# ***OFFICIAL*** Sean Sherk vs Evan Dunham Pre/Post Fight



## dudeabides (Sep 30, 2008)

*Please conduct ALL of your discussion in regards to Sean 'The Muscle Shark' Sherk fighting Evan '3-D' Dunham at UFC 119 in this thread. All threads made in regards to this fight will be merged into this one.*​


----------



## Stapler (Nov 18, 2006)

If this were 2007, I'd give the advantage to Sherk. Although it isn't, and with his modern day game plans and due to the fact that he is aging with a layoff, while Dunham is just rising and getting big wins under his belt, who wouldn't make Dunham the favorite in this fight? I'm thinking Dunham by submission or decision here.


----------



## Dtwizzy2k5 (Jul 7, 2008)

Dunham is the new school well-rounded undefeated MMA fighter whereas Sherk is the old school washed up former steroid user.

Ill take my boy Dunham all day every day.


----------



## Guymay (Jul 6, 2009)

Real toss-up . Sherk is still good and he can still win fight vs top 10 if he uses his Wresling again . but Dunham just impress me alot with his grappling . I think he won't be able to submit T-rex sherk but will out grapple him like he did to tyson to win close Decision .


----------



## TheBadGuy (Dec 30, 2009)

Dunham by decision. I think that he wont sub Steroid Shark but will out strike and out grapple him to unanimous decision


----------



## Syxx Paq (Feb 19, 2010)

really like to see this end up like hughes v almeida, just because i want to see the muscle shark actually fighting again.


----------



## glowboxboy (Feb 25, 2009)

Funny how in the preview for this card on cable Sherk commented that all aspects of his game are better than Dunham's.He has more experience and maybe better cardio.Dunham has the advantage everywhere else in my book, and that reach advantage is the dagger for Sherk.Dunham should stuff most of the take downs and pick Sherk apart with his jab en route to a UD.


----------



## dudeabides (Sep 30, 2008)

Sherk is healthy again he says:



> Sitting on the sideline for 16 months turned out to be a good thing for Sean Sherk (33-4-1 MMA, 7-4 UFC), who meets Evan Dunham (11-0 MMA, 4-0 UFC) on Saturday at UFC 119.
> 
> For one, it allowed the former UFC lightweight champion to heal up after a litany of injuries hurt his performances inside the octagon.
> 
> ...


Link


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I think a lot of people have just forgotten how good Sherk is. The short list of people who hold victories over Sherk is a pretty elite list of the two greatest WW's in history, the GOAT LW and the current LW champ. I am hardly ready to say Dunham is ready to join this group. I am much more prone to place him with Griffen, Florian, Franca and Diaz in the group of guys Sherk has beaten.


----------



## LightweightFighter (Jul 10, 2006)

*i am a fan of sherk but the dude is chubby now*

use to look like a beast, he kind of have a belly now. was hoping he would make another run with the title but things aren't looking too sharp


----------



## Guymay (Jul 6, 2009)

Toxic said:


> I think a lot of people have just forgotten how good Sherk is. The short list of people who hold victories over Sherk is a pretty elite list of the two greatest WW's in history, the GOAT LW and the current LW champ. I am hardly ready to say Dunham is ready to join this group. I am much more prone to place him with Griffen, Florian, Franca and Diaz in the group of guys Sherk has beaten.


I still think Sherk got some Wins against top 15 in him . but the main reason I go with Dunham is Sherk really long lay off .


----------



## Fine Wine (Aug 30, 2010)

Toxic said:


> I think a lot of people have just forgotten how good Sherk is. The short list of people who hold victories over Sherk is a pretty elite list of the two greatest WW's in history, the GOAT LW and the current LW champ. I am hardly ready to say Dunham is ready to join this group. I am much more prone to place him with Griffen, Florian, Franca and Diaz in the group of guys Sherk has beaten.


Completely agree.

I would take Sherk, but I think the long layoff and no steroid use for wrestling strength may harm him. 

Can't pick a winner here.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Guymay said:


> I still think Sherk got some Wins against top 15 in him . but the main reason I go with Dunham is Sherk really long lay off .


 Yeah but Sherk has always been extremely committed to being physically in shape so I doubt that Sherk does not show up in shape.



