I agree. I was watching the fights this weekend with a buddy of mine who trains out of the same gym as me.
We both screamed "BULLSHIT" when we heard the decision.
Hamill dominated round 1....Hamill stalked Bisping and took him down at will throughout 2 and 3...While Bisping's striking looked "cleaner" in the technical sense, the stand-up looked pretty even with Hamill being the aggressor, etc...etc.....etc..
Reading Mullen's breakdown of what he saw ringside, coupled with the limitations of the 10 point must system, I suppose I can see it either way now.
Anyway, big plus for Mullen coming out jumping into the merciless interwebz to let us know "what's up wit that?".
Yeah Mullen's POV is interresting
And Hamil has no one to blame but himself in that he could have / should have finished Bisbing off on the ground. There were times, especially in RD 1 where he let Bisbing up.
Bisbing is a dink for acting like he won anything but a controversial decision.
Of course, in Dana's defense, he has ALWAYS said...
Leave it all in the Ocatgon. Dont let it go to the judges.
I lost a lot of respect for Bisping Saturday night, and gained a little for Hamill.
I don't give a good god damn what it sounds like to you. I wanted Bisping to win, I was glad he won (even if the decision felt dodgy). Matt Hamill proved himself an asshole during training on TUF, and I haven't liked him since. But I don't need to "cover my ass" since Mullen did quite a nice job explaining what I only partly saw when rewatching round 2, rewinding every possible strike to gauge whether it landed and trying to gauge the distance between the two fighters when there wasn't a side view available. I feel pretty certain that you went and "recounted" round 2 with the end result already in mind, which might explain why you saw a different fight.
Originally Posted by dwak
When I went back and rewatched, I acknowledged that there was enough grey area for there to be dissent in the match outcome. The lack of good angles at times meant that I only got halfway to the truth of the matter: it seems Bisping took round 2 cleanly. If Mario Yamasaki, being the ref, also felt it was 2-1 Bisping, then there isn't much left to debate.
Edit: Except, maybe, the scoring system.
Why does everyone defending Bisping refuse to acknowledge that most of us HATE Hamill, wanted him to get beat senseless, were rooting for Bisping, and still feel that Hamill was robbed?
Even the O2 Arena in LONDON booed the decision.
Anytime a judge makes a horrible call like that, their excuse is always the same: "I had a different angle then what you saw on tv."
and to those that think it was a hometown screwjob...please remember that that the on judge that scored it for Hamill was the one british judge.
No one had a better seat in the house than the ref. I'm going to assume Mullen isn't flat-out lying when he says Mario felt the match was 2-1 Bisping.
that and Yamasaki's a pretty damn good ref...if it was Yves Lavigne I'd say who cares.
thats how i view it too
Originally Posted by Dagon Akujin
and add the post fight comments to his rep, and he went from fan favorite, to huge heel overnight in his own country, thats gotta suck. He's like the anti-GSP when it comes to humility
to be fair, i think yamasaki usually does a decent job reffing (out of all the refs i see in UFC, he's not one I see many complaints about)
Count me among the people who were rooting in favor of Bisping and against Hamill.
I didn't see it that way at all. Though Bisping had a large JiuJitsu skills advantage, it seemed that his gameplan was to avoid the takedown and, if that failed, to immediately try to stand up. I saw virtually no effort to reverse or to sub Hamill once the fight hit the ground.
Originally Posted by Judge Jeff Mullen
It seems that Mullen gave Bisping points for something that didn't happen, irrespective of the sightlines.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO