Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Josh Gross


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Fightsport Asia


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Infinite MMA


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuBox


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Ult MMA


Fighters


Kevin Iole


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


MMA Chronicle


David Williams


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


Joe Ferraro


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

Site Meter

« | Home | »

UFC 75

By Zach Arnold | September 8, 2007

Print Friendly and PDF

I will add results links as they are created.

Results (coming soon): Yahoo Sports | MMA on Tap | Sherdog | Sprawl ‘n Brawl | Javno | Lancanshire Telegraph | Fox Sports

All predictions, spoilers, news and notes go here.

A funny spoiler (view it in full page mode)…

Kevin Iole – Silva, Drwal put crowd to sleep (now changed to Silva, Drwal KO crowd)
Sherdog – Drwal/Silva – The second round is an absolute war

Iole – Has Mirko Cro Cop become Mirko Washed Up?

Topics: MMA, Media, PRIDE, UFC, UK, Zach Arnold | 145 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

145 Responses to “UFC 75”

  1. The Gaijin says:

    “Like I have said before…. Unless somebody was ringside, it is impossible to see who won that Bisping/Hamill fight. A lot of those punches were close. Who got hit the hardest and who got hit the most is something that wasn’t apparent on TV. For anybody to claim so is FULL OF IT!!!! I’m not defending Cecil or Jeff, but they had the best seat in the house for those scores.”

    45 you are a fucking idiot. If anyone didn’t think you were a little Zuffa sycophant – they have all the evidence they need.

    That fight was CLEAR “boxing” politics and Zuffa ensuring their protected investment wasn’t damage.

    This isn’t ad hominem – you ARE a Dana nutsucker.

  2. The Gaijin says:

    I also love the fact that the whole “PRIDE vs. UFC” was a battle between two PRIDE flag bearers during the actual time that the organizations were competing with each other.

  3. 45 Huddle says:

    Is this why sherdog.com had it 29-28 for Bisping?

    That most logical fans will agree that Hamill won the first, Bisping won the third, and the 3rd round was really close. That doesn’t sound like a horrible decision to me. It sounds like 2 fighters who were not impressive enough to give themselves a decision in a close fight. That was Hamill’s fight to win. He didn’t do it. Doesn’t mean he deserves the loss, but that was not boxing politics.

    Go watch a Don King rigged fight. Now those are legit BS decisions. People need to learn how to score fricken MMA fights. If you look at the fight as a whole, I can see why people are outraged that Hamill didn’t win. But the scoring doesn’t happen like that.

    Hamill beat Bisping more in the first then in any other round. Enough that if the fight was judged as a whole, he would have won. But the next two rounds, were completely razor thin, and a decision for Bisping is not out of the question.

    After watching the fight a second time, I thought it was a respectable, but close decision. And how is that being a Zuffa nuthugger, I don’t know. Both fighters fight for Zuffa. I am not a fan of either of them. I could care less who won. I was looking at it objectively…..

  4. Jonathan says:

    I wonder what the UFC is going to use as the excuse for Mirko losing? When he lost to Gonzaga, they said that it was because he hadn’t trained in a cage and had not been used to elbows. I wonder what they will say now?

  5. Croatian Strength says:

    Enjoyed the event, but the show in Manchester had a better vibe (even if it had more bad fights)
    They didn’t manage a sell out, but the arena was pretty full.
    There were a lot of drunks and a few fights broke out, but i guess that can’t really be avoided unless you hold your event in Japan.
    Disappointed there was no Fedor (or any other figher announcements).

    Mirko had nothing – it looked like the cage really hurts his game. Hope it’s not the end for him, but I wouldn’t want to see him fight like this again.

    I wonder if Matt Hammill being ironic with Born in the USA. Bisping looked very lean at 205, not sure how he’d do at 185 if he does drop down, but he couldn’t cope with Hammill’s strength at his current size. Looked to be a bad decision but Bisping’s striking was crisper so he may have landed more.

