bisping’s skull as a jockstrap.
Keep firing Assholes!
Blackout is always right
Man, this is some Ed Gein’s stuff. It’s not healthy…
by dancingChicken on Feb 21, 2010 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
So it looks like FM did not give Silva credit for the trip takedowns. They have him getting one TD while he had two trip takedowns.
I also don’t get how close they have the second round when the sub attempt was stopped by the bell. There should be more credit for serious sub attempts vs. a half-assed one.
I’m not going to sift through all the comments as it’s a Sunday and I’m feeling ultra lazy, but I will say this…
Hordes of us wanted Wanderlei to win, but we all knew that he’s aging, taken damage, and it was his first full cut to 185. Bisping isn’t loved by the fans, but I don’t doubt his skills. He’s tough, game, and dosen’t go over exposing himself. He had the right skill set to defeat Wand, especially when my previously mentioned factors are taken into consideration.
Bisping had the right idea, staying tight, and utilizing his wrestling…but Wand suprised me…he bounced up quick from each one, with Bisping accomplishing nothing other than killing time and energy for the both of them. My heart gave the first round to Wand, but my brain told me that Bisping took that first round due to takedowns and little damage done to him.
Then Wand rallied, and the fight turned into a war. He found the inside leg kick to be effective, and landed a few nice kicks to the body. And sure enough, he was clipping Bisping’s chin in exchanges. Throughout the fight, Wand showed that he was far closer to finishing the fight than Bisping was. I believe had the bell not rung in the second, Bisping would have been taking a nap. Wanderlei was fighting hard in the third, but Bisping looked urgent and was landing some SOLID kicks to the body. It was either man’s fight at the end of the round, and then it happened. Wand found Bisping’s jaw let again, and he crashed to the mat. He wasn’t finished, but Wand pounced and landed one or two shots.
I thought the fight had been stopped due to TKO, since I was in a bar watching, but it was a decision. Wanderlei celebrating in the cage and Bisping looking beaten was enough to show you who the winner was. Had Wanderlei lost, I feel like I would have to say he truly WON the fight, but lost the decision. It wouldn’t have been a robbery by any means, but Wand had the fight close to finished twice, and had alot of success with his striking, which was suprising for me…because Wand has been looking to punch far more than kick as of late, but hooking up with his old trainer seems to have done him some good.
In my opinion, this was a great, great fight. Bisping will not be relegated to gate keeper unless he fails to improve any more, and I worry about him staying at Wolfslair for this reason. Regardless of what Bisping does though, he is a competitor, and a great fighter. I don’t like him, but theres no shame in losing to Wanderlei Silva, in what is now going to be sitting in my top 10 fights of all time.
"You guys are jerking eachother off with some pseudo deep bullshit." - Kid Nate
Note to Bisping
If only you and your corner think you were robbed, you probably weren’t.
by brad23 on Feb 21, 2010 3:22 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Just to add to Mike’s larger point. I have watched guys who I have tapped in the gym and gotten the better of in full sparring (and I’m not any good) get to fight 5 round fights on the local circuit because a phony belt is put on the line by some used car dealer promoter.
To say that these guys go 5 and Velasquez, Nogueira, Silva and Bisping don’t get to because it isn’t a title fight…sucks.
Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
MMA Editor - SBNation.com
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 21, 2010 3:51 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Bisping’s problems are twofold. One, he doesn’t respond well to being pressured. And two, he still has no reliable way to finish fights. Until Bisping sorts those issues out, he’ll be stuck in neutral during his stay in the UFC.
As for Wandy, it’s hard for me to be objective. I’ll just say that his body has been completely remade. The move down to 185 was done properly. There’s much to be encouraged about going forward when it comes to our aging Axe Murderer.
I specializes in grammar fail.
I don’t think it’s been remade so much as he looks like he used to in his Pride heyday.
Twitter: @Mike_Fagan_13
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
Anyone else notice the way Bisping kept dropping his hands way way low when Silva started flurrying against the cage?
I came off as being slighty douchey about it in the liveblog but it seems to me Bisping is still a little tentative, even though his whole approach was to keep moving clearly, he still seemed a little hesitant to properly engage. Even against Leben he was a lot more aggressive, though clearly Leben is not Silva
I see little point in Bisping fighting guys like Leben now when its clear he dominates mid tier competition. I say give him the Cote Belcher winner
I thought Bisping was winning until the knockdown by Silva, he’s going to be kicking himself forever after this fight that’s for sure.
thats what i thought
and i was like come on wanderlei! show some urgency. sure enough he did.

Own the Podium became Owned on the Podium. What a failure.
Cigano, it is your time to avenge your master's loss!
Making the world a better place, one dirtbag at a time.
"Bisping will ground and pound wanderlei"
Hahahahhahah. It was a good fight, but my take is wand was dictating the fight. Props to mike for taking a punch though and being a good guy about it afterward, even though he thinks he won (like keith jardine wasn’t out).
by OptimusPiss on Feb 22, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
I like pride rounds and rules!
Add in elbows and I am down like a clown. No vasaline! Fewer stand ups and if dont push the action you get yellow carded, forfeit 10% of your purse and shunned by a nation. Japan has a way of taking what America does and making it better.
by Raycetpfl on Feb 22, 2010 12:01 AM EST via mobile reply actions
also a good ref would have checked bisbing while he was in the gullotine, and stopped the fight when he was out.
by Raycetpfl on Feb 22, 2010 12:04 AM EST via mobile reply actions
He was moving right up to the bell; being visibly and functionally out =/= coming close to losing consciousness and losing a few seconds of memory. The ref made the right call there.
"I'm AJB and I endorse this nut-puncher."
He did ask his corner if it was over and if he lost….
by OptimusPiss on Feb 22, 2010 11:45 PM EST up reply actions

by 
















