twitter google

The Unpopular Position: Michael Bisping Was Robbed

By Ben Fowlkes

I don’t expect anyone to agree with what I’m about to say. I’m not even sure I agree with it, at least not a hundred percent, but something about Saturday’s decision didn’t sit well with me. Is it because I find Michael Bisping a little more likable than Rashad Evans — whose nickname, “Sugar”, could not possibly be less fitting? Maybe. It could also be because I hate seeing wrestlers win decisions for doing very little besides taking people down. I’m not sure, but just for the sake of a spirited argument, here are my reasons why Bisping deserved to win that fight.

1. Simple Mathematics

I’ve gone on and on about how I don’t think the ten-point must system is working for three-round MMA fights, so I’ll spare you that lecture this time around. But even within that system I think Bisping deserved to win. Evans took round one. He landed a couple of shots on the feet and took Bisping down, even if he didn’t do much after that. Bisping, on my scorecard, won round two. Round three was close, and I think it belonged to Bisping for stuffing most of Rashad’s takedown attempts and landing with greater frequency on the feet.

But the reason I think Evans won round three on two of the judges’ scorecards was because of the way the round finished. It almost looked as if Evans was about to mount an effective offense, but that last takedown (kind of) meant nothing. Bisping controlled the majority of the rest of the round, and what happens last in a round shouldn’t influence the judges any more than what happened one minute in.

At the very least, the third round was even, 10-10.

2. Takedowns Do Not Necessarily Equal Offense

Bisping made a point of saying that the reason he thought he won was because he negated Evans’ takedowns by getting back to his feet without sustaining damage. When he first said that, I thought it sounded like a man trying to rationalize things to himself. As I thought about it, however, the idea grew on me.

A takedown is, in some way, like a submission attempt. It is a step in the direction of an effective offense. But it is not, by itself, a significant offense. KO-inducing slams aside, fights have never been ended by takedowns. A takedown is a way of getting your opponent into a position more favorable for you to mount an offense from. If you take a man down and land in his guard, then do nothing to hurt him before he stands back up (note the difference between him standing up on his own and him waiting for a referee standup), why should that decide a fight?

If a fighter preferred to fight in the clinch and was successful at forcing one upon his opponents, even if he couldn’t damage them from the position, should that gain him a victory just for imposing his will?

Think about it: after the first round, what did Evans do well besides take Bisping down? If we reward takedowns that lead to nothing, we’re essentially rewarding a stall tactic. That’s not a strategy I want to see become widespread in MMA.

3. The Pride Edict

I’m not one of the people who believes that Pride was in all ways superior to the UFC. Not at all. But I will admit that I preferred their scoring criteria. Not only was it free of the phrase “Octagon control”, but it took into account attempts made to finish the fight. Sure, an attempt to finish a fight isn’t the same as finishing one, but it does encourage fighters to actively look for the victory rather than doing just enough and then holding on for a judges’ decision. Under that criteria (which is not the UFC’s criteria, I know) Bisping deserved to win. He was looking to damage Evans throughout the fight, not looking to stall his attack.

I also liked the way Pride scored the whole fight and not individual rounds. Especially in MMA, where fights are only three rounds, the ten-point must system is deficient (damn, now I’m back on that sermon). A fight can be drastically different in round three than it was in rounds one and two, but the ten-point must system isn’t equipped to compensate for that. A fighter can just coast through the third if he’s confident he won the first two, and the worst that’s likely to happen is a draw, assuming the final frame is scored 10-8.

What we’re asking judges to do is tell us who won the fight, and how can they do that until the fight is over? I realize that will shift even more focus to what happens last, but fighting should, to some extent, be about who can last the distance and not just who can do enough to win individual rounds. To make a terrible analogy that I will later deny ever making, which part of a war would you rather win: the beginning or the ending? There. Glad that’s over with.

Now, having made all these arguments, I’m still not sure I really believe that Bisping should have won. The fight was close no matter how you look at it, and judges’ decisions are always going to be maddeningly unpredictable. I suspect that a lot of people wanted to see him lose a close decision because they felt he stole one in his last fight. It’s kind of like what’s going on with O.J. at the moment, only Bisping isn’t at fault for what the judges did in his last fight and O.J. is, well, really at fault for a lot of stuff.

I guess what I’m really trying to get at here is what I see as a flaw in the scoring system. MMA isn’t boxing, so why are we using boxing’s scoring system?