    I can see why they had this main event in the UK – the hardcore fans made up the majority and knew who Henderson was.
    The new Rampage seems to fight smarter and take less risks, which is bad for the fans but good for him. I didn’t see what happened to the Pride belt after -wonder who gets to keep it, but the real unification match will be against Shogun.

    This event made me really miss the PRIDE 10 minute rounds though, as 5 minutes is too short when you have high level fighters against each other.

  6. Jeremy (not that Jeremy) says:

    Sherdog is not an authoritative voice.

    I’m typically a Bisping fan, I was kind of confused about his apparent chip on the shoulder about Hamill, but then again, I don’t watch TUF except the finales.

    But in the first round, Hamill had Bisping running scared. You could see it in his posture, he was genuinely afraid. The same was true of most of the 2nd round, but by the end of it, the fear had worn off, and I could see that Hamill’s shot for a knockout or submission or three round unanimous decision was probably done for.

    Hamill waited too long to do his job.

    Still, winning one round does not win you a fight. The result was ridiculous, and it’s down to the judges, not to Zuffa or White or whoever. They probably had a result in mind that they wanted, but I can’t imagine that it was “a split judging decision where 90% of the fans think it’s bullshit.”

    The way they ran it up, I have to think that they wanted Hamill to win this one to set up a solid rivalry down the line.

    There’s not much of a positive spin to “English prick with a chip on his shoulder beats deaf guy in controversial split decision and then badmouths him in his victory speech.”

    Bisping is ending up looking really bad here, IMHO. Zach is probably overjoyed at the birth of another “Heel,” but to me it’s just bizarre.

  7. Jeremy (not that Jeremy) says:

    At this point, I’d prefer not to see either of them fight again. I can’t see myself rooting for Bisping anymore, and Hamill … I don’t know what to say about that.

  8. Zack says:

    “Like I have said before…. Unless somebody was ringside, it is impossible to see who won that Bisping/Hamill fight. ”

    Okay…then don’t ever tell us who you think won a fight again, unless you were ringside.

  9. Boycott UFC 76! says:

    I think the UFC conveniently forgotten how to score using their own octagon RULES!

    - octagon aggression & control (Matt all 3 rounds)
    - effective striking (Who’s face, in the end provided EVIDENCE of ‘effective’?…..please)

    Damn if I will purchase ufc 76, I beleive UFC will make their Forrest crybaby/oh lets not forget HUMBLE:P, griffen win as to further rid the Pride brand.
    I rather not pay for a UFC “influenced” business decision outcome. Hell its not even a title fight card for the same price. I wonder if they will preserve their golden boy and screw over Fitch along the way! UFC is starting to make money/prettyboy fame their main motive over fair decisions and real champs.. that totally SUCKS!!!!!!
    BOOOOO UFC, using Crocop to develop new STARS for future financal gain knowing he will retire soon. Boycotting (money) will be the only way to get the message to the UFC! We are not looking for UFC to turn into WWE, TNA, etc. How can one bet on UFC fights with obvious setups like this?

  10. The Gaijin says:

    Mirko is shot…the guy is total headcase fighter and you can see he’s now afraid to be KO’d.

    The Bisping decision is a fucking farce…but the funny part is I stood up at my buddy’s place with 20 ppl there and said “watch and see – this is going to be a classic hometown split decision”. I was almost lynched by EVERY person there who clearly know Hamill easily won that fight…but of course you gotta protect your “stars” and unfortunately for Hamill he gave them that opening by not finishing him off.

    I didn’t think I’d see a more blatantly bad decision that Tito-Griffin but they managed to “surprise” me.

    And LOL at 45 using Sherdog’s scoring as a barometer, given the fact that its the site he loves to shit on every chance he get. :)

  11. The Gaijin says:

    “And how is that being a Zuffa nuthugger, I don’t know. Both fighters fight for Zuffa. I am not a fan of either of them. I could care less who won. I was looking at it objectively…..”

    And by objectively you mean, being an apologist and justifying a horrible decision that’s completely egg on their face?

    What a crock.

