Bisping vs Hamill : your analysis!
Well I am new here but I was compelled to sign up and start a conversation about the fight tonight.
I am a Bisping fan and was so ready for him to beat up the wrestler Hamill. But to my surprise perhaps the best type of MMA fighter showed up. An American wresting puncher came to fight the heavy handed Brit.
It was an ok fight with neither fighter showing their true skills.
Hamill was clearly the aggressor in all rounds but landed about as many punches as the ever backing up Bisping. Neither really rung the others bell with the even amounts of landing punches.
Hamill controlled the pace of the fight, backing up Bisping through all the rounds. Bisping fought on his heels throughout and was taken to the matt in every round multiple times. Bisping was clearly off-guard the entire match, a position he is used to being in control of.
There was no time that either fighter was in knock-out trouble, but neither seemed to go for the submission.
The judges ultimately decided in Bisping's favor.
I enjoyed the fight even though there was no knock-out. However I feel that the takedowns and the aggresiveness of Hamill completely out-classed Bisping(my fav. fighter).
This was a wrong descision and reminds me once again why I hate boxing, which is: IF THERE IS NO KNOCKOUT...WE MUST TRUST IN THE FOCUS OF 3 MEN.
I say screw that! MMA is going the way of some "judges decision" just as boxing has. See ya in the funny papers!