The answer (or, for Spike TV fans, the “manswer”) probably has a lot to do with state athletic commissions and their requirements for regulation, but sooner or later MMA is going to reach a critical mass in terms of popularity that will allow it to dictate what form it takes. When that day comes, I hope the scoring system is one of the things they’ll take a long look at.

Ben Fowlkes is the publisher of the MMA blog The Fighting Life, a contributor to CBS Sports, and the editor of the International Fight League’s official website (

  • plain and simple…. dont leave it up to the judges!

  • Gabber says:

    I would have to agree with you, I felt Bisping wanted to win the fight whereas after round 1, Rashad just wanted to get through the fight. He was a couple swings away from the tiresome lay n pray strategy. I personally don’t think takedowns can be counted if you take no damage when you’re down and get back up. To me, no points can be scored for it. It’s the striking equivalent of just standing there and unleashing on a guy, with his forearms up. It gets you nowhere.

    I was a little disappointed with Rashad’s conditioning, he didn’t push to win, Bisping was still trying to clinch and knee and elbow as they spread apart. Like I said, I think Bisping just wanted to fight more and negated Rashad’s offense.

    I think it was close enough that Bisping won the third for not being gassed, I also felt he kept the most consistent pressure.

    And on the same subject, Rashad stole his last draw, just because they docked Tito for grabbing the fence, I didn’t want to see either of these dudes win. 😛

  • ufcfan says:

    i agree with you as well bro.

    what’s with bisping and controversial decisions!!!

    i see things similar…round one = evans, round two=bisping
    and round three is the question mark (similar to how round two is the question mark in the bisping – hamill fight).

    evans did leave the “lasting impression” by securing that last takedown similar to what he did with tito in their fight.

    but i do have an issue with takedowns, you take someone down big deal???
    its what you do when you get there, in terms of evans not a lot.

    on the contrarian side, i also think bisping was a bit daft by not attacking evans a bit more, he was so gassed starting in round 2, that a concentrated/relentless attack may have worked magic.

    nevertheless…good writeup and i respect you for writing that. cuz a lot of people will argue against you.

    all in all, both fighters disappointed me. moving forward, evans needs to seriously step up the cardio game and bisping should drop down a weight class.

  • Jesse Denis says:

    The Pride system would ruin Sylvia, so I’m okay with that.

  • I believe Rashad won, but I can easily see where Bisping could have won as well. There is one point that is predominant throughout MMA judging that should be addressed, the value of a takedown and what the value is worth with or without activity after the takedown.

    It seems to me that this was the deciding factor. I chronicled on my site awhile back about Jeff Mullen’s stance on takedowns that seemed to change from one interview to the other, and I think the consensus is that takedowns are worth something no matter what. Mullen stated that exact wording when interviewed after the Guida-Griffin split decision. Mullen then contradicted that statement during the Bisping-Hamill bout. He stated that Hamill did nothing in the takedowns, and had no real bearing on the scoring. That contradiction seems to be something that many judges are having a hard time deciphering. Do they count takedowns even if the fighter can’t seem to do anything with them?

    Bisping thought that because he nullified the takedowns with good defense and got back up that they should not have counted. If the judges were in that type of school of training, he may have won. Fact is, I think most judges still consider a takedown, a takedown, points awarded in their minds. MMA judges need to all get on the same page. I think takedowns should only be awarded some type of value if the competitor does something with it. If that was the case, I think Rashad would have a hard time convincing the judges he won.

  • bigfish042 says:

    I totally DISAGREE with you. Bisping CAN NOT win fights just because, and these go for his last 2 fights

    1) he is good at running away and avoiding shots
    2.) PUTTING up a defense when he is put on the ground
    3.) Attempting, BUT DOING NOTHING, offense from his back(other than eventually geting to his feet)
    4,) time after time finding himself on the defense(sprawling and takedown defense)

    Bisping landed a couple knees to Rashad that DID NOT even phase him and a few jabs and THAT WAS IT!!

    And just because Bisping gets up without much damage, he should of won? Bispign has not landed good shots on any one since the below 500 Elvis and WW Haynes and Pointon

    Bisping could not even put a SCRATCH on a COMPLETELY and UTTERLY winded Evans. That is said, You CAN NOT win a fight if you cant raise more than a couple jabs to a completely exhausted fight(Evans)

    Wait until Bisping atually faces a strong fighter….Someone that has great cardio, along wiht striking and a ground game. Then maybe many will get off the Bisping bandwagon, when they see him get schooled

  • bigfish042 says:

    And for the 10 point must system. It SHOULD BE CALLED THE 1(ONE) POINT SYSTEM…….where the winner gets a point and the loser gets 0.