  12. The Gaijin says:

    On a side note: Cecil Peoples is the worst f#ckin referee alive, in any sport. I’m positive he judges Mushashi fights in his spare time.

    Congrats to Rampage as well, great war of a fight and I didn’t know if he had it in him to do it.

  13. 45 Huddle says:

    Oh please… Don’t use the “who’s face looked worse” argument. GSP’s face looked beat to crap against Penn, and he still won 2 rounds.

    Anybody who think Zuffa is trying to fix fights is making a joke of an argument. Plain and simple. You might not agree with the decision, but there was no fix there. That fight could of taken place in Vegas or CA with the same result.

    As for Ortiz/Griffin…. Once again, fans talking about something that just isn’t there. Griffin admitted it was the correct decision. How much more proof do people need? I wanted him to win, but he just didn’t.

  14. Boycott UFC 76! says:

    ok 45 Huddle ,,,, then whats your justifaction for the win, please use octogan rules?

    Agression, nope he ran away
    Control, I don’t think so
    Effective Striking, Hamill didn’t looked phased

    Please do tell how you agree with Bisping win. very interested to hear your proof/facts on the win.
    Oh and your GSP/Penn agruement, well I totally AGREE, GSP won via CONTROL, and NOT simply by the evidence on his face.

  15. Jordan Breen says:

    Bisping actually did pretty well over the second half of the second round, in which Hamill really only landed the nice inline elbow. Other than that, Bisping was nicely able to control the octagon and be the effective (keyword) aggressor by moving around Hamill’s punches, popping his jab and landing, and even backing Hamill up with the one twos, albeit not splitting his guard. I personally think rounds like this are exactly why MMA judges in North America need to embrace the 10-10 round.

  16. Ivan Trembow says:

    45 Huddle— I didn’t mention the B.S. legal excuse because it was just that: A B.S. cop-out designed to save face when the mainstream media started publicizing the fact that there was no actual drug testing. Zuffa didn’t have the “legal authority” to make the fighters submit to drug tests? In case you hadn’t noticed, UFC fighters are under exclusive contracts to Zuffa and are routinely released or freezed out (or both) if they fall out of favor with management. They generally do what Zuffa says, when Zuffa says to do it. If anyone dares to defy that (ie, Wanderlei Silva not being ready to fight in September), they can be smeared by the UFC in the media and practically called a pussy. If Zuffa says to four fighters, “Here, pee in this cup,” you better believe they’re going to pee in the cup. The fact that these phantom “legal issues” magically disappeared for UFC 72, right after the mainstream media had the nerve to criticize Zuffa for not drug-testing anyone at UFC 69 or UFC 70, further illustrates that it was just a face-saving cop-out.

  17. 45 Huddle says:

    I agree with Breen. I know Zuffa doesn’t like 10-10 rounds, but that round could of been 10-10. If it had to go to somebody, I would of said Hamill. But as I have said before, it always looks different on TV then it does live. So for a round so close, I have no problem with the decision.

  18. 45 Huddle says:

    How is that cop out for the mainstream media? That fact was never released to the mainstream media (that I have seen). It was only reported by Meltzer.

    And nobody knows for sure what the legal reasons where, but there could be a few.

    1. How it changes the UFC legally in terms of whether it is looked upon like a sanctioning body or promoter.
    2. The legality of fining fighters. Especially when that money goes back to the company paying.
    3. Proper notification to fighters.
    4. Still in the process of hiring outside council in the UK to make sure it also complies with UK based laws.

    My point is that there are so many issues… Especially when dealing with international (and that is the key word) issues, that it is not shocking that the Zuffa lawyers wanted to be careful. Lawyers in general are a conservative bunch. When writing contracts, they typically air on the side of caution. So it does not shock me that they did not give the OK at the last minute if they did not feel like the company was properly secured in their actions.

    I know for my own job where I talk to lawyers on a rather frequent basis…. It can take issues a long time to resolve. Also, depending on what has been discussed, it can take a long time for them to agree upon a course of action that they feel does not legally hurt the company. Correct, nothing changed within the UFC, but that is why it was the lawyers and not White or Ratner who had the issues to begin with.

