Bisping won - agree/disagree?
by Passive on Jan 29, 2012 9:30 AM EST
Email
Print
One thing I look forward to after watching an event is heading to Bloodyelbow to read the various dissections and opinions offered by the community.
I was quite surprised to see no fan posts or articles about what I thought was a controversial decision in the Bisping Sonnen fight. People seem generally okay with the outcome acknowledging it could have gone either way.
I am by no means an expert on MMA or judging, but I really feel Bisping was robbed in that fight. I was absolutely expecting him to get the nod from the judges given his performance in the first 2 rounds.
I wasn't alone in my thinking, with Dana White and even Chael Sonnen himself acknowledging he thought Bisping was going to get the win.
if we look at the unified rules judging criteria, do you think Bisping did enough to win in round 1 and 2 to win the fight?
I would love to hear your feedback.
My humble opinion of the first 2 rounds:
|
Criteria |
Winner |
Comments |
|
(e) Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant |
Bisping |
I really thought Bisping picked Chael apart landing the heavier of the shots for the first 2 rounds. Chael even said he was hurt in the first. There is no way in my mind that Bisping wasn't the more effective in this criteria. Granted Chael had his moments, but I feel Bisping's punches were the more effective and heavier. |
|
(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard - |
Sonnen |
This criteria is not entirely clear to me, if working from the bottom to a stand-up is considered a reversal than I believe Bisping nullified any of the takedowns Chael landed. Again not sure if stuffing a takedown is considered effective grappling or a reversal, but if so Bisping again nullified the advantage gained by the takedowns that were landed. Bisping in my mind was the more dominant fighter in the clinch, but again I am unclear whether the clinch is to be considered under the "grappling" criteria. Bisping's guard wasn't particularly threatening but it was active and he quickly worked his way back to his feet throughout the first 2 rounds. All that said, I am willing to give Chael the edge in this criteria but don't believe it was enough to give him either of the first 2 rounds. |
|
(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler's attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities. |
Bisping |
Bisping cleaned up here in my opinion. He dictated the location and position of the fight. He took the fight to the clinch and control Chael against the fence. He reversed takedown attempts and backed Chael to the fence. He reversed positions when Sonnen took him to the fence. He stuffed takedowns and when taken down quickly worked his way back to his feet. He used superior movement to create opportunities to land strikes when standing. |
|
(h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike. |
Bisping?? |
Tough one to separate, but I would have to say I would give this to Bisping based on the effective in-and-out and cleaner striking. Again, even if I gave this Chael I don't believe it was enough for him to get the nod. |
|
(i) Effective defense means avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks. |
Bisping |
Again, have to give this to Bisping. He did get hit but I believe he was more effective than Chael in avoiding being struck particularly by heavy strikes. He certainly did well to avoid takedowns, reversed clinch positions, worked his way to feet from the bottom and countered Chaels attacks more effectively. |
|
Criteria |
Round |
Winner |
Comments |
|
(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round; (k) Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows: |
Rd 1 |
Bisping 10-9 |
effective striking weighed first |
|
Rd 2 |
Bisping 10-9 |
effective striking weighed first |
|
|
Rd 3 |
Sonnen 10-9 |
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
66 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think Bisping won
I really like Bisping, so I wasn’t sure exactly if he’d won or if I just wanted him to. Looking back, it seems like he just edged it but it was pretty close and even though it’s a cliche, if it goes to a decision an amount of subjectivity comes into it.
Disagree.
Chael CLEARLY won the third round, so what we are really talking about is whether Bisping swept the first two rounds. I will concede that Bisping won the second round by a slim margin, but would argue that Chael won the first round by an equally slim margin. Sonnen landed more strikes in that first round, landed the most biggest strike of the fight, and executed a couple of takedowns to boot. 29-28 Chael on my scorecard.
That said, I think legitimate arguments can be made for scores of 29-28 Bisping and 30-27 Sonnen depending on how you score those first two rounds. Both of them were close enough to go either way.
Fair play
I was specifically analysing the first 2, under the assumption Chael won the 3rd 10-9.
I think the clinch might be the key factor in fights like these, and even as a regular viewer I am not entirely competent with assessing domination of position but I am sceptical that the judges have the ability to dissect what happens there.
Though Chael may have landed more strikes, in my opinion Bisping landed the cleaner harder strikes overall and seemed to be picking Chael apart.
I think Rogan was full of shit about the clinch work in round one. I think Joe was so shocked that Bisping was holding his own in the clinch that he over-stated things a bit.