Fine Wine said:


> Completely agree.
> 
> I would take Sherk, but I think the long layoff and no steroid use for wrestling strength may harm him.
> 
> Can't pick a winner here.


Sherk has been tested like hell and when he fought BJ after returning from his steroid suspension he was both in shape and looked plenty strong. I think people are just sleeping on the guy who until he lost to Edgar was considered the clear #2 LW in the world by alot of people.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

Dunham is the future of the division

Sherk is the past.

easy win for Dunham, alot of ppl not realizing how good he actually is.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

Nick_V03 said:


> If this were 2007, I'd give the advantage to Sherk. Although it isn't, and with his modern day game plans and due to the fact that he is aging with a layoff, while Dunham is just rising and getting big wins under his belt, who wouldn't make Dunham the favorite in this fight? I'm thinking Dunham by submission or decision here.


bY Submission? Go watch some Sean Sherk Fights :thumbsup:


----------



## Jeff1977 (Sep 7, 2010)

*Sean Sherk??*

Does anyone still thinks he has a Matt Hughs like comeback in him? I was wondering what kinda shape he's in at the moment.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

Sherk has never really dropped off the pace tbh, a lot of people still have him in their LW top 5, his only 2 losses at 155 are to the current champ Frankie and BJ the former champ. 
It wouldn't be surprising to me at all to see him go on a 2 or 3 fight win streak and get a shot - and the one thing you know with Sherk is he will always be in phenomminal shape.


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Im going to stick my neck out and say Sherk will win this.

I just think Sherk although a mediocre striker can hold his own there as shown in the Edgar fight i think he can beat Dunham by out working him in the striking and i think the obvious advantage is the wrestling department which Sherk is great at , Dunham wins mostly by submission and Sherk has never lost by Submission.

UD Sherk.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

***** de Amigo said:


> Im going to stick my neck out and say Sherk will win this.
> 
> I just think Sherk although a mediocre striker can hold his own there as shown in the Edgar fight i think he can beat Dunham by out working him in the striking and i think the obvious advantage is the wrestling department which Sherk is great at , Dunham wins mostly by submission and Sherk has never lost by Submission.
> 
> UD Sherk.


I don't even think it will be a UD I think Sherk is gonna go out with a point to prove after a long lay off that he is still in the fight. Sherk is still one of the best wrestlers in the division and I think he will strike just long enough to set up his shot and put Dunham through the mat and make him in eat GnP till the ref see's enough.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Yeah, because Sean Sherk is such a finishing machine....

Sherk likes to play midget kickboxer nowadays, and Dunham will tear him up.


----------



## KillerShark1985 (Jan 6, 2010)

When I first saw this fight announced I though Sherk would take it, Dunham just has not caught my eye yet despite his impressive record, but now I just got this feeling that Dunham is going to but on the performance of his career and pull of a close victory.

I can't see it been an easy win for ether fighter but I think it could come down to who wants it the most and I suspect that could be Dunham.


----------



## Stapler (Nov 18, 2006)

Machida Karate said:


> bY Submission? Go watch some Sean Sherk Fights :thumbsup:


Oh, I have. I don't think Dunham would even come closing to submitting a prime Sherk, but the fact is he has had a long lay off and Frankie Edgar nearly submitted Sherk with a guillotine choke, but the round ended before it came to pass. It's safe to say that Dunham is more capable of submitting someone than Edgar.

Either way, I think it will probably go to a decision, but i wouldn't write off a Dunham submission win with all things considered. :thumb02:


----------



## Sambo de Amigo (Sep 24, 2010)

Toxic said:


> I don't even think it will be a UD I think Sherk is gonna go out with a point to prove after a long lay off that he is still in the fight. Sherk is still one of the best wrestlers in the division and I think he will strike just long enough to set up his shot and put Dunham through the mat and make him in eat GnP till the ref see's enough.



Well i hope so but i would probably prefer Sherk to not get over aggressive with his Gnp ,Dunham is a tricky guy and i dont want Sean to be subbed. 

Id Say Sherk is the best wrestler in the division.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

***** de Amigo said:


> Well i hope so but i would probably prefer Sherk to not get over aggressive with his Gnp ,Dunham is a tricky guy and i dont want Sean to be subbed.
> 
> Id Say Sherk is the best wrestler in the division.


