Yet another - might be that he was ####ed over.
mannn look it was a close fight it could of went either way
its not just how good he looked in the last round....I thought
he won but it was close so robbed no....but if a guy works
hard and wins the first and second round and the other guy
comes out the 3rd .............he doesnt win because he dominated
at the end
...hence the controvery.
Can one make an arguement that Sherk won? Yes; and the judges did.
Can one make an argument that Sherk lost? Yes; and the fand did; by booing. As they did at the event; as they did at the bar where I watched it.
This fight is one example of why stoppages are better then decisions.
That seems to be the logic of those who support Sherk in victory... However, most who feel Dunham was "robbed" are not basing it off of his strong finish only. Dunham won both the second and third rounds. Sherk undoubtedly won the first because of his successful takedowns, but the remainder of the fight consisted of Dunham besting Sherk in all of their standing exchanges and repeatedly attempting to finish, while Sherk narrowly survived being choked into submission.
Well it was a close decision, it could of gone either way..
Well i guess thats what you get for leaving it to the judges :P
I agree. It was his fight
He sure got robbed.. And Sherk knows it...
I don't think he was robbed. I watched the fight and thought Sherk won the first round decisively and Dunham won the 3rd. The second round I personally would have given to Dunham but it was close.
Fact of the matter is and everyone knows it MMA judging is sketchy at best. The NSAC and other commission would be better suited hiring former fighters to score fights, or change the judging system until then you better finish or be prepared to be handed a questionable decision.
I think most UFC fighters think that after they see their checks. Nor less a decision.
hahahaha.... you've nailed it!