The Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) is under a ton of heat stemming from last weekend’s highly controversial UFC 167 title bout between Georges St. Pierre vs. Johny Hendricks.
Many, including UFC president Dana White, felt that Hendricks did much more than enough to wrest the belt from St. Pierre’s iron grip. The commission-appointed judges did not feel the same and St. Pierre retained the belt with a jaw-dropping split decision.
But there is at least one man who thought the outcome wasn’t as controversial as it’s been chalked up to be. That man is NSAC commissioner Keith Kizer, who spoke up to MMA Junkie to give his stance that the controversy might be blown out of proportion thanks to White’s views:
“(White) can say what he wants at the press conference. The last four rounds were scored unanimously. The first could have gone either way, as most people thought it could have gone either way, regardless of how they scored it. It’s more about Dana’s comments than anything else, not about the scoring.”
Is it about the scoring though? If damage is taken into account, as it certainly should be in my eyes, then Hendricks won the fight going away. If significant, fight-changing strikes are given the same weight as less damaging strikes such as jabs and light leg kicks, then there is cause for St. Pierre coming out on top.
Hendricks was billed as the toughest wrestler GSP had ever faced, and for his part, he fought valiantly. But GSP did get a late takedown in the fifth round that may have seared an image in the mind of the judges. St. Pierre has since clarified that he needs to take some time off from fighting for personal reasons.
That announcement comes at an inopportune time following the most hotly debated fight of his long and storied career. Do you agree with Kizer that the scoring was on the up-and-up, or is there still cause for an uproar over MMA scoring?
Outer Photo: Jayne Kamin-Oncea for USA TODAY Sports Images