It would be between Maynard and Sherk IMO. Sherk has the better striking though which hopefully which helps him set up the TD's Sherk is also the more explosive athlete IMO.



Damone said:


> Yeah, because Sean Sherk is such a finishing machine....
> 
> Sherk likes to play midget kickboxer nowadays, and Dunham will tear him up.


He has finished 2/3 of his opponents and its pretty even between subsmissions, KO/TKO and decisions. (admittedly his high quality opponents are pretty much all decisions).


----------



## limba (Jul 21, 2009)

100% convinced Sherk will look for the TD in the first minute.
He will try some striking till that moment, in order ro set up his TD.
And he will get the TD no doubt.
Top control + some GnP attempts.
Same scenario after that.
I am just curious if ring rust will affect him.
Dunham is riding high and his confidence is yp ther also. Sherk maje shake him up a bit in this fight, but still my pick is Dunham.
Sherk hasn't been submitted yet.
So why not tonight?! Everything has a beggining. 
Dunham, by sub.


----------



## Stapler (Nov 18, 2006)

If Dunham wins by submission, it will probably be by a guillotine choke. Edgar would have probably submitted Sherk if time hadn't run out when he had that locked in when they fought.

Sherk's t-rex arms will probably prevent him from getting caught in any fight ending arm bars.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

i got sherk. i think evan is to tall and thin to stop that thick son of a bitch from taking him down.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Now find out if people were a little to quick to underestimate Sherk.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

yea i dont see sherk getting subbed, that thick ass stump of a man with t-rex arms is just to thick and strong for this guy to sub imo.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I think with all the wrestlers coming out of Minnesota right now Sherks wrestling if he uses it could be downright scary.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

i think sherk needs to work with freddie roach. he has a 67inch reach, its short as hell but.. mike tyson only have 5 more inches of reach... i think he could still have semi-dangerous striking if he worked on it.


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

War Sherk


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

fml stream is down x.X


edit: still down >_<


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

Well that's another goat vagina there.


----------



## Ares Caesar (Aug 13, 2008)

WOW that was impressive from Sherk, the guy just will not let himself tapout. THIS is the Sean Sherk that was a champ (not sure if he can get there again but this is what won him a lot of fights).


----------



## El Matador (Jun 16, 2010)

xeberus said:


> fml stream is down x.X
> 
> 
> edit: still down >_<


Tried sending you a pm with the stream but I cant send pm's yet


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

you could rep me with the info  <3


----------



## Guy Incognito (Apr 3, 2010)

Edit.


----------



## El Matador (Jun 16, 2010)

Damn Sherk is unsubmitable


----------



## hixxy (Sep 7, 2007)

I got it 1 round each after 2..


----------



## El Matador (Jun 16, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> send me the stream when it gets back up, please
> 
> edit: el matador could you?


There you go guys :thumb02:

There's like 5 different channels in the main page if it goes down.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Guys no asking for streams and don't post them.


----------



## Redline7 (Mar 28, 2010)

War Dunham:thumbsup:


----------



## El Matador (Jun 16, 2010)

hixxy said:


> I got it 1 round each after 2..


Same here. If it hadn't been for those sub attempts in the fist it could've easily been a 10-8. With the sloppy judging, wouldn't be surprised if it is.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

Man, Sherk has no top control, gets him down, right back up, and again and again and again.


----------



## Guymay (Jul 6, 2009)

Fight Of The ******* Night So Far

29-28 Dunham on the guymay card


----------



## hixxy (Sep 7, 2007)

If Dunham doesnt get a 29/28 decision then something majorly wrong with the scoring


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Great fight right there.


----------



## JohnnyCrisp22 (Oct 26, 2009)

29-28 Dunham for sure.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

hixxy said:


> If Dunham doesnt get a 29/28 decision then something majorly wrong with the scoring


Let's just hope Cecil Peoples isn't one of the refs.


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

Good fight, I forgot how much I liked watching Sherk fight.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

sherk lost that. did nothing with any takedown, and just stalled whenever he was getting hit by keeping the other guy against the cage. here's to hoping the judges understand mma in any way...


***BULL F%^$&#G S$#!T!!!

sherk got rewarded for a perceived advantage.


----------



## El Matador (Jun 16, 2010)

Apparently it's a bad idea to cut Evan, it only pisses him off.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

vury violent 3rd round


----------



## Killerkrack (Sep 24, 2007)

Never though I'd say this but Sherk just thoroughly entertained me.
EDIT: I'm not sure about that one, I think Dunham won.


