Issue 031

November 2007

The debate is currently raging over the judging system used by the UFC, and much of it began with Michael Bisping’s controversial split decision win over Matt Hamill. 

Dana White, Tito Ortiz, Joe Rogan and even the judges from the fight more have all publicly stated what they thought of the fight and how they scored it, and public opinion seems split down the middle as to who won. 

We contacted two of our writers – in this case, Mr X and Mr Y – to give their views on how the fight went and how it could have been scored. Watch the fight and make your own mind up, but remember the only blame the fighters should receive is letting the fight go to the scorecards in the first place. If you want to guarantee a win, finish the fight. 

A case for Mike Bisping

First off, let’s get this straight; Michael Bisping is not to blame if you think Matt Hamill really won the fight. If anyone or anything is to blame, it should be the judging system currently used by the UFC, of which Mr Bisping has no control over. 

Even the most-die hard supporters of England’s favourite MMA fighter will agree that Mike lost the first round. The advancing Hamill scored well with his unorthodox striking and put a tonne of pressure on Bisping from the off. The takedowns and Octagon control did well to seal the round as his, even though he didn’t come close to finishing Mike with strikes or a submission. Bisping was forced to evade for the entire round, only slipping in a couple of counter punches in the middle of some pretty frantic exchanges. 

The second round was different. Hamill was still the aggressor, but his strikes weren’t as clean and his takedowns couldn’t keep Bisping down. Boxing off the back foot, the Brit started landing the cleaner shots, but they couldn’t halt Hamill. Still, it was he who landed the better punches and his defensive footwork and head movement deserve credit. At worst, the round could be argued a draw, but Hamill hadn’t sealed it like the first, and so a judge’s interpretation is to be expected. 

The third round was the best of the bunch for Bisping, who was now picking off Hamill with his boxing. It was the soles of his feet that spent the most time on the canvas, so Hamill wasn’t scoring with his wrestling like before. Even Bisping haters find it difficult to deny that this was the worst round for Hamill. 

On paper, Hamill simply didn’t do enough to seal a victory. Yes, Bisping’s face was marked up. Yes, it looked as if he was running away from the American, but that’s not all judging is based on. If the judging system was different then maybe Hamill could have taken the win, but as it stands it was Bisping who took the win. Lets not take that away from him. 

A case for Matt Hamill

Such was Hamill’s first round dominance, in pressing the fight, in scoring takedowns, and shockingly, in landing effective punches, it would be incredibly difficult to realistically or sensibly score the opening session for the Englishman. One of Hamill’s punches even visibly shook his opponent, something very few could have expected. The second and third rounds are where the debate lies and I would argue they each took a round.

Already tired, Hamill’s strategy was the same in the second. He walked forward, throwing some jabs and looking for takedowns. Bisping’s defensive approach was more effective than in the first, as he countered with some good punches. Twice Hamill took him down but did nothing on the ground while Bisping constantly worked to escape and used a very good, active guard. But despite Bisping’s good work, Hamill still should have won the round. He blocked plenty of punches on his feet, landed with jabs of his own, showed good control on the mat and dictated where the fight should take place.

Bisping finally had some real success in the third, scoring with a good combination of punches early, landed a hefty right hand and blocked a takedown – all in the first minute. Whenever they were on their feet in this round (Hamill took him down twice and had him on the mat for around two minutes in total) Bisping’s crisper striking and far superior conditioning made the difference. Taking advantage of his opponent’s exhaustedly plodding approach and low-slung hands did more than enough to take the final round.

Which all should have left Hamill the winner by a margin of 29-28. Neither man really came close to ever finishing their opponent but Hamill controlled the action for the majority of the fight. The fight was closer than many have said and this is hardly the worst decision in the sport’s history but still, the wrong man won.