  19. Boycott UFC 76! says:

    Perhaps a draw would have been a better decision, that is based on a 10-8 first round in favor of Hamill. From what I hear Bisping lost his cool in his corner (knowing that he was losing) before 2nd and 3rd rounds but Spike/UFC opt not to show this during the playback.

  20. Ivan Trembow says:

    Any company has the right to drug-test its fighters. It’s just a matter of whether the fighters would be willing to comply, and again, UFC fighters generally do what Zuffa wants, when Zuffa wants them to do it, so that would not have been a problem.

    Also, it was not just the Wrestling Observer who reported on the UFC’s failure to drug-test anyone at UFC 69 or UFC 70. It was also in the Orange County Register, Houston Chronicle, and Yahoo Sports, just to name a few of the mainstream outlets.

  21. 45 Huddle says:

    Those newspapers reported that they did not drug test. Unless my memory fails me, they did not mention it was the lawyers who said no to it.

    A company has a right to drug test it’s EMPLOYEES. This is correct.

    1. UFC Fighters are not UFC Employees. My guess is that they are independent contractors or something similar.
    2. Do they have the ability to do so in a foreign country?
    3. Did they have a written policy in place just in case a fighter got busted?
    4. Where the fighters notified within the proper time of what is a legal vs. illegal substance as determined by Zuffa.

    See where I am going here? There are so many issues surrounding this that it is easy to see why a lawyer would pull the plug until everything was in place.

  22. The Gaijin says:

    No one is claiming a conspiracy.

    But much like boxing, the hometown “star” managed to squeak out a undeserved hometown decision, b/c there was a sliver of a doubt as to who won (i.e. you could make tenuous arguments like 45 as to why he won and maybe maintain a straight face doing it). You can’t watch that fight and say you think Bisping deserved to win, based on ANY known scoring criteria.

    Funny that one judge scores it 30-27 and two judges somehow give 29-28 to the other guy…somewhat shady imo. It just looks bad on a sport that’s asking for mainstream credibility when they can’t remove themselves from the shit that they always piss all over boxing for.

    And just like the outcome of Ortiz-Griffin, they’ve made sure they are in the far better position by getting the decision they got.

  23. 45 Huddle says:

    And it is very simple. They did not drug tests. There is a legit reason for it. They have gotten their ducks in a row and are now drug testing.

    You are playing conspiracy theorist at this point. I know it is a popular position for Zuffa haters, but give it a rest. It’s not like they are hiding from regulation or drug testing…. Like K-1, Cage Rage, EliteXC, KOTC, and various other MMA promotions that love to run in foreign countries, Indian Reservations, or states that are unregulated.

    It would be nice to see some energy from the MMA Media placed on those organizations… Instead of one that is working in the UK to get a commission set up, refuses to fight in the United States in places that are unregulated, and who hired Marc Ratner to get the sport fully regulated with the same rules in all 50 states.

  24. 45 Huddle says:

    “Funny that one judge scores it 30-27 and two judges somehow give 29-28 to the other guy…somewhat shady imo.”

    Yeah…. Matt Serra losing 30-27 on one score card and then winning 30-27 on the other two. I think that the UFC fixed that one too. And let’s be honest. That is what you are getting at.

  25. Grape Knee High says:

    I think the UFC is on the cusp of two things:

    1) “Effective striking” being reduced to “punches thrown (but not necessarily connecting)”. Bisping landed less about 10 clean shots the entire fight. Hammill landed more effective, hurtful shots. The question is should the numerous of Bisping’s blocked punches count for anything? I guess the judges think so.

    2) Stiff jabs now count for more than takedown, ground control, guard passing, side control, side control from the back, and ground striking.

    I am a Bisping fan, and no fan at all of Hammill, but I don’t see any logical way that anyone who actually watched that fight says it was even close for Bisping.

