UFC 75: What the principals are saying
I've had my say and so have many of you. And, you are quite clearly passionate about the Matt Hamill-Michael Bisping fight.
So, what are some of the principal players in the Hamill-Bisping saga saying about the decision that won't go away? Here's a look at public comments made by a number of the key figures in the last couple of days.
In talking to Yahoo Sports, UFC President Dana White said a Hamill-Bisping rematch is "a no-brainer and I'm going to be on it right away." In response to some of the conspiracy theories, White said, "... not a chance in the world I'd even think of trying to influence the judges." And, finally about holding events in UK, where MMA is not sanctioned, White asserts, "... I'm not going to stop putting fights in the U.K. just because they don't have a commission."
The two judges who scored the fight in favor of Bisping have come out to defend their decisions. Jeff Mullen and Cecil Peoples both talked to The Fight Network in defense of their 29-28 verdicts.
According to The Fight Network's article, Peoples said:
I gave Bisping the second round, first because Hamill was beginning to run out of gas after the first round. 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.
In the same article, Mullen essentially echoed those sentiments and also explained why the third judge, Chris Watts, had such a drastically different score. According to Mullen,
Sometimes the angle you see the fight effects your decision. That is why they put the judges on three different sides. Under the criteria we are given for judging I believe I judged the fight correctly.
And, Eddie Bravo (or someone posing as Bravo), well-known for his unofficial scoring of UFC fights for the promotion's telecasts, posted the following message on MMA.tv's The Underground Forum:
The [Hamill-Bisping] fight was very difficult to score with the 10-point must system in place. If you go by the traditional way of scoring a fight with takedowns being a huge factor in the scoring, then Hamill clearly won. But if you score the fights based only on damage done, and only count takedowns if some decent ground and pound follows, then no one won. Hamill did no real damage after the takedowns.
All the [arguing] and bickering about what happened in the fight is just another glaring reminder that the 10-point scoring system is seriously flawed.
The fight should have been a draw.