Bisping clearly got the better of the clinch in the second round, but the first round was much closer. Bisping got a few clinch reversals in the first round, but he didn’t control Sonnen like he did in the second round.
Rogan was incredibly pro-Bisping in this fight
I’ve definitely got round one for Sonnen – I would have called the striking mostly even with Sonnen’s big right shading it in his favour, they pretty much had an even amount of clinching against the cage, with Sonnen landing the more effective knees, then factor in the two takedowns and you have a 10-9 Sonnen round.
your scorecard looks like mine
That really would have been the best of all possible worlds for me – Sonnen looks even more like a fool than usual, then Bisping gets decapitated any way Silva wants to do it.
This is an oule.
by some schmuck in texas on Jan 29, 2012 9:58 AM EST reply actions
I need to watch it again
But at the time my gut feeling was that Bisping won.
Chale won cuz screw Bisping.
Learn JiuJitsu.
Semper Fi'
For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know.
I scored it 29-28 Bisping.
Not a robbery though, to me it comes down to the first round and although I gave it to Bisping, it could have gone either way.
BECW season 2 member of the Intellegent Northern English Picking Team.
Draft number: 72.
by Sweet Scientist on Jan 29, 2012 10:24 AM EST reply actions
Disagree
From my view on press row I had the first and third clearly 10-9 for Sonnen, and the second close enough that I’d probably score it a 10-10 but if I had to pick I’d give it to Sonnen. Most of the others I talked to in the arena agreed. But most I’ve heard from who saw it on TV thought it was Bisping’s fight. Interesting how different your perspectives can be depending on where you watched it from.
by MichaelDavidSmith on Jan 29, 2012 10:33 AM EST reply actions
Interesting
And your POV would presumably be closest to the judges
Rogan and Goldie
Actually, Rogan in particular, were giving Bisping so much credit just for making Chael uncomfortable, to a point where they overstated everything he did.
Please donate what you can to the Daniel James Miller Foundation.
by halitosis on Jan 29, 2012 11:06 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Well
Sonnen himself seemed to praise Bisping just as highly in the post fight presser. I think people need to accept that this was close and that neither fighter comfortably won the fight at all.
Agreed
Watching a fight without the commentary can make a big difference. Plenty of times it’s easy to get distracted from what you’re seeing by what you’re hearing, and the personal opinions of the commentators.
|
Twitter: @argylebombs - Not just for the cool kids anymore.
BECW 2: The New Rebeginning - Team Trainyard Sleepers
Making fight picks and wanking it to your mothers, since 2011!
I think people like Chael, and wanted to see the Silva rematch.
And conversely, Bisping isn’t really getting anyone’s benefit of the doubt. I’m not a fan of either, and I thought Bisping won the first two rounds pretty clearly. Problem is, some judges still score takedowns and aggression too heavily, as opposed to effective striking, and Chael did manage to get Michael down, however briefly. IMO, takedowns should lead to offense, rather than counting heavily as offense, but we’ve seen the scoring improperly applied this way for years by a host of judges. Other than that, I thought Bisping actually controlled the fight in the clinch and landed more effective strikes there, and at range. I think the lack of protest has to do with Bisping not deserving the benefit of the doubt, and the fact that everyone wants to see Chael fight Anderson again.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 29, 2012 10:35 AM EST reply actions
Bisping won the first two rounds pretty clearly
Poppycock.
Neither guy took those two rounds ‘clearly’. They were both incredibly close. The only round that was ‘clearly’ won by somebody is the third round by Sonnen.
I don't agree.
Bisping clearly won the second. The first was a coin toss, and with the ever present “takedown steals the round” scoring, I should’ve been less surprised. But I still thought Michael landed the better strikes in the first, both at range and in holding his own against the cage. More generally I was speaking to the poster’s surprise that people weren’t freaking out over the decision. If it was anyone but Bisping, there would’ve been substantially more complaint.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 29, 2012 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
Really?
I had the 2nd for Chael, and have been confused by all the fans saying Bisping won that round. For what? 10 seconds of knees while Chael had control on the ground for almost 2 minutes?
"Complacency is your demise." - Kerry King
Proud member of Trainyard Sleepers, BECW: S2
We're gonna win, you know. Stats lie.
by duck on Jan 29, 2012 11:04 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
You must be thinking of the third.