    Very rarely is it a 10-8 round. 95% of fights IF NOT MORE are scored with 9 or 10 points. VERY VERY FLAWED system.

    IT should be renamed the ONE poitn system, and if TOTAL TOTAL domination. maybe 2 points will be used

  • bigfish042 says:

    Although I hate lay and pray type fighters……How can takedown defense or getting up from a takedown without damage be considered more or better on a judges scorecard??????

    How can that be better or scored better than putting someone on their ass?

  • Evan says:

    As Tony stated…finish the fight…problem solved.

  • I’m with you on this one. If the UFC can take two things from Pride i would be happy- “effort to finish” and the yellow cards. Maybe even scoring the fight in its entirety.

    Jesse Denis_ your right the man yaks stand and pray, cage molesting technique will not win him fights if effort to finish was added to the fight criteria.

  • dice says:

    Very good writeup. I wouldn’t say that Bisping won, but I think Point #2 is something that people should think about. Are takedowns offense? Well they really don’t do much damage (save for your once in a great while knock out by take down, ala tito-tanner) and being on top is not always the most advantageous position for any given fighter. A lot of guys who have a weak ground n pound game are BJJ masters on their backs.

    As for the comment “plain and simple…. dont leave it up to the judges!” of the first poster, well its something I see a lot and to be honest I think its an excuse for the current scoring system. Its kind of like saying “Yeah fighter A may have won the fight but since he didn’t finish it I really don’t care that he lost to Fighter B”. It often seems to me that this comment comes from people who have never actually fought in MMA and have no idea how difficult it is to finish an elite opponent. To me comments like this fall into the “easier said than done” category. It is also such a truism that I think we can go without repeating it(yeah we get it, ideally every fighter should finish their fight instead of letting it go to the scorecards, but we don’t live in an ideal world). It also should be noted that some fighters have shown that it would take a superhuman effort to finish them (big Nog comes to mind).

  • Dizzle says:

    ben there’s no reason to explain yourself.

    but all in all..the match was a draw…there was no real winner.

  • Kelvin says:

    Rashad clearly won the fight…he won rounds 1 and 3 easily…plus landed the harder shots in the standup dept…(save 2 knees to the body)..look at Bisbing’s face afterwards…then Rashad’s…and No I don’t want to hear stuff like scars/markings show up easier on a white guy either.

  • Dizzle says:

    Kelvini I think you weren’t watching and analyzing the fight closely.

    No matter what…the 10 point must system needs to go. It’s not doing justice with alot of the fights. Like i stated before this fight should have been a draw. There was no way a judge could look at that fight and be 100% positive that either one of the fighters should have won. It was clearly a biased decision based apon who the judges were rooting for.

  • dsid says:

    I didn’t watch the Bisping vs. Evans fight, so I have no opinion there.

    However, I do agree that the 10 point must system is next to useless the way it’s currently administered. If they had a lot more flexibility in terms of the actual scoring (i.e. barely winning a round is 10-9, but dominating a round is 10-5, and winning a round convincingly is 10-7 or so) then it would work fine. It’s just the stupid idea that all rounds are 10-9 unless someone barely survives and then it’s 10-8 that makes the system totally useless…

    I do also agree with the idea that a takedown shouldn’t count for anything unless it’s followed up with some damage. Getting a takedown and then laying on a guy shouldn’t give a fighter any advantage in the scoring, imo.

    Re: Pride, I also liked the way they factored in submission attempts as attempts to win the fight. And I liked the way they had yellow cards that cost the fighters money if they didn’t actively engage in the fight. Running away for 3 rounds and trying to score a “points” victory isn’t something the UFC or any other fight organization should encourage and I think Pride had it right in that regard.

  • Dice Wrote” It often seems to me that this comment comes from people who have never actually fought in MMA and have no idea how difficult it is to finish an elite opponent.”

    Blah Blah Blah… Evans vs Bisping was boring plain and simple.
    Neither of them looked like ELITE fighters to me.
    If the are ELITE fighters I better get in the cage ASAP.

  • Anton K says:

    By your reasoning Sanchez should have beaten Fitch. Fitch did nothing to try and finish their fight.

  • Earhole says:

    Nice writeup. I also agree that a takedown should only be taken into account if it’s followed up with active offense. As you stated, clinches in space or pressed against the stage don’t garner any points, but they’re also means to the same end a takedown is trying to accomplish.