    We’re not watching Shootboxing or Sanshou kickboxing. Effective grappling (like takedowns, passing guard, striking during grappling) should be scored just as equally, if not more than, the punches Bisping was throwing (and mostly not landing). Add in Octagon control and aggressiveness for Hammill on top, and you should logically end up with a win for Hammill.

  26. Sheldon says:

    I stand by what I said earlier about the Irish Hand Grenade. His fight should have been stopped earlier.

    Davis hasn’t fought anyone good and the only names Carter and Spratt are well past their primes. He’s been served up Tomato cans and anyone who thinks he’s a serious contender is delusional.

  27. Zach Arnold says:

    I just watched the tape of UFC 75 and did the radio show with Jeff Thaler. I came away from the show with a pretty positive attitude afterwards.

  28. Croatian Strength says:

    Yeah, how dare Cage Rage and K1 run in foreign countries so their shows are unregulated – they should run in the US or not at all!

  29. The Gaijin says:

    “….I think that the UFC fixed that one too. And let’s be honest. That is what you are getting at.”

    It certainly worked out very conveniently for them now didn’t it?

    I’m no fan of Matt Hamill by any stretch of the imagination, but that was complete BS. It just looks bad and I don’t want MMA to have the same stigma that’s been pretty much thought of as a given for boxing.

    Have you not seen the outrage for this decision? I’m clearly not alone in knowing that the decision was crooked as hell. It’s nice you’re labelling me as a “conspiracy theorist” so that you can brush aside the point and pretend some “kook” is cooking up some retarded “conspiracy” at work with Zuffa. Plain and simple – the decision was BS.

  30. Ivan Trembow says:

    45 Huddle— Yeah, Zuffa should be applauded for saying that there should be no MMA shows in unegulated areas and then running three MMA shows in unregulated areas. You’re right.

    You are also still failing to grasp the fact that UFC fighters do what Zuffa tells them to do, when Zuffa tells them to do it, and they have been shown numerous examples of what happens if you don’t follow along that path. So if Zuffa says, “Pee in this cup,” they are going to pee in the cup.

    Also, do you really believe that there WOULD have been drug testing at UFC 72 if not for the mainstream media backlash when it came out that they told the media one thing prior to the events and then did another thing when it came to UFC 69 and UFC 70? I suppose next you’ll be telling me that Zuffa’s decision to keep Diego Sanchez’ drug test failure a secret instead of posting it on their web site like every other drug test failure was just some sort of paperwork error and that they surely intended to post Sanchez’ failure as well.

  31. Whats more empty, Cro Cops bandwagon or IFL’s bank account??

  32. JThue says:

    Funny how everyone jumps at Millen and PEOPLES for giving Bisping rnd 2, but no one notes that the third judge has the same flaw in giving Hamill rnd. 3(and round 2 was definitely closer than the 3rd).

    As others have said, there’s nothing BS about this decision. I had it 29-28 Hamill and was as shocked as everyone else(although I could definitely feel it coming when Buffer said Peoples was the last judge), but never in the world would I call this a particularly horrible or outrageous decision. Rounds like the 2nd one here are judged all over the place on every single UFC card there is, regardless of the names involved. It’s just that it ended up meaning more in the big picture here, and the post fight speeches(MB being a dick and MH humble in defeat) makes the viewer feel it’s this huge robbery and oh so unfair.

    All three judges showed minor flaws, but that was also all there was. It was a close fight where neither fighter came close to finishing his opponent, and I’m sure a rematch would have been in the cards regardless of the outcome.

    Cro Cop looked old and tired like Couture before his last fight with Liddell. You could see where it was heading long before the fight even started.

    Awesome main event.

  33. Ultimo_Santa says:

    UFC should drop their “As Real As It Gets” tagline after that fixed decision. I enjoy UFC’s product as well, but anyone who has seen more than 10 MMA fights in their life cannot possibly buy that bullshit.

    Hamill CLEARLY won rounds 1 and 2, and arguably 3. He landed far more punches, caused more damage, was more aggressive, scored multiple takedowns and clinches in all three rounds, and at no point was in ANY danger.

