Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Bleacher Report

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

Liver Kick

MMA Junkie

MMA Mania

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

MMA Betting

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


Sherdog Radio

Video Corner

Fight Hub

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."

« | Home | »

UFC 171: Johny Hendricks survives round one of Strikeforce Welterweight division takeover

By Zach Arnold | March 15, 2014

Print Friendly and PDF

Over 19,000 fans in Dallas and more UFC shows coming to Texas.

Event: UFC 171 (Saturday, March 15th) at American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas
TV: Fox Sports 1/PPV (8 PM EST/5 PM PST)

Exit question: Who’s next? Tyron Woodley or Nick Diaz?

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 32 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

32 Responses to “UFC 171: Johny Hendricks survives round one of Strikeforce Welterweight division takeover”

  1. Chris says:

    Woodley makes the most sense as the next challenger and has legit shot. I’m just not convinced Tyron is a 5 round fighter, so you have to favor Hendricks.

    Zero interest in seeing Nick Diaz in that spot since he has not fought in a year. But it doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen.

  2. 45 Huddle says:

    If Nick Diaz is next, it will be the most shameful thing the UFC has ever done.

    Nick Diaz doesn’t have a win in 2 1/2 years. He doesn’t have a win against a natural Welterweight in almost 3 years. He has lost his last 2 fights.

    There is no way you can try and sell a Nick Diaz title shot without taking your credibility to WWE levels.

  3. David m says:

    Rounds one and two of main event were close, rounds three and four were dominant. How are they worth the same? Also how the fuck is a takedown that causes no damage some kind of determinant? I can’t listen to Rogan, he no-calls everything of the guy he is cheering against. I will never understand mma scoring; takedowns, regardless of whether or not they do damage or put the guy in an advantageous position, are a big deal, while takedowns stuffed aren’t scored at all, even though they both demonstrate octagon control.

    • 45 Huddle says:

      This is a bad post even for you.

      1) Defense is never scored in sports (besides a touchback in Football). Does a blocked shot score points in the NBA? Does a double play score runs in MLB? You can block 100 punches in boxing and then be outstruck 2 to 1 for the round and lose it. Takedown defense does not score points in wrestling. So why should takedown defense score points in MMA? It shouldn’t. Blocking a takedown stops your opponent from scoring points, that is it.

      2) This was one of the easiest fights to score. The people who are complaining about it look like they know nothing about MMA. It was clear cut for Hendricks winning rounds 1, 2, & 5. Like not even a discussion. And Lawler won 3 & 4 without a discussion. None of the rounds were even that much more dominant then the others. They were all close in dominance levels.

      Come on. You have to be drunk….

      • david m says:

        As you have demonstrated countless times over your years posting here, you have the reading ability of a roll of toilet paper.

        I said stopping takedowns demonstrated octagon control. You said defense isn’t scored. No, fucktard, octagon control means controlling where the fight takes place. If someone wants the fight to be on the ground and you impede his will, you are imposing your will on the fight. Lawler stopped almost all of Hendricks’ takedowns (Hendricks was 2/10), demonstrating octagon control. As per usual, you are inventing straw man arguments in lieu of having anything cogent to say. If I had said Lawler should have won because he slipped a lot of punches, then you would have had a point. As it stands, however, you said nothing of value, and demonstrated your capacity to either be dumb or intellectually dishonest (most likely both).

        I don’t understand why a takedown scores points; Lawler hit Hendricks with countless jabs, and yet Rogan and Goldberg pretty much jizz on themselves when Hendricks takes Lawler down and does literally no damage with the takedown. This is the same bullshit that led to Phil Davis “defeating” Lyoto Machida. Only in mma can 20 seconds of being on top and doing nothing be worth more than 4 minutes of getting punched and kicked.

        You said none of the rounds were dominant. Que?? Did you watch the fight? Hendricks was almost unconscious in the third round, badly hurt. The first two rounds featured big moments by both men, with neither man putting the other in any real danger of being stopped.

        • david m says:

          Doug Crosby scored the second round 10-8 Hendricks, which is unreal, as it was a super close round, scored the 5th round a draw, and had the third and fourth only 10-9 Lawler, even though he almost knocked Hendricks out, hurt him badly, and had him an absolutely bloody mess. Oh wait, Hendricks got a takedown in the 4th! He should have won the round! What a joke this scoring system is.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          And Hendricks is showing aggression by going for those takedowns…. And then control and aggression cancel each other out…. Which gets back to my original point that defense does not score points.