    If any offense is nullified after a takedown, no points awarded. If the fighter on the bottom escapes and stands, no points. Hell, if the ref stands ’em up, he’s pretty saying there’s nothing happening so no points for you.

    Points should only be allowed if the man on top is active in the guard, meaning a guard pass should count as offense. Full guard is supposed to be equal footing, so any passes or if the takedown is finished in an advantageous position such as half-guard or better, points should be awarded.

    I also wish they had the yellowcards, but I think docking pay in the US may be a bit trickier than in Japan. As is, they have bonuses for fight of the night and such, but apparently that’s not enough incentive either…

  • Gavin says:

    If we are to use the UFC scoring criteria, takedowns can be considered “octagon control,” thus being considered as offense. With that criteria, technically a fighter could shoot for a takedown and just lie there until the ref stood them up, and keep doing that over and over. Technically, he would be “controlling” the octagon by making sure the other fighter could not implement his own gameplan. Why did it seem like Hamill won the Bisping fight? He kept taking Bisping down, over and over. If a fighter is doing that, it does feel like he is controlling, and thus, winning the fight. I think the UFC realizes that their system allows for a dominating wrestler to lay and pray to a victory, and their solution seems to be to get those guys out of the promotion (ex. Yushin Okami). It’s a difficult situation to address, because some guys are very very good at taking their opponent down and doing some ground and pound; usually enough to get a win. In other sports, rule changes have been made to counter boring games (ex. Obstruction rules in the NHL, zone defense rules in the NBA), but those types of rules in the UFC would be discriminatory to some fighters, and make their style useless. That wouldn’t really be fair to those guys. Unfortunately, it seems as though we will be stuck with a boring ground fight from time to time. There just isn’t a real solution to the problem.

  • Dizzle says:

    Dice you don’t have to be a fighter to be a fan. If that was the case then MMA wouldn’t be where it is today.

    You think that the judges are mixed martial artists?

    THEY AREN’T! maybe they have boxed or done a few things here and there. But the judges don’t work for ZUFFA. they work for the athletic comission.

  • Gavin says:

    I would be a little scared if the judges worked for Zuffa….

  • Dizzle says:

    ANOTHER thing that is ironic…is that Evans talked trash after the match with Ortiz about how all he did was keep him on the ground and lay on top of him.

    Just funny because that’s what evans tried to do to bisping the whole time.

  • dice says:

    Tony wrote “Blah Blah Blah… Evans vs Bisping was boring plain and simple.
    Neither of them looked like ELITE fighters to me.
    If the are ELITE fighters I better get in the cage ASAP.”

    Evans vs Bisping was boring plain and simple?

    This represents a level of misunderstanding that has to be deliberate. I never said a word about whether or not the fight was boring. It isn’t even addressed in my post as I was arguing about fans who seem reluctant to look at the flaws of the current scoring system and just spout the standard “he should have just finished the fight instead of letting it go the scorecards”.(duh)

    The word elite is a value term so I guess we are going to have different opinions on what it means. To me anyone that is anyone in or near the top 10 and can make a good living as a full time fighter (not many can) should be considered elite (considering probably only 1-2 percent of fighters fall into this category). And yes I think Rashad and Bisping are in that category.

    And yes by all means if you are able to compete with either one of these two then you should get in the cage ASAP. LOL

    ps Oh yeah BLAH BLAH BLAH

  • dice says:

    To dizzle reread my post

    Never said that you had to be a fighter to be a fan. Not sure where you got that from. I simply said that I almost exclusively hear the “well then he should have just finished the fight” from non fighters. Big difference.

    “You think that the judges are mixed martial artists?”

    No I don’t think they are.
    Please actually read my posts before making such an absurd statement about them. I never said anything about how you need to have fought in MMA to be a judge. I don’t even know how you are able to infer this from my previous post. I think people who have followed the sport and been involved in it one way or another (trainers, managers, analysts) can be good judges. Being a former fighter may help but in no way is essential to being a good judge.

  • Kelvin says:

    “No matter what…the 10 point must system needs to go”

    I didn’t say it needed to stay….I watched the fight…based on the rules the fight is judged on…Rashad won…that is all.