    Bisping stuffed a single takedown – in the closing seconds of R3 – and landed a handful punches. The entire fight he retreated, and looked sloppy throughout.

    Anyone stupid enough to think that was legitimate is receiving a paycheck from Zuffa.

  34. LR says:

    I still don’t see how you can score the 2nd round to Bisping, or even a draw. Bisping did land some decent counter punches, but he also was taken down 3-4 times. Yeah, he got back up, but he did eat some punches on the way up, and from what I know, takedowns also count in aggression and overall control. Hamill took him down and let him back up, but they should count for something. Bisping did nothing but land some punches.

    I completely disagree that Hamill only landed an elbow in the 2nd half, not sure what fight you were watching. He was landed jab after jab after Bisping’s counter. They didn’t do tons of damage, but he was landing them, and Hamill was getting hit with equally crap punches that did barely any damage.

    Justifying that Bisping’s counter actually won him the round or drew it is absurd considering Hamill smoked him in the takedown game and landed 3-5 punches while Bisping tried to get back up. If anyone wanted to get technical, stats could be lined up and down the fight for Hamill.

  35. 45 Huddle says:

    The biggest problem is that fans just look at the fight as a whole and then start crying foul when the decision doesn’t go how they think.

    Sherdog.com:

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

    WrestlingObserver.com:

    “Single leg by Hamill into Bispings guard. Hamill lets Bisping up at 1:30. Excellent take down by Hamill at 3:00. Again lets Bisping get up. Boxing match with Hamill having a slight advantage. Slow round. Again 10-9 to Hamill but not as convincing.”

    Yeah… The fix is in…. Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? The forums are proving the concept of the movie correctly. “Electrolytes… It’s what makes plants grow!!!”

    It was a close round. Get off your high horses.

  36. 45 Huddle says:

    Dave Meltzer’s thoughts on it…. Much better then some of the stupid thoughts on here:

    –I’ll have more about this in a column later today. Matt Hamill should have won the fight. I would have given him rounds one and two, and round three was close and could have gone either way. Round two wasn’t a slaughter by any means, and while I do think Hamill won, judging the round for Bisping was not inconceivable. It was far from the worst decision ever and I wouldn’t even call it a robbery (you could use that term, but to me a robbery is when it’s a blatantly bad call and this wasn’t that blatant even though I’m guessing in our poll it’ll come out pretty one sided based on feedback). I can easily see voting for Bisping in round three. It’s just shit that happens in a judgment sport. You have to remember judges see the fight from a different vantage point than the TV cameras. There are pluses and minuses of where the judges sit and there are definite minuses of having to make split second calls at the end of the round without benefit of instant replay or rewatching. Fact is, I saw round two as a lot closer the first time than the second time when I actually scored every move and did see it as Hamill’s round. Round three I saw the same each time, and it was a close round that either fighter, or an even round, are all fair viewpoints of. One of the two judges giving Hamill round two would have made it split in the other direction. UFC doesn’t fix fights with judges. Even though because of his popularity in the U.K., the match was booked for Bisping to win, you can’t predict this sport 100% and you can’t put a match together without considering that either guy can win, particularly when in this fight, one guy had a clear wrestling edge going in and the other had a clear striking edge going in (even if it didn’t materialize that way). I can’t say anything about this fight because I haven’t talked with anyone, but I know many times Dana White and Joe Silva have been unhappy about results of close fights and on occasion maybe not even so close fights. I haven’t seen White’s thoughts on this one yet. I’m not a proponent of the ten point must system the way it’s used, but that’s the system in place. All systems have flaws. There were plenty of bad decisions in Pride, and don’t even get me started on K-1, because with no athletic commissions, the judging in Japan is far worse and there is legitimate hometown favoritism to a much bigger degree there. If you are mad, write the New Jersey, California and Nevada commissions, as they are the only ones with the power to change things when it comes to judging. Now because there is no commission in the U.K., UFC did in fact pick these judges. It does set up a natural rematch, although right now I don’t know if they are thinking in that direction.

  37. Jeremy (not that Jeremy) says:

    Jeez, 45, take a breather.

    I’m only starting to learn when to walk away myself, but you need to grab a latte and relax.

  38. LR says:

    It was a close round, but Hamill won. I think a lot of the combinations that didn’t land at all from Bisping flashed in the judges’ minds when they came to a decision. He didn’t land 3/4 of the punches he threw and he landed a bunch of combos into Hamill’s forearms while he was defending.

    It wasn’t a convincing round win, and Bisping won the last round, but Hamill won that second round. Those descriptions are not very accurate at all. Hamill scored more than one takedown, although he did let Bisping back up on them. It still counts as an aggressive move to take an opponent down. I’ll stick to my theory that the judges thought more punches landed than they did. Hamill blocked a lot of them.

  39. Ultimo_Santa says:

    Not long ago they gave GSP the decision over Penn…for what? Securing a couple takedowns in R2 and R3. That alone pushed him over the top.

    So by that rationale, if Hamill won R1 (no one is disputing that) then shouldn’t he have won R2 AND R3 as well? Multiple takedowns, control in the clinch, and generally advancing and being more offensive…?

    I understand the event took place in the UK, and in the longrun, an undefeated Brit who’s great on the mic is more valuable than a deaf kid who can barely speak…but if this is ‘As Real As It Gets’, I’d rather just see a fair decision that see someone get screwed.

    I can hardly believe anyone believes this shit was legit, but then again, 29% of Americans think George Bush is going a ‘Great Job’, and that same number believe that earth is only 5,000 years old.

    So I guess anything is possible.

  40. Lynchman says:

    Ivan Trembow Says:

    September 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
    Any company has the right to drug-test its fighters. It’s just a matter of whether the fighters would be willing to comply, and again, UFC fighters generally do what Zuffa wants, when Zuffa wants them to do it, so that would not have been a problem.

    ========================
    Are you certain? As I understand it (this was how it was explained to me by a British citizen) employee consent is needed in England.

    I was told it is usually part of an employment agreement.

    This could be wrong, but that is how it was explained to me.

  41. Lynchman says:

    If I remember correctly, the question was what penalties the UFC could legally impose if a fighter tested positive at UFC 70.

    If a fighter claimed he was forced, against his will, to take a test then there would be a legal challenge. At least as I understand it.

    If so, that jives with what the Zuffa lawyers reportedly said.

  42. Mr. R says:

    About Mirko: “It’s not for nothing he never won a K-1 title”

    He did get to a k1 world final and lost to Ernesto Hoost, fighting with a broken rib. Who can say that he is a bad fighter or even a can without knowing anything about his previous career. He usually has ups and downs but i think he is the best striker in the hw division… ability he rarely uses and I really don’t know why. But I remember him throwing combos in the Alexander E. fight and destroying Minotauro before the armbar. I can’t say why he doesn’t use his kickboxing… but I guess he’s done for anyway.

  43. Ivan Trembow says:

    Yes, I am certain. Even if it’s in a country where “consent” is required, UFC fighters are not going to refuse to consent if they know what’s good for their careers. They have seen on many occasions what happens when fighters do something that upsets UFC management, and refusing to consent to take a drug test would be a far bigger offense than a lot of the other things that might upset people.

  44. Don says:

    Ivan, the question is less whether the fighters would consent than whether that consent would be deemed coerced, or truly voluntary, in the event a resulting punishment is challenged. There is also the potential conflict of interest with the testing being administered by the same organization that would receive any fines issued as a result of positive tests. It’s not such a stretch of the imagination to believe Zuffa lawyers may have taken some time before giving the green light to testing. Sure, it’s also possible the question of legality was a false excuse after the fact, but we have no proof one way or the other

  45. Manos says:

    “He beat me fair and square.” – Matt Hamill about Mike Bisping

    I’ve always loved the “IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ME YOU’RE A [insert ad hominem du jour]” Argument rabid fanboys always seem to cling to, by the way.

    Some people really need to grow up.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image