          Lawler gets no credit for those 8 takedown defenses. None. That’s the way you score it. It’s very simple.


          “You said none of the rounds were dominant.”

          No… I said: “None of the rounds were even that much more dominant then the others. They were all close in dominance levels.”

          You need to learn to read.


          You don’t understand why a takedown scores points? Because it is effective offense. Duh!


          This was one of the easiest main events to score in a long time. All of the MMA Media that I have seen…. all of the commentators…. even Dana White…. Had it 2-2 going into the final round. And they all had Hendricks winning the last round.

          And I will go one step further. They all scored it 1, 2, & 5 for Hendricks. You must be dense or just angry at life to try to be arguing this.

        • Brendan says:

          “And I will go one step further. They all scored it 1, 2, & 5 for Hendricks. You must be dense or just angry at life to try to be arguing this.”

          No, they did not. Douglas Crosby scored round 2 10-8, and round 5 10-10.

        • 45 Huddle says:

          You will notice I never said the judges scored it that way. I know how Crosby judged the fight and people are bashing him for it.

          The consensus was that Hendricks won 1, 2 & 5. The numbers clearly back this up as well. And so do multiple websites who all had that scoring as well.

          Zero controversy.

      • Art says:

        Yes the rounds are right but. Robbie should have had a 10-8 round and it been a draw. So since you know so much you shoulda saw that. Nothin more irritating then a fan thinking he knows mma more than anyone else when all it is is opionions of. Nobody’s

        • 45 Huddle says:

          Nobody besides the Lawler nut huggers scored any of the round 10-8. None of the rounds warranted it.

    • Diaz's cashed bowl says:

      Crosby is pretty much known to be crooked, do a search and you’ll see. Remember when he went on line defending his ineptitude?
      That 10-8 round was pretty obvious padding the card(no way you score that 10-8 you’d have to be blind) so when the 5th rolled around realizing he would again look like a tool with 48-46 he scores the 5th a draw.

  4. Diaz's cashed bowl says:

    Good Lawler vs Smith III type fight, but that last minute sucked the 3 beer buzz right out of me.
    Lombard vs Woodley for that Rampage vs Randlemanesque #1 contender fight.
    Lawler vs Diaz II for #2.

  5. rst says:

    Oh yay,
    captain close decision strikes again.
    Hendricks is dangerous and everything, I remember the one punch KO’s, but I wonder how long he’s going to be able to hold on to that belt against well rounded guys.
    Theres more of those @ 170 then there were/are @ 185 for years IMO.
    Woodley seems to have a good chance.
    GSP beats him (again) in a rematch.
    A problem for Condit though is that he gets outwrestled. The same way he lost the hendricks fight was the same way he was on the way to losing the Woodley Fight.

    Proud of Lawler, but he really is still Lawler.
    Except for the skid right before he left UFC the first time, he’s always been Dangerous and beatable in the same ways.
    He’s a good fighter.
    That hendricks barely beat him makes hendricks a little bit better then good.

    @ the question:
    Diaz is a money maker and he beats hendricks standing,
    but loses the fight when hendricks resorts to wrestling.
    I’d rather see woodley then a twitter spectacle gimme fight from Diaz.

    BUT, from a business perspective you could have both.
    And in that scenario the Diaz gimme would obviously go first.

  6. Bruce says:

    Have Diaz fight Lawler. Then have Hendricks fight the Cuban guy, Hector guy has a good chance. The winners meet up again for the title. I want money fights and entertaining fights. Don’t give a squat about deserving this and that.

    • Nepal says:

      Bruce, you and Dana are on the same page about “deserving”. It is all about the money.

      Should Diaz get a shot, of course not but will it generate a lot of interest? yeah it will. It would be a short term gain though. It would really kill much further interest in Diaz. No way in hell, Diaz beats Hendricks, then it’s 3 straight loses. Standing, I don’t know who would win but with the proverbial “we all know” Hendricks will fully control Diaz on the ground. Diaz needs to fight and beat one top guy then he gets his title shot. Problem is, I’m not sure he could beat many if any of the top guys. Hendricks, Woodley would wrestle fuck him, Rory, would top control him, Condit vs. Diaz is a close call. Maia would be a great fight for Nick, Nick would win the stand up and could probably hold his own on the ground, at least wouldn’t be dominated like Story or Fitch was… (well Fitch wasn’t dominated but was 100% controlled).

      Honestly, I can’t see any of the top guys beating Hendricks right now. He is powerful, his striking has improved hugely in the past few years, he’s utilizing kicks and knees well. He’s become a complete fighter.