  • Bisping clearly wanted it more and for that, you could say he gets an A for effort. But in MMA, just as in boxing, the points are going to get you the victory despite attempts to finish fights. In Mayweather vs. De La Hoya, Mayweather, though not nearly as bad at cardio as Evans, won the bout on points after what many call a disappointing fight. Mayweather wanted nothing more than to get in and out quickly on De La Hoya to rack up the points, never attempting the knockout. Whereas De La Hoya wanted to stand and trade as he wields the heavier hands. But Mayweather’s speed and tactics racked up enough points on the cards and he got the decision. Many say De La Hoya should have won that fight because he was pressing the action and was looking for the KO. And many more say that if Mayweather weren’t afraid to trade punches instead of getting in and out, then De La Hoya would have indeed scored an eventual knock out.

    But that’s the nature of the sport(s). Our scoring system says that if you can gain points using an unexciting strategy, then you can still win the fight. Sure Bisping put on a better show and just like De La Hoya, Bisping was ready to engage whereas as Evans, like Mayweather, was ready to use a game plan with no real intention of finishing in knockout fashion. Both won on points and using the system which is in place, their victories are legitimate. Boxing fans are forced to accept the similarly flawed judging criteria, and there appears to be no change in site. So I doubt there will be a change in the UFC’s judging system for quite some time.

    For the here and now, us fans will have to accept that while most MMA is reliably entertaining, the system does enable fighters to emerge victorious without necessarily giving us our moneys worth. I dislike it just as much as the next guy, but if Rashad Evans can score enough points to win using non-threatening takedowns, then he deserved his victory so says our judging criteria. Until the system changes you can’t blame those who benefit from it. After all when it comes down to it, a win is a win. Maybe Bisping really won that fight and maybe he didn’t, but Rashad is the one going home with the “W” and while the system may some day change, that decision never will.

  • Dizzle says:

    Yea dice I’m fuckin dislexit.

    Just ignore what I wrote. I think I put in the words there myself.

    kevin He did win, but this is just as controversial as the hamill and bisping fight. I think they should create some sort of sudden death round after 3 if it is that close.

  • Mike Rome says:

    I thought Bisping won the first time I watched it. Second time around, it’s pretty clear to me that Rashad’s punches were much harder when they landed. Frankly, neither guy was ever close to a finish, which was why the fight sucked.

    I don’t think takedowns or takedown defense should count for anything. To me, a takedown is just establishing control in the same way that stalking a guy around the Octagon on your feet is. However, even if you’re stalking the other guy, if you don’t land anything, it’s not worth a thing. I really think the judging criteria needs to be changed to reflect attempts to actually win fights. I fear the day Rashad wins the LHW title via boring decision.

  • Foucault says:

    Who cares? The ufc sucks.

    Any articles about Overeem or Cung Le? I mean, let’s get real.

  • Jeff C says:

    Plain and simple Bisping lost, just like he should have against Hamill. So give me a break with this whole “Unpopular position” crap cause it’s a joke.

  • a. hieronymous says:

    Bisping won that fight. He fought off takedowns, had cleaner stand-up, & was able to escape from each session of lay’n’pray. Rashad only had ONE real takedown (where he picked Bisping up)…the others were weak & could in no way be considered part of an offense. It was basically a wrestler’s version of pulling guard. The 10 point system would be perfect if we could allow for a little more flexibility. SHuoldn’t Bisping be awarded for standing back up when Evans has him pinned on the mat against the fence? At the very least that should negate the points scored for the takedown.

  • Sam Cupitt says:

    I guess you could tweak the 10 point must system so that the judges give 10-8 rounds more easily. For example the first round of Bisping and Hamill would have been a 10-8 and the first round of Overeem and Buentello was a 10-7. I know this opens up for a higher percent chance of a draw but it does reward the fighters for being more dfominant than the other fighter.

    I am completely over Rashad Evans now. His tactics and skills just arent impressive or exciting enough for me to be interested in him.

  • Slakdawg says:

    It was brought up earlier and I agree – a takedown followed by lay and pray is no different than Tim Sylvia pressing Brandon Vera up against the cage and “laying” on him. Should Sylvia have gotten points for “octagon control” because he pinned Vera against the cage and did nothing? No, and Evans shouldnt have either. Some fighters use the takedown as a means to get to ground and pound (Tito, Matt Hughes, etc.) Others use a takedown as a means to lay and pray and rack up easy points. This type of fighting should not be rewarded.

    On a side note, I saw a stat Sunday about the number of punches thrown and landed by each fighter (I wish I had the link) and it was ridiculous. Bisping threw and landed a vast number more punches and kicks than Rashad did. You can say Evans had better power punches, but when I saw the sheer volume of shots landed by Bisping as opposed to the minute quantity landed by Evans it wouldnt make a bit of difference. A stat should in no way decide a fight, but for people saying that Bisping didnt really win the stand up…well, that’s just crazy. My opinion is that this was MMA’s version of the make up call. Bisping probably got away with one in England, so we’ll take one away from him on his next one.

