Okay, that's not what he said, but I can't think of any other explanation.
“The reason I gave Bisping the second round was first, 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.” - Cecil "How Do I Still Have This Job?" Peoples
Peoples is a moron. What does it matter that Hamill is gassing, if he's still dominating the fight? It's like a pie eating contest, where Kobayashi eats 30 pies, but the judge says the person who ate 2 pies wins, because Kobayashi looked nauseaous. It's the nature of the beast, ya shmuck.
Also, even though Hamill may not have inflicted any serious GnP on Bisping when the fight went to the ground, Hamill displayed grappling superiority. He tossed Bisping around like a bale of hay. Clearly, Cecil Peoples can't tell the difference between UFC and WCL.
Cecil "I Have Bad Vocab but I See Dead" Peoples also went on to say the following.
“I have no vested interest in either one of them. I could probably walk past both of them on the street and still not know who they are.”
Translation: "I just bought another island."
SOURCE: The Fight Network
A controversy is brewing over a light heavyweight bout from Saturday night’s UFC 75 “Champion vs. Champion” event at the O2 Arena in London, England, yet it doesn’t involve the historical title “unification” bout between Quinton Jackson and Dan Henderson.
An aftershock of protest has erupted over a split decision handed down in the evening’s co-main event, which matched up “The Ultimate Fighter 3” reality TV housemates Michael Bisping (15-0) and Matt Hamill (3-1). U.S. judges Jeff Mullen and Cecil Peoples scored the bout 29-28 in the Brit’s favor. A third judge, locally-hired Chris Watts, awarded American Hamill all three rounds.
Inside the arena sold out with an estimated 16,000 mostly English fightgoers, the decision was met with general support for Clithoroe native Bisping, though a strong delegation of fans and media are up in arms and demanding a rematch after watching the bout on pay-per-view or via tape delay courtesy of Spike TV. Hamill, a deaf Division III college wrestling champion, was widely thought to be leading the scorecards two out of the three rounds, particularly for stronger striking and a handful of takedowns.
With no independent regulatory body overseeing the sport in England, all of the evening’s officials were hired directly by Zuffa LLC, owners of the UFC, including at least three longtime U.S. judges who were brought overseas.
Peoples, a judge for over 40 UFC events, firmly believes this latest maelstrom’s first round clearly went to Hamill and the third to the Englishman, deeming the second period the only one open for debate.
“The reason I gave Bisping the second round was first, Hamill was beginning to run out of gas after the first round,” said Peoples. “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.”
It’s a controversy over verbiage interpretation that again brings the sport’s most recognized set of regulations into question. Drafted by the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board in 2001, the “Unified Rules of Combat” are incorporated in some fashion in approximately 30 U.S. states and rising. It asks judges to score bouts under a 10-point must system, similar to boxing, though it utilizes four criteria: effective striking, effective grappling, control of fighting area, and effective aggressiveness. These were the same regulations the UFC asked its judges to follow Saturday night.
Effective striking is defined as the “total number of legal heavy strikes landed,” while effective grappling is judged by the number of “successful legal takedowns and reversals,” as well as passing guard to mount position and bottom fighters utilizing an “active, threatening guard” on the ground. Fighting area control constitutes pacing, location, and positioning along with a fighter’s ability to counter a takedown attempt or complete a takedown to force a ground fight. Effective aggressiveness is defined by “moving forward and a landing a legal strike.” Judges are also asked to weigh effective grappling first if the majority of the bout is spent on the ground or effective striking if the majority of the round is kept standing.
Industry experts have suggested the rules are in need of an overhaul, and should be revised to reduce the potential for multiple outcomes.
Peoples, who had a unique angle cageside while judges Mullen and Watts were seated at equal posts away from him, says his decision was nothing personal, but one based heavily on human interpretation under the structure he was given to work in. Peoples says he gave Bisping the final round nod for the amount of damage he incurred on Hamill, and that the Brit’s hometown popularity had no bearing.
“I have no vested interest in either one of them,” said Peoples. “I could probably walk past both of them on the street and still not know who they are.”