Is it just me or was UFC 167: Georges St-Pierre vs Johny Hendricks somewhat of a close fight? Am I the only one on the planet (with the exception of 2 judges and all of Canada) that thinks that Georges St-Pierre won the fight by split decision?
Listening to Dana White's rant and rage after the fight about the outcome and how atrocious the Nevada Athletic Commission became utterly annoying and totally uncalled for. I found it to be disrespectful to Georges St-Pierre, who is the UFC's #1 pay per view draw and most classiest fighter. Dana acted like GSP was beaten to death for 5 rounds and miraculously won a split decision... This wasn't the case at all.
We can see that Georges was more battered than Johny at the end of the fight... but this is where I believe the controversy stems from. I understand that damage done is a fair argument to have but its not how fights are decided. Sorry Mr. Dana White but your dead wrong about this one. To argue the fact that GSP lost because more damage was inflicted is absolutely pointless (no pun intended). Fights are judged by who wins the most rounds...PERIOD!... and in my opinion, GSP won 1, 3, 5 (but inflicted less damage) and Hendricks won 2 and 4 (but inflicted more damage).
Johny Hendricks lost because he didn't win enough rounds not because of the Nevada Athletic Commission (not this time at least). Which also brings me to my next point. I strongly believe in the old boxing slogan..."in order to be the Champ, you must Unquestionably beat the Champ". John Hendricks by no means beat the Champ at UFC 167. Yes he inflicted more damage in Round 2, 4 but he did not beat Georges... He did not unquestionably beat the Champ.