BS decision. How did Lawler win that fight? He was dominated for almost the whole fight, outgrappled and outstruck. I only gave him 1 round. Feel bad for Hendricks, robbed in last 2 of 3 fights.
I only saw the last three rounds, and two of them looked like they were Lawler's (the fourth one being really close). Anyway that paper champ received a lot of decision were given to him in fights he didn't diserve to win. (Kosheck, Condit and Lawler I).
Close fight, no robbery. That 49-46 card was ridiculous though. Losing a close fight isn't a robbery. Wasn't robbed against GSP either. All came down to how you scored the first rd in that one, which really could have gone either way. I scored it for GSP.
Far from a perfect way of scoring fights. It was close. I didn't watch the entire thing, but just by looking at the PBP on Sherdog, and other sites it seems like it could have gone either way and was by no means a robbery. I'm sure there will be a 3rd fight, maybe after Lawler rematches Macdonald.
I have to watch it again. I had Hendricks winning the first 4 rounds. 12 out of the 15 press row scorers had Hendricks winning the fight. Hendricks dominated the grappling in this fight, scoring 5 TDs to Lawler's 0. Tbh Lawler looked slow and terrible for most of the fight. If you compare the first fight (in which almost everybody agreed Hendricks won) to the second one, it's clear Hendricks did a better job in the rematch. I honestly struggle to see how anyone could give Lawler 3 rounds(esp rounds 2,3 and 4 where Hendricks outlanded and outgrappled Lawler) This also was the first fight in UFC history where the champion lost by split Dec. It's always been the standard with UFC judges that to beat a champion you have to beat down the champ. Well at least that was the logic that GSP and his fans used when he received the controversial decision against Hendricks.
Considering Hendricks was a paper champ who was given a decision in the first fight, that logic of beating down the champ to become the champ doesn't stand in this case.
Who cares if the judges gave Lawler 8 rounds to 0, what matters is that we don't have to listen to Hendricks's whiney ass for a while now. Can't stand that guy. How many times can he say "...you know what I'm saying..." in an interview??? The guy didn't get robbed, he gave this fight and the GSP fight away in the 5th rounds, not because he was coasting...or fighting 70%, because he's fat and runs out of gas.
He's annoying... I agree. Those fights were both close, and could have gone either way. He shouldn't give up the championship rounds if he wants to win these fights. Condit probably would have beaten him in a 5 round fight as well.
It was an awful fight, not much action except from the early exchange and Lawler blitz at the end Could have gone either way but Hendricks deserved the L for his gameplan I'm a fan of both so not too bothered, for me now both have won the belt :happy
I gave Lawler 1, 5. I thought Lawler didn't do anything in the fourth until the end of the round. I didn't think that outweighed what Hendricks did for the previous 4/5ths of it. Judge that gave Lawer four rounds needs to be investigated.
I saw both fights and tbh, I thought Lawler won the first fight and Hendricks won the second one. But both were close, so neither were robberies.
robbed maybe a bit overstating it, actually on second thought I think your kind of right, it was a close fight, from a specific perception I could agree with robbed, most of all I agree it was a close fight and hard to score conclusively.
