A bit round in the face but overall not too shabby for a greasy hippy! Actually he looks more like a caveman in that top picture. I’d call him the Geiko Caveman but Tony DeSouza owns that one … and really, it’s all poor Tony’s got left.
I’m not gonna bore people who don’t give a shit about this by posting this whole thing on the front page. But if you go after the jump you can read Joe Rogan’s opinion of the Bisping/Hamill debacle, as well as judge Jeff Mullan’s justifications. If there’s any other people feeling shamed enough to try and convince us they aren’t corrupt or incompetent, I’ll update this post with their thoughts too.
**Updated** Cecil People’s explanation has been added.
Joe Rogan (smokes lots of weed, doesn’t think we landed on the moon)
I’ve gotten a ton of emails about this, and I’ve seen all the threads here about it so I thought I would make a reply. I thought that clearly the most damage in the fight was done by Hamill in the first round. That was really the only time anyone was hurt. Hamill hit Bisbing with a huge right hand and had him hurt very badly. Hamill got some takedowns after that, but was unable to do any significant damage from them.
As for scoring, I just walked in the door from London, so I’ll have to look at the fight again and see what I think, but I remember when the fight was over I thought that if I had to bet, I would say that Hamill was going to walk away with a close decision. The first round was clearly his, the second was probably his as well, and I thought Bisbing did enough to win the third.
At the time I honestly didn’t think the decision was that crazy. We see so many fucking weird scorecards in the UFC that maybe I’m just getting used to it.
For instance, if I’m not mistaken, one of the judges in the Clay Guida vs Marcus Arellio fight scored the fight for Arellio, and I thought that was just fucking insane. Fortunately the other two saw it for Guida and he walked away with the win, but it’s an example of how goofy the scoring can be sometimes.
As for anyone telling me what to say or who to put the emphasis on during the commentary, I can tell you 100% that it has never happened. The ONLY thing that the ufc has ever asked me not to do, was mention Pride by name when they were in the middle of negotiations and shit was getting ugly between them. This was around the time when they had Wanderlei come into the UFC and challenge Chuck with a Pride T shirt on, and the UFC had felt like they were getting played and that Pride was using the negotiations to get free publicity for Pride in the USA and that they didn’t really have intentions to have any of their fighters come over here.
I thought regardless of the decision, the Hamill Bisbing fight was very entertaining, and both guys fought their hearts out. Coming on here and shitting on Bisbing for his performance is just ignorant. He did his best against a powerful guy that surprised him with some new found skills and a good game plan. The decision isn’t going to hurt Hamill in any way, and in fact it probably made him some new fans. It’s certainly not going to hurt him in the long run with the UFC. If I was advising Bisbing, I would probably tell him to drop down to 185. He walks around at 205 with a little body fat, and if he changed his diet and concentrated on the lighter weight class I think it suits his frame more.
I think there have been some really insightful posts on here about scoring, and some very good suggestions. One of them that I think we should look in to, is announcing the scorecards after each round. That could possibly help, and the only downside I can think of is that it would make some guys that are ahead ease up and take fewer chances because they know they’ve got a win in the bank if they can just coast. A way around that would be finishing bonuses for a submission or KO.
Overall though, I think this decision outlines a real problem that we have in this sport using a scoring system that was designed for boxing. I believe we need to use a more comprehensive system that quantifies each aspect of the sport. It’s not going to be easy to come up with, but I think that decisions like this are going to eventually force a change. Personally, I prefer the scoring that they used in Pride where they judge the fight as a whole and count the damage being scored at the end more highly.
Jeff Mullen (scored the bout 29-28 Bisping)
Hello to everyone on the Underground. I have been reading the underground for years. I used to post quite a bit. Then I decided it would be better for me to stay out of all the arguments. I want to thank all of you guys for being so nice to me through the years. I have seen almost no negative posts about me here until now.
I first started judging the UFC in 1996. I have been judging UFC almost twice as long as any other active judge. I am a former kick boxer and have been training grappling for 13 years. I am not here to argue with any of you or tell you that your opinion is wrong. I am only going to tell you why I judged the fight the way I did. Watch the fight again and turn off the sound. Commentary can color what you see.
No doubt Bisping dominated the 1st. He hurt Bisping with a right hand right off the bat and again near the end of the round. He out scored Bisping and busted him up. It was a very impressive round for Hamill but still a 10-9 round. Not dominate enough for a 10-8. Watch the beginning of the second round closely. When Hamill throws the jab, Bisping slips the punch and hits him with his own counter jab. It is hard to see on camera because Hamill?s back is to the camera. His back was also to Goldie who was talking like the beginning of this round was like a continuation of the 1st. If you look you will see that Hamill is facing me giving me a clear view of what is landing. Bisping was landing the jab again and again and not getting hit.
Hamill got 2 takedowns in rounds 2 and 3 but did very little with them. Bisping is using an active guard trying to turn for armbars and sweeps, Hamill is doing very little on top. Bisping is keeping him from scoring or improving his position. In the 3rd round Bisping actually lands more punchesd from the bottom than Hamill does from the top. In both the 2nd and 3rd rounds Bisping does more scoring. Striking.
Under pride style scoring Hamill would have won. He did more damage, but it was all in the 1st round. By 10 point must system Bisping won the fight 2 rounds to 1 . 29-28 Bisping. Sometime the angle you see the fight effects your decision. That is why they put the judges on 3 different sides.