Chael got Bisping down for about 35 seconds in the middle of the second, and landed one nice punch in that sequence. Meanwhile, Bisping controlled Chael against the cage and landed the better strikes there, and while at range. Plus takedowns are worth one solid body shot, at best, so control, whether Chael controlling Bisping on the ground briefly, or Bisping muscling Chael around in the clinch for a good chunk of the round is meaningless except for tie-breaking purposes. I just thought Michael clearly landed the harder strikes throughout the first two rounds, with only a handful of Chael’s punches that were scored even connected solidly. Chael landed a few good punches in that time, just not nearly enough.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 29, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
I think
29-28 either way is acceptable – WTF was going on with that 30-27 though? No way Chael won round 2. :-O
Your chart cuts off on the right side for me… But from what I can read of this:
I really thought Bisping picked Chael apart landing the heavier of the shots for the first 2 rounds. Chael even said he was hur
I have to wonder if you’ve even seen Fight Metric’s report for striking for the first round.
An annoying Fitch fan.
Captain of Season 1 BECW Champs, the K-1 Level Predictions Team.
Season 2 Captain - Brock Lesnar's Cruelty-Free Pest Control
Follow @zakkree
I liked the fight and thought it was very close.
Here is what fight metric had to say: http://blog.fightmetric.com/2012/01/sonnen-vs-bisping-official-ufc.html
No, you're not drunk. I am this good-looking.
It's not a computer
It’s just a categorization of strikes by a human, and it’s done the right way (unlike Compustrike’s nonsense). The only thing computerized is how to determine a round winner, but the raw numbers are a good measure of the output by both fighters.
by paythefighters on Jan 29, 2012 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
Very interesting.
I didn’t know that.
"No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want to be true, for what some terror in their hearts tells them is not true."
the raw numbers are a good measure of the output by both fighters.
Not really
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jan 30, 2012 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Fighting area control
“Bisping cleaned up here in my opinion”
Sorry, but that’s completely wrong. Chael was the aggressor from striking distance, and he was the aggressor on the ground. The only thing Bisping did, from a control perspective, was turn it around when it went to the fence and keep pressing Chael there. That’s it.
by paythefighters on Jan 29, 2012 12:15 PM EST reply actions
curious
Do you think taking someone down counts a lot more than the ability to get up whenever it happens. Also should take downs count so highly when you don’t do anything there?
The ability to get up is defensive in nature
judges don’t score defense by definition. The fact that the fighter is being put into the position to have to stand up means that he’s losing the Control battle.
Matt Janecek
MBA, 2011
An MBA on MMA: mixed martial arts thru the lens of business
mba-mma.blogspot.com
Fair point
But isnt defending a takedown or reversing a clinch dictating where the fight takes place?
people keep talking about takedowns where nothing happens as if that’s the only thing that happened in the round. this is never the case, and wasn’t this time. Fightmetric and Compustrike both say that Chael won the striking in that round (total, and power/significant). If you want to argue that the striking was close, then the takedowns can push it over the edge to chael, because they happened, and they need to be accounted for.
Taking someone down and doing nothing is better than getting taken down and doing nothing.
I don't agree with your premise that Rounds 1 and 2 can be evaluated together in one table
They are separate rounds that are evaluated individually. In my opinion Sonnen won the 1st and Bisping won the second. Fight Metrics numbers play this result out as well. The 2-4 in take downs by Sonnen in the 1st round are a significant difference in such a close round.
Matt Janecek
MBA, 2011
An MBA on MMA: mixed martial arts thru the lens of business
mba-mma.blogspot.com
Sonnen pinning Bisping to the floor for a couple of seconds
shouldn’t be worth more than Bisping pinning Sonnen against the cage for a couple of minutes. Sonnen did nothing with his takedowns. Bisping did virtually nothing against the fence. This is why I called the first round even.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jan 29, 2012 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Bisping ate leather after each time Chael took him down in the first. Bisping offerend nothing in that round that would superceed that level of effectiveness from Chael.
Trainyard Sleepers: Our Foot Your Ass
by Hardy's in your face on Jan 29, 2012 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Chael ate leather the entire time Bisping had him up against the fence.
And that was, by far, what happened for the majority of the round.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jan 29, 2012 5:03 PM EST up reply actions
The only round in dispute is the 1st. Bisping wasn’t any more effective than Chael against the cage in that round. In fact Chael landed the better knees in the 1st. You can say Bisping landed a couple better standing punches but nothing that would warrant overcoming the deficit of 2 takedowns a lil GnP.
Trainyard Sleepers: Our Foot Your Ass
by Hardy's in your face on Jan 29, 2012 5:21 PM EST up reply actions
Bispings dirty boxing was as effective as Sonnen’s GnP, except it lasted for closer to three minutes as opposed to thirty seconds.
