Discussion in 'MMA Betting Discussion' started by EzFlyer, Mar 4, 2017.
Explain how Woodley won that fight. Which of rounds 1,2,4 did he win?
The NSAC commissioner at the press conference said that he agreed with two of his three judges that Woodley won round 2.
1 and 2 basically had nothing happening. It shouldn't be shocking when you have two definitive rounds for Woodley, one definitive round for Thompson, and then two rounds with very little offense on either side. Thompson didn't do shit in that fight.
Wonderboy should've won. Yes his attack was slow and boring, but Woodley allowed him to dictate the fight. I thought he had 3 rounds easy. Wonderboy's style is to create distance and dictate the pace. So you have to outpace him, and be agressive. That's what Woodley did in the last round, but he pretty much threw the other 4 away(other then that one little takedown moment.)
You can't complain about the result of a fight in which neither guy did anything for 23 minutes
if nothing happened then shouldn't octagon control be rewarded?
Control how though? Feinting with zero offense? It's not like Woodley was shooting a ton and Thompson stuffing. Both were just having a staring contest. If you actually look at the significant strike in Rd 2, it was when Woodley cut Thompson. I think even Cruz said something at the time along the lines of "Thompson isn't really doing much but feinting". It was a round of basically nothing happening, and a cut will sway it.
I just don't get why people are outraged by the decision. For someone who supposedly had so much octagon control, he had so little offense. If he has the fight where he wants it, then why does he suck so bad at getting anything done?
He said a ton of weird shit
He said basically 10-10 is unacceptable. He tried to backtrack from that later, but he said it. We will not see ANY 10-10's in Vegas.
He also said 10-8 Rd 5 was "unacceptable"
I just find both statements to be very interesting and telling for fights in Vegas going forward. At least until they adopt new rules/scoring.
For the record, my opinion is that Thompson won but he deserved what he got for his decisions. Thompson may not have done shit in some of those rounds, but Woodley did even less.
Either way, it's not one fight I'm going to spend a lot of words on. I will say that I didn't hate this fight as much as most people, maybe because I expected it to be something like this (hoped wonderboy would let it go more; he didn't)
Bro, you didn't answer the question.
First of all, Thompson hurt Woodley in the 1st with a check hook. It was so fast and tight that the commentators missed it. Check it out again if you get a chance.
As for 2: In Vegas 10-10s are not given out and a winner must be chosen for each round. Thompson backed Woodley up the whole time and the strike counts slightly favored Thompson. When the striking and grappling are even, the round is supposed to be decided on "aggression" and "octagon control", both of which went to Thompson.
Yeah, Thompson "didn't do shit" in 2 but Woodley did even less. Are you saying you actually would have given the 2nd to Woodley?
Exactly, my jaw was almost on the floor when he said you can't get a 10-8 for 50 seconds of work. You can nearly kill a man 6 times over in 50 seconds. Just bizarre.
People bet on fights expecting the judges to follow the judging criteria. There is not precedent for scoring a fight that way.
Bro we have all been screwed by judging before. Better to just accept it and move forward. We got another two events back to back, so less crying more capping.
I didn't have a dime on the fight and laughed at people who were picking the fight confidently. It's the principle here that we need consistency in judging to maximize profits long-term.
Wait just to be clear (I honestly didn't even watch the fight since I was out last night and wasn't gonna buy the ppv to watch recorded with no Ferg/Khabib on the card. But I need some clarity here on what you guys are discussing).
The NSAC are or are not saying 10-10 rounds are acceptable? A "10 point must" scoring system has always meant that at least one fighter is awarded 10 points. If the other fighter does less, he's awarded an amount less than 10. But to my knowledge there's never been anything released saying that 10-10 rounds are unacceptable. Is that actually what the NSAC is saying? No 10-10 rounds in Vegas?
That's definitely good to know one way or the other.
If you listen to Bennett, he said that without saying it. He said that 10-10 is a possibility but in the 3 years he has been in charge, not a single 10-10 has been given in Nevada. He seemed proud of this fact. Add in the fact that he openly criticized the one judge for scoring a 10-8 for Round 5, and it seems clear that they are not going to allow 10-10s in Nevada.
That doesn't mean much. The commission will always have the judges back (at least in public).
I scored it 3-2 to WB. However WB did fuck all he only brought it on himself.
Pretty much feel the same way. WB won for sure based on the scoring criteria but I can't bother being upset because he didn't do shit for 5 rounds. What sucks is that I bought out of my Woodley bet and hopped on WB DEC instead on LB.
What hurts me is that I could have taken Woodley at 4/1 in the 5th round, but decided against it as I thought "Wonderboys got this"
Watching the fight back (Yes I put myself through it again)it was certainly way closer than I thought.
Separate names with a comma.