      However, “wars” like this Lawler event does not lead to a long career. Can only take that much head trauma in a very few fights before you start getting KO’d and then KO’d quickly and easily.

      • Diaz's cashed bowl says:

        What I saw was Robbie hitting a chin of stone repeatedly and was not hitting to the open body. And he threw no head kicks even though Hendricks was open for them. You’re going to have to head kick Johny to get him out of there, or have explosive power in the hands like Woodley or Lombard.
        Diaz however has neither, but does go to the body which should effect big rigs gas tank in the latter rounds. And on the ground Johny doesn’t raise up and do much GnP so he’s more susceptible to a tight BJJ game. I think Diaz has the reach which negates the speed of Hendricks in the grappling exchanges.

        Prediction… similar to lawler v Hendricks, but Diaz gets the nod because he has the fuel for the 5th round which was missing from Lawlers tank.

        • rst says:

          “…even though Hendricks was open for them.”

          I’m not sure you can say that.
          It seems to me that the best of them have to sneak in a head kick.

          Nobody is “open” for them.

          Lawler put up a good fight,
          but hendricks stood in front of him.

          He loses it everytime when hendricks shoots and lays like the Condit fight.

        • Diaz's cashed bowl says:

          No one is open to head kicks? lol
          anyway, watch after robbie lands a big shot or two rigg would drop his hands and turn away and duck his head. This is the classic easy head kick opening.

    • rst says:

      Diaz/Lawler 2 would be amazing,
      but apparently Diaz is a princess these days.

  7. 45 Huddle says:

    The numbers for the title fight. It doesn’t get much more clear cut then that. Each round had an obvious winner.

    The closest round was Round 1 where Hendricks had only 2 more significant strikes. But he also had 11 more total strikes in the round.

    • edub says:

      That doesn’t take into account the strikes that landed though. Most of Johny’s significant strikes in the first were leg kicks. He also landed a lot “Oh my god those are hard knees!” against the cage. Robbie consistently landed the harder/cleaner shots all fight (except for the last round). He rolled with most of everything, and blocked a lot of shots too.

      I agree with the score itself, but I believe it was very close (even the second). I think Rogan completely overvalued Johny’s work rate over the first 10 minutes, and even though Johnny landed more his shots were not as clean as Robbie’s.

      Right guy won though. I’d personally like to see an immediate rematch, but I’m a Lawler homer.

  8. Alan Conceicao says:

    So, if I understand correctly, this fight was a financial success and really great. So, why doesn’t anyone want a rematch? What is with MMA fans hating rematches so much?

    • edub says:


      Just have a rematch.

      • klown says:

        The reason is, it’s boring. There are only so many top fighters, and they only fight so many times a year, it’s more fun to match them up against new fighters rather than guys they’ve fought before. I’m down with re-matches, but immediate rematches are the worst.

        • Nepal says:

          It’s not because it’s boring. Lawler/Henricks 2 would be great. It’s that it’s (1) not deserved, virtually 100% of fans think Hendricks won and (2) It just isn’t a big enough money maker. If it were to generate tons of hype and buys, Dana would do it in a minute. You can’t get any hype for redoing an event that wasn’t controversial.

          There are enough guys “in the mix” that can generate enough hype. By enough guys, really I mean Rory. Woodley and Lombard looked like crap other than their short bursts of mayhem. They would still be worthy competitors for Hendricks but I think the smart money is on Rory right now.

        • edub says:

          The guy that’s getting most fan support on polls is Diaz, and he is probably the most undeserving.

          Nobody outside of our bubble cares about who deserves what anymore, and I doubt people want to see the guy Robbie just beat fight Johny instead of him.

    • rst says:

      Unless it was unusually close,
      immediate rematches is as hammy as twitter title shots.
      Was that intended as a gimme fight in the first place?
      Would Lawler ever win that fight?

      Conceiro says,
      “why dont you just throw it all down the toilet. It’s fun to watch it go down.”

  9. rst says:

    Its good to hear Lawler completely aware of how he lost the fight.
    (He’s laying on me.)
    But its not as if this is something that has ever been a strength for Lawler to defy.

    I wonder how well hendricks is going to do against a wrestler.

    You can pretty much say that in any division these days.
    In Jones toughest fight against Gus,
    maybe he should have used some wrestling.

  10. rst says:

    I sure hope Condits knee will be okay!
    He’s far from done.
    I thought he arguably beat hendricks.
    And he can beat him again.

    But he makes a mistake going for a flying strike against a wrestler?!
    What was he thinking?


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