Who won GSP Hendricks and what was your score?

Is GSP the best WW of all time? Yes.


That being said, GSP lost his fight to Johny Hendricks as he only won round 3 and nothing else. GSP won the decision, he did NOT win the fight. 49-46 Johny Hendricks should have been the only score on all three judges scorecards. 48-47 Hendricks is too lenient towards GSP. Striking stats in MMA and boxing are always deceptive and do not tell who truly won the fight. George's strikes were much less effective than Hendricks strikes. George was throwing pitter patter Joe Calzaghe slaps whereas Hendricks was the more effective fighter standing up and on the ground.


GSP won the decision (but clearly lost the fight) for the same reasons Evander Holyfield had a draw with Lennox Lewis, and why Rampage beat Machida - because the judges were incompetent. That is the ONLY reason George won the fight because his skills clearly did not match up with Hendricks' and his performance did not warrant a victory. GSP was the favorite in the fight so judges made excuses to give him the rounds.


No human being on earth can refute these FACTS - not opinions. saying foolish statements such as - GSP "controlled" the fight so he deserved to win, the strike stats say GSP won the fight, GSPs "technical brilliance" in the fight earned him the win, you need to understand the technical aspect of MMA to see why he won - simply will prove one's own mastery of excuse-making as well as incompetence, in the same way that GSP and the two judges demonstrated their incompetence at UFC 167.


In no way did GSP out perform Hendricks. Hendricks was much more effective than GSP in the fight and only a blind man or an ignorant, biased man would score the fight for GSP. Furthermore, if you bring up the opinions of professional fighters who felt GSP won the fight this will only demonstrate your own inability to think for yourself and will prove that you are a case of sheep following the herd, as well as proving that you are ignorant and blind like every human being who scored the fight for GSP.


The fight was a complete robbery. Saying anything else - even saying it was a close fight that could go both ways - is a complete farce and dishonest.


I know certain incompetent people have prepared fallacious arguments to comically try and deny these FACTUAL (not opinionated) statements and I will dismantle those weak arguments before people may use them.


1) You must be a just bleed fan you don't know MMA
This is a typical excuse for someone who has no factual basis (unlike myself) to support their statements. Stick to the topic at hand instead of proving your own incompetence like George proved his incompetence in his ability to deal with Hendricks vastly superior fighting skills at UFC 167.


2) On the stats GSP outstruck Hendricks
Simply because the punch/strike stats numerically favor GSP does not prove that George won the fight. Fights are scored round by round, not based on the overall punch stats. Furthermore, punch stats are unreliable since they depend on certain people's ability to push a button to record a strike, regardless of whether the strike was effective or not. Even a glancing blow that does no damage (like the vast majority of George's strikes in the Hendricks fight) can be counted on the striking stats. Conversely, Hendricks ratio of significant strikes compared to George was very much in Johny's favor. If you watch MMA/boxing you'll see that occasionally the stats say something like fighter X landed 40 shots in the round, but you will never be able to count more than 10. Using this as your validation that GSP legitimately "won" the fight only proves your own inability to use logical thinking.


3) You never let the fight go in the hands of the judges, thats Hendricks fault.
There is some truth to this but it still does not do anything to deny the FACT (not opinion) that George was gifted a decision he did not earn. George let all but 3 of his fights post-Serra go to decision and was not robbed like Hendricks was. If George was never penalized for going the distance then it still isn't fair for Hendricks to be penalized with a robbery after smashing George's face in and dominating the fight.


4) In a title fight, you have to TAKE the title to win it. Hendricks didn't do enough to TAKE the title - 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. GSP lost that fight regardless of the fact that he was champion (but he was gifted a decision). If that fight was a 5 round main event with no title on the line should that have affected how the judges or fans scored the bout? No. This argument is a statement made by human parrots who blindly repeat what others say without actually realizing how stupid this statement is.


GSP - the greatest WW in MMA history. But he lost the fight (even though he won the decision) to Hendricks clearly. Not even close. Black and white. Hendricks won. Saying anything else proves that you are one of the sheep that follows the herd blindly without acknowledging anyone else's (myself) vastly superior wisdom. I could go on and on, but one has to slowly open the eyes of blind sheep stumbling through the darkness to the light of truth. Doing so too quickly may cause these blind sheep to deny the truth even more vehemently. Opening the eyes of blind sheep slowly may still cause these sheep to deny the truth, but eventually the truth will set them free.


I challenge any human being on earth to try and bring up points to counter these INDISPUTABLE FACTS (not opinions) that were presented. What has been written is wisdom of the highest degree, and a person gifted with exceptional knowledge (myself) has been gracious enough to bestow this wisdom upon the readers of this masterpiece. Can any human being be foolish enough or ignorant enough to challenge these statements? Only time will tell. If anyone does miraculously and legitimately deny these facts with FACTUAL (not opinionated) arguments I will respond to that person and acknowledge their wisdom. Unfortunately for GSP fans, it is only possible for a person with higher wisdom than myself to prove me wrong in any aspect of writing, and a person with such wisdom would not ever be foolish enough to try and deny these FACTUAL statements that I presented. For this reason, there is realistically no chance that I will respond to anyone foolishly attempting to negate these factual statements.