  • MMA SKOOL ™ says:

    Evans/Bisping = Me saving my money for Liddell/Silva (and now Henderson/Silva)

    Evans and Bisping are like Patrick Cote… Just some dude even Tito can beat on an off night. A UFC journeyman… There’s gotta be someone out there with a contract and a losing record.

  • Anton K says:

    No matter what, both fighters have to improve if they want to continue developing a fan base in the UFC. They’re just not that interesting. In fact, for the first time, I began to see that mma in general isn’t all that interesting unless the fighters really go for a finish.

  • egad81 says:

    Cung Le Cung Le Cung Le

    Consider me officially on his band wagon.

    Anyone know where we can find the official rules on judges scoring?

    If a takedown is a point…. Is an escape a point?
    Is there any documentation?

  • Bob Langevin says:

    Great article. I do think Rashad won convincingly the 10 must system worked in his favor. I agree that not all things Pride were better, but the judging criteria and system is better. On your second point, a take down does not equal offense, I would like to put it simply.

    ( I mean it in a nice way to encourage debate, not in the ass head way.)

    MMA is the sport of fighting, if you fight you end up on the ground 90% of the time. The guy that scores the take down is proving a domination of the opponent. Sure take downs do not always do damage, they don’t always look flashy, but it proves an element of control over the foe. Offense is not just doing damage, in other sports when you are in possession of the ball, puck, Frisbee, shuttlecock etc etc etc, you are on offense. Offense does not = damage. Offense is control, offense should be defined as an effective attack, not a damaging attack. Take downs are about putting your opponent in a position against their will. If you can take a guy down you may not be doing damage, but you are certainly taking control of the opponent. I love take downs. It shows a great skill, and a control of the opponent as important as out striking them, although admittedly not as exciting as a dominating win by strikes.

    All in all it was a good fight not a great fight, Bisping showed better than I thought, and the right fighter won.

    P.S. I love that this window has spell check, or I would come of as a complete idiot instead of half an idiot.


    Cheers, and I enjoyed reading your interesting if flawed opinion.

  • THORAZINE says:

    Ben Fowlkes,

    I think the way you’re doing the 10 point system is not quite correct.. you forget that after the takedown, Rashad peppered Bis with small shots,,, many of those punches count as points, that’s the major advantage a fighter has when he takes it to the gound… Bis may have had the edge in the standup… but the takedowns and many small punches add up….

    Who’s to say that a kick to the leg or punch to the body or light jab to the head adds up to more than takedowns and small punches to the body or head?


    I feel BIS was definitely in the fight and was close to turning it around at times… but Rashad had just enough gas in his tank to finish a 3 rounder, a 5 rounder would have had a different result… but Rashad wasn’t training for a 5 rounder either.

  • screwface says:

    quite simply the takedowns and lay and pray may be boring but it establishes dominance, rashad won the standup with more strikes, and more takedowns and stayed on top on the ground. you cant win a fight because you had good defense, offense is the deciding factor. bispings face showed the damage. it was an extremely boring fight, but theres no logical argument for bisping was robbed. sorry, but if u actually think bisping won, then ur just 1 of many rashad haters, and i understand. rashads only clearly finished a few fights and thats very frustrating for fans to watch.

  • Da Twin says:

    Sugar is a gay nickname!!!

  • TINO says:

    Takedowns are more of an offense than being taken down. If you don’t want to lose by being taken down, don’t let them take you down. Bisping got dominated the first round, woke up half way through the second and did not do enough in the third to win.

  • Slakdawg says:

    #39 – Rashad didnt have more strikes. And it wasnt even close. According to Compustrike, Bisping threw/landed 97/38 punches to Rashad’s 56/18. Bisping had 33 power strikes to Rashad’s 17. He threw/landed 19/14 kicks to Rashad’s 2/0. He landed 5 strikes from the clinch to Rashad’s 1. Evans may have won the takedown battle, but Bisping clearly won the standup. To say otherwise is foolish.

  • screwface says:

    #42 maybe i shouldnt of said more strikes, shouldve said more convincing and damaging strikes. sorry if that seems “foolish” but rashad does get bruised up in fights. and when this fight was over he looked same as goin in.


You must be logged in to post a comment.