There is nothing in the URs that says pinning your opponent to the ground and punching them is worth more than pinning your opponent to the fence and punching them. And as I said, Bisping had Chael pinned on the fence much longer than Chael had him pinned on the floor.
Nothing either fighter did in the first round was effective. I scored it even.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jan 29, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
Bisping's punchs did nothing in the clinch, hell there were parts of the fight in which Sonnen was working his punches more while pinned.
I’d rather just climb this fridge
No there weren't.
Chael’s little arm punches in the clinch barely rate a mention. The only hard punches delivered were a bunch of solid combos from Bisping at range, including the one Chael claimed rocked him badly, one solid haymaker from Chael, and a couple of stiff, short punches on the ground from Chael after the first takedown.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 29, 2012 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
neither fighter's punches were thrown with bad intentions
Sonnen’s punches from guard didn’t do shit either.
We’re left with 1 1/2 minutes of ineffective offense from Chael, and 3 1/2 minutes of ineffective offense from Bisping. This is why I called the round even (cause no one really did anything but control the other), or can see it going to Bisping because he quantitatively did more. Qualitatively they were equally ineffective in that round.
Rd 1 is a definitive 10-10 round imo.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jan 29, 2012 9:04 PM EST up reply actions
Chael ate the harder punches the entire round, he said so himself.
Bisping landed numerous combos, the knees were even, and in my opinion Chael only landed one hard punch standing, and a brief flurry of short punches off the first takedown.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 29, 2012 8:57 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't have been upset if Bisping got the win
because it was a really close fight, but I thought Chael won 29-28.
You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.
You should add a poll to this
With three choices for the outcome:
Sonnen won
Bisping won
Fight was a draw
I personally think the fight was a draw or 29-28 Sonnen. 10-10 first, 10-9 Bisping second, and either 10-9 or 10-8 Sonnen in the third. A truly close fight, much closer than I thought it would be. I could see people giving Bisping the first even though I didn’t.
Somehow…. I found myself a fan of Bisping by the end of the fight. I found myself a Sonnen fan by the end of the post fight press conference. Last night was Bizzarro UFC.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jan 29, 2012 3:10 PM EST reply actions
How is round 1 a 10-10 when it's 2 takedowns to nil and Chael spends at least 90 seconds pushing forward
when Bisping spends 90 seconds standing in a clinch not doing much and not looking for takedowns?
and they were more or less even on the feet
¬_¬
by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on Jan 29, 2012 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
cause Chael didn’t do any damage with the TDs, and Bisping hopped right back up.
Those two takedowns are equivalent to Bisping pinning Sonnen against the fence and dirty boxing… except Bisping had Chael against the fence 6, 7 times as long as Chael had him on the floor. Both fighter’s didn’t land anything worth talking about all round, which is why I call it 10-10. I honestly don’t see how you can say Sonnen won the grappling when he found himself pinned to the fence for the majority of the round. TDs don’t erase that.
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Jan 29, 2012 10:23 PM EST up reply actions
most of the pressing forward was done by Chael
IE he walked 75 feet in a forward direction opposed to the counts 20
or something
and he also had the inside for longer, more “octagon control”
and Bisping had less effective grappling, what with a takedown being 3 and standing back up being 2…
Also count really didn’t do much with said clinch, iirc when he got tagged it was in the open field?
¬_¬
by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on Jan 30, 2012 6:08 AM EST up reply actions
Bisping fought well and would have had a great shot in a 5 rounder but...
If you were takin down twice in a round and had some level of ground and pound landed on you (which was the case for Bisping in round 1) , you better have distinguished yourself from your opponent in some method of combat if you are going to claim that you won that round. The problem for the" Bisping Won" crowd is there isn’t anything significant Bisping can hang his hat on in round one except a 3 punch combo around the 1min mark of the round. IMO, and that of the judges , that didnt overcome the deficit he was in. While the fight was much closer than I expected or wanted , I believe the judges had no choice but to give the UD to the undefeated and undisputed champion.
Trainyard Sleepers: Our Foot Your Ass
by Hardy's in your face on Jan 29, 2012 4:48 PM EST reply actions
this is tricky
based on how judging is usually done, i could see it going to bisping. This is because the judges see wall stalling as a viable way to earn points, and bisping did about 6 minutes of that or so in the first two rounds. However, using the same “based on how its usually judged” train of thought…TAKEDOWN STEALS THE ROUND. and Sonnen managed to put bisping on his butt a few times in the first two as well. due to this…i saw the fight going either way.