BY THE WAY MARIO YAMASAKI THOUGHT BISPING WON ROUNDS 2 AND 3 ALSO. MARIO WAS THE REF AND HAD A BETTER VIEW THAN ANY OF US. I have never taken a payoff as some of you have suggested and never will. You may not agree with my decision but please don?t question my honesty.
Cecil Peoples (scored the bout 29-28 Bisping) -from the fight network
Peoples, a judge for over 40 UFC events, doesn’t argue that this latest malestrom’s first round went to Hamill and the third to the Englishman, deeming the second period the only one open for debate.
“I gave Bisping the second round, first because Hamill was beginning to run out of gas after the first round,” said Peoples. “Bisping fought like he wanted that fight. He came back aggressive [from the first round]. Hamill did take him down, but he did nothing with the takedown. Overall, Bisping was more aggressive. Hamill just held him down. Bisping’s punching was more effective.”
Peoples, who sat equidistant to judges Mullen and Watts cageside, says his decision was nothing personal, but one based heavily on human interpretation under the structure he was given to work in. Peoples awarded Bisping the final round based on the amount of damage he incurred on Hamill, and said that the Brit’s hometown popularity had no bearing in his thought process.
“I have no vested interest in either one of them,” said Peoples. “I could probably walk past both of them on the street and still not know who they are.”
Hey Fightlinker and friends,
Unfortunately the fight stoppage and a lot about the fight is under definite suspect. The ref wasn’t able to give a straight (no pun intended) answer to why he stopped it. he was also from the Lion’s Den, which is the same gym Kristin my opponent trains at. Kristin exhibited great sportsmanship but as for the ref, well I would argue he had a conflict of interest.
Here’s exactly what happened-
Fight starts, we start to exchange punches standing up, I go to for the takedown, Kristin ends up in top mount and starts throwing punches. I cover, realizing that the punches are nothing I need to be concerned about, I notice that I am near the cage wall and start to use it to flip off of with my feet to reverse my position (which Ken Shamrock should have done in his last fight with Tito). As I am half way through my flip to reverse mount, ref stops fight.
why I ask?
first he says I was on my side..
-no I was using the cage to reverse mount
then he says I wasn’t defending-
-Kristin was not connecting with her punches, I was unscathed.
then he says that she struck 4xs and I didn’t answer- funny Ken Shamrock didn’t mention this in the rules meeting.
The fight world is definitely political and as sketchy as any other.
I definitely want a rematch and will keep at it. I am super disappointed that I didn’t get the chance to actually engage in the ring and more so frustrated that I was told “this is amateur, we don’t want to see you ladies getting hurt” after the stoppage. This is MMA not a pillow fight. I was insulted by these words and if you watched the rest of the fights they got pretty heavy without any ref stoppages.
Thanks for the encouraging words. I know my name might be confusing to some and not having long hair and silicone tits, which tend to be gender determining factors in the ring add to this. I am trying to fight at lower weights and as far as I am concerned, the added pounded of big boobs and hair may work for some, but for me I rather optimize my power with muscle weight.
I think a lot of people come off as psychos, especially mma people who occupy the cage. Glad it’s a positive in your book! The Mental Ward of MMA, that’s fantastic.
Oh and if you want to see more videos and pix-
Syd Blakovich is my character who is supposed to be a psycho hungarian wrestler. Not a real psycho, but I play one on the internet.
Haha, that’s classic. I’d like to say that I’ll take a tough chick who’s flat like a board over some ditz with tits who can’t throw a proper punch. In fact, I look forward to the day when I can regularly watch the Barbies being pushed now get smashed by the real talent in women’s MMA.
For every person who’s jumping the gun on hyping Houston Alexander, theres someone out there jumping the gun on dismissing him. A lot of people (myself included) have called bullshit on his claim that he fought hundreds of fights. We also chalked up his ‘family man’ thing as a cliche. But considering he’s not going to dissapear any time soon, I decided to do some research into him and found this article that tells you everything you need to know. If you don’t feel like reading it, I’ll sum it up and lets see how his karma fares:
- Assaulted a police officer (borderline bad)
- Domestic abuse (very bad)
- Single father of six (he has full custody of them all)
- Donated a kidney to his daughter (50% less pain from kidney shots)
- Runs the School Culture Shock Tour, educating kids about music
- Pimped UFCJunkie.com at UFC75 (okay, that wasn’t in the article, but it’s still pretty cool)
The article also verifies his claims of an extensive amateur record. While it may not be hundreds, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was above 100 fights.
So while punching out cops and women are two pretty big things on the ‘Bad’ list, they were both in the past. I’d rather give a man props for the things he’s doing right now than shit on the mistakes he’s made in the past. His obvious dedication to his family and community go a long way to convincing me Houston is an okay guy. So as long as he keeps his nose clean and his violence in the ring, you can officially count me as on his bandwagon. WAR NEBRASKA!
**UPDATE # 2** Wow, a correction on a correction. Looks like The Reader did remove this specific paragraph from their article:
It wasn’t his only run-in with the law. He alludes to “a whole bunch of domestic,” referring to disturbances involving women that led to police intervention.
Of course, the problem with changing articles and not explaining why is that we don’t know why the paragraph was removed. You’ll notice some fishy wording in there … ‘alludes’ being the key one. The reporter also assigns his own assumption to what ‘domestic’ is.
Sure, it might make perfect sense to a white dude from the ‘burbs that ‘domestic’ = ‘domestic abuse’, but really it could just be Ebonics for ‘fucking some bitches up, putting them in their place’. Hmm … that’s not very good either. Anyways, I think the fact that the paragraph was retracted is noteworthy enough to still justify this correction. But it does feel good that I didn’t just make this whole thing up in my head.