Ben Hendeson - good fighter. paper champion Henderson did not win vs Thomson legitimately. Henderson was nothing more than a paper champion during his so called "title reign" and judges do not know how to judge. Because of incompetent judging and Henderson's own good fortune on the scorecards, he has become the Sven Ottke of MMA. They say to never leave it in the hands of the judges but Henderson has no reason not to since he will get the gift decision every time. Henderson continues to unconvincingly win fights against top contenders (like Thomson), making him a paper champion. Beating Nate Diaz (who never was a true contender to begin, and got showed up by Thomson) winning a gift against Edgar and Thomson and barely beating Melendez by the slimmest of margins does not make you a legitimate champion. He is an elite fighter and one of the best 155ers, but not a legitimate champion. When he finally didn't have the judges to bail him out in the second fight vs Pettis, Henderson got showed up as the now former paper champion he always was and will be. Henderson had a chance to prove his legitimacy in avenging his loss to Pettis, but got destroyed instead. And now Henderson was given a decision that he did not deserve, what a surprise. What has been written is IRREFUTABLE, INDISPUTABLE, FACT. not opinion. I challenge any human being to try and refute these UNDENIABLE claims. I know certain people have prepared fallacious and comical arguments to foolishly deny these FACTUAL, not opinionated, statements. People who attempt to use these arguments or anything else that conflicts with the unquestionable wisdom i have blessed upon Bleacher Report are simply blind sheep that follow the herd, nothing more. I will attempt to open the eyes of these sheep that have been blindly stumbling through the darkness for so long. Unfortunately, the light of truth might be too strong for blind sheep that are incapable of thinking for themselves in the first place, and this may cause the blind sheep to deny the truth even more vehemently. Still, it is a risk that must be taken. 1. Henderson's competition is tough/have good chins you can't expect him to always win convincingly - so what? Champions almost always win convincingly regardless of competition. Thats why they are TRUE champion- Anderson Silva, Jon Jones, GSP, Aldo, Barao, Cain, D Johnson - they all beat top contenders CONVINCINGLY. Henderon's name clearly does not belong in that list. Regardless of how hard they are to finish, at least beat them CONVINCINGLY like GSP almost always did. Henderson's only convincing title fight win was vs Nate Diaz whose only notable win is against gatekeepers Cerrone and Gomi and a washed up Gray Maynard. One slim victory isn't a big deal, but when all of your defenses are slim (except for the one against a bum - Nate Diaz) that is weak. Pettis, unlike, Henderson, convincingly won both his title fights in the WEC and UFC. That is a legitimate champion. Pettis is no Chris Weidman who had the title handed to him twice on a silver platter. 2. Well GSP always went to decision so just because Henderson goes to decision doesn't make him a paper champion - NO. GSP won decisions CONVINCINGLY (except for ONE TIME when Hendricks convincingly beat GSP, only to get robbed. Maybe his first win vs BJ Penn wasn't that convincing but thats it). Henderson only did so vs a bum in Nate Diaz and UNconvincingly beat Edgar and Melendez, and after he was exposed as a paper champion by Pettis for the second time, he was once again gifted a decision against Thomson. 3. In a title fight, you have to do enough to TAKE the title to win it. Melendez, Edgar didn't do enough to TAKE the title when Henderson was "champion" - This is a made-up and fallacious argument made by people who do not have a legitimate argument to back up their statements (unlike myself). One could just as easily retort with the following idiotic statement - If you are the champion, you have to DEFEND the title to keep it. The champion didn't do enough to DEFEND the title so he should have to give it up to the challenger. Every fight should be scored with neutrality as to whether or not fighter X is a champion or challenger. If you lost you lost, period. No ifs ands or buts. No special circumstances. No silver lining. None. This argument is a statement said by human parrots who blindly repeat what others say without actually realizing how stupid this statement is. 4) You are not supposed to leave the decision in the judges hands. that is Edgar, Melendez, Thomson's fault. - If you are not supposed to leave it in the judges hands, then why is it fair for Henderson to always get the preferential treatment from the judges? This statement is again repeated blindly by parrots who only look at the situation from one perspective and are incapable of thinking for themselves. Whether or not the fight goes to the judges is irrelevant. When a fighter illegitimately wins decisions (but loses fights) and becomes the Sven Ottke of MMA that is a problem regardless of whether the other fighter let the match go the distance. What has been written is wisdom and knowledge of the highest degree, and I have been gracious and considerate enough to bless the readers of this masterpiece with my wisdom and knowledge. I advise no one to open their mouth (or type on their keyboard) unless it is in agreement with what has been written above. Doing the opposite will only prove one's own incompetence, much in the same way that Henderson proved his incompetence as a "champion" after getting destroyed by Pettis (twice). If anyone can LEGITIMATELY refute my factual statements, I will respond to recognize your intelligence. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be intelligent and at the same time refute the irrefutable, so my response will realistically never happen. What has been written is IRREFUTABLE UNDENIABLE INDISPUTABLE UNCONTESTABLE NONSUBJECTIVE UNQUESTIONABLE FLAWLESS FACT (not opinion or conjecture in the slightest). So good luck to anyone who disagrees with this flawless masterpiece of the highest wisdom possible.
Ha you absolute loser! You've spent all that time writing these utterly ****, irrelevant garbage threads for what? They need an age limit on these boards
Mark Hunt in his prime had the best chin in history. MMA fighters' chins are not worse than boxers, the reason for all the KOs is that they are using tiny 4 ounce gloves. Boxers' chins are saved by the big cushion pillow gloves in boxing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upwkcdvG40Y There is no boxer on earth who could have taken that kick to the head from Crocop and not gotten KO'd.
People must also keep in mind that mma fighters have to take full force knees and headkicks that generate much more concussive force than any punch. This and the smaller gloves is the reason for more knockouts not weaker chins. It really is amazing what ill-informed generalizations some deluded boxing fans come up with.
Proof??? How can you prove that statement? The fact that Hunt was KTFO by Manhoef when he was only 34-35 years old leads me to think otherwise. Hunt had a serviceable beard in his prime, but not the greatest.... Not even the greatest in k-1, Ustinov and Ignashov have better chins than him.
It's already been proven that punches from boxing gloves, and MMA gloves aren't really that different... Boxing gloves are designed to protect the hands of the fighter. I watch Boxing, MMA, Kickboxing.. I can tell you that on average MMA fighters take a punch worse than a boxer does.
It's pretty obvious that kicks are harder than punches. Mirko had the most devastating left high kick of alltime, he ****ed up everybody who he landed it clean on. He was also wearing shoes which make the kick even more potent. Ustinov never fought the hard bangers like Hunt did like Bernardo, Lebanner, Crocop, Sefo, Leko, Filho etc or take huge shots on the chin like he did. Ignashov is a good pick but I have my questions on whether he could take a Crocop LHK. Hunt in his prime just had the freakiest ability to absorb punishment. Manhoef is P4P greatest powerpuncher in the history of MMA and Hunt had already all those wars in K1 that took away some of his punch resistance. Yes Boxing pillow gloves and MMA gloves hit with around the same force, but how is this force dispersed? Big pillows spread the weight out evenly over the face while small gloves do pinpoint more acute damage. Also small gloves equals worse defence because its harder to cover up with smaller gloves, there are more openings. Anyways, there are many MMA fighters with iron chins and they are absorbing hard boney knees and shins to the dome.