But if you were too look at the fight as how it should be judged properly…sonnen wins. His takedowns in the first two roun ds werent world beaters, but in the mma game off rock paper scissors, they trump bispings wall stall. and the third goes without question to sonnen.
"he will have a two pound reach advantage"- mike goldberg
I give it 29-28 Sonnen
He edges round 1, gets round 3 big, and Bisping edges round 2.
I think a lot of people saw Sonnen NOT totally dominate a guy for once and just let it get in their heads like ‘Oh, Sonnen isn’t trucking Bisping, he looks horrible, Bisping is winning this’ when in fact, most of the time Bisping was backing up and on the defensive…and unless you are landing noteworthy and meaningful counters or shutting down EVERYTHING your opponent does…it is very hard to win while in defensive mode.
To be honest, in imaginary half point land. I’d give Chael the first round 10-9.5, Bisping the 2nd round 10-9.5, and Chael the 3rd 10-9.
Or in the imaginary ‘close rounds are 10-9, very very clear are 10-8’
I give Chael round 1 10-9, Bisping round 2 10-9, and Chael round 3 10-8.
Essentially, rounds 1 and 2 were slim wins, divided between the two fighters…while round 3 was hands down very clear cut and decisive.
"You got Floyd Mayweather making 25 million dollars...he can't stop the double leg." - Nick Diaz
I can live with your score Chris.
As to round one, I don’t count brief takedowns as much of anything, other than as a bit of a tie-breaker. To me, a tie-breaker wasn’t required, as I thought Michael heavily outlanded Chael in terms of strikes that actually landed solidly on the face. The knees were pretty equal, but outside of one Sonnen haymaker and a couple short punches on the ground, most of Chael’s punches were misses or glancing shots, or just busywork-type weak arm punches to the top and back of Bisping’s head. I can’t believe I’m forced to defend Michael Bisping. WTF is going on? Anyway, it was close, and not the kind of fight that can be termed a robbery. I do think your larger point about expectations often leading us to over-value surprises, such as Bisping staying largely upright, is a good one…
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 29, 2012 9:05 PM EST up reply actions
I had it
Round 1 for Sonnen because both were ineffective with strikes and Sonnen barely stole the round with take downs. Round 2 was easily Bisping. And round 3 was clearly Sonnen. Honestly I think the takedowns in the first are what won Sonnen the fight. Had he not scored those take downs that round would have been almost even in my eyes.
I'm gonna give you three seconds; exactly three-fucking-seconds to wipe that stupid looking grin off your face or I will gouge out your eyeballs and skull-fuck you!
Round 1 for Sonnen because both were ineffective with strikes
This is so crazy to me since it seemed SO clear Mike had Chael hurt in the first.
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jan 30, 2012 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes according to Chael he was absolutely rocked.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jan 30, 2012 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
Disagree I scored it 30-27
Round one who pressed forward first? Also two takedowns, the only time Bisping got clinch and fence work was when he turned Chael around and even then he didn’t do much
Round two, also two takedowns, maybe a pass or two.
How many times did Bisping have Sonnens back? How many times did he put him into the clinch and proceed to have effective striking?
eh c’est la vie
¬_¬
by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ on Jan 29, 2012 9:51 PM EST reply actions
Anybody that thinks Sonnen won that fight just want him to go to Brazil and fight Anderson Silva again because they think this time he will win (he won’t). Fight Metric can kiss my ass, Bisping won that fight.
by Meek Mill on Jan 30, 2012 8:59 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Disagree.
I had it 29-29 live, and 29-28 Sonnen after re-watching it a few times.
VERY close fight, though, and I feel any score between 30-26 Sonnen and 29-28 Bisping is totally defensible.
Reppin' the 202 for The Voice's in Paul Harris' Head. BECW Season 12.
Judging is a diffcult task...
I’m glad it’s not up to me to get it right, fight after fight, card after card.
As close as Sonnen/Bisping was, it caused me to create this rough scorecard idea for me to play with as I went back and re-watched the fight.
http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u482/AgBo4/Scorecard.jpg
Check out my scorecard in the above link, and let me know what you think, regarding the assessment of the action as well as the idea of breaking down the round/scoring minute by minute. I think it could help the judges, being able to score through the round, and justify the final 10-9 at the end of the 5 minutes, as opposed to going back and trying to remember all the action bell to bell each round.
|
Twitter: @argylebombs - Not just for the cool kids anymore.
BECW 2: The New Rebeginning - Team Trainyard Sleepers
Making fight picks and wanking it to your mothers, since 2011!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