----------



## Guymay (Jul 6, 2009)

LOL the JUDGES suck tonight


----------



## hixxy (Sep 7, 2007)

What the ****???


----------



## JohnnyCrisp22 (Oct 26, 2009)

Oh my ******* god. No. Just, no.


----------



## The Horticulturist (Feb 16, 2009)

Uh oh, there are going to be lots of mad people.

I agree with the mad people, but I bet on Sherk so I'm not mad.


----------



## El Matador (Jun 16, 2010)

Wow..... Fail.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

OMG ROBBERY, OMG, I LOST $ TOO.....

omg..... seriously???



seriously???

OMG!!!!!!!!


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

Sherk was robbed! Should have been unanimous:confused03:


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

Crowd sucks there.


----------



## ufc4life (Jul 14, 2008)

wow .. i had dunham wining , wrong dc .... sherk got lucky


----------



## Redline7 (Mar 28, 2010)

Bad decision, in my opinion Dunham won round 2 and 3. Possibly FOTN, though.


----------



## hixxy (Sep 7, 2007)

Its a joke, ruins the sport...


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

What a decision. Sherk did no damage since rnd 1. Dunham dominated the rest and landed all the shots pretty much.


----------



## Freelancer (Jul 5, 2007)

Disgraceful!!!! Dunham was robbed!!!


----------



## Rusty (Apr 13, 2010)

Kudos to Dunham though. He's like a kid out there just having fun


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

err..

>_<


----------



## Blitzz (Apr 13, 2009)

I scored it for Sherk. He definately won the first and second in my view.


----------



## Gyser (Oct 13, 2009)

I missed the first two rounds, you guys seem pretty dissappointed with the S/D for Sherk? I'll havew to watch it back later!


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

Wow, Dunham took that really well. I would have been pretty upset to lose a fight like that. I thought he won the second and third clearly. 

Kudos to Dunham for his attitude.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

Won $120 thanks to this terrible decision so I can't complain.

They should never go back to Indianapolis ever again. Morons. Terrible crowd.


----------



## sillywillybubba (Oct 15, 2006)

ok that sucked...i just spit beer all over my computer, what the hell was that, i can see giving the first round to sherk, but 2 and 3 should have gone to dunham easy...i hope this beer doesnt ruin my keyboard....


----------



## SerJ (Sep 17, 2009)

Bad call by the judges! What were they thinking? Sherk did nothing with the TDs. Congrats to Sherk. Glad to see him back in there. Dunham has just impressed the hell out of me. What a fighter! Can't wait until his next fight. Future contender for sure!


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

hixxy said:


> Its a joke, ruins the sport...


This. 2 split dec. in first 2 fights. Makes me not even want to watch. It was a great fight and neither fighter should be boo'd. But it takes everything out of it when you see a young guy get cut and come back and clearly win the 2nd 2 rounds and some how lose.

What did Sherk even do in the last 2 rounds? Took him down a time or 2 and Dunham got right back to his feet without any further damage. Dunham through everything at Sherk for the last 2 rounds and doesn't out point a take down that did nothing?

Pathetic. This sport won't grow to it's potential with that crap.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

takedowns and a little bit of control are worth more then doing more damage, having deep chokes locked in and winning the standup??

i agree sherk won 1.

there is no doubt Dunham won 2 and 3. 3 was the match clincher imo


another reason MMA fights need to be judged as a whole and not round by round.

That fight, judged as a whole, there is no Fing way you can say Sherk won, he was getting lit up like an Xmas tree and was trying to stall and hold on.

btw a glancing elbow that opens u up shouldnt be scored as some major damage.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Blitzz said:


> I scored it for Sherk. He definately won the first and second in my view.


Exactly what did Sherk do in the 2nd round?


----------



## locnott (Apr 1, 2009)

GREAT FIGHT, RIGHT UP TO THE DECISION, THEN IT FELL OFF A LITTLE.Dunham won that, and he will get plenty more good fights from Dana.
The crowd is shit.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Outside of the 1 elbow that cut Dunham Sherk did nothing. Most of his takedowns were in the 1st. 

One of the worst decisions I've ever seen.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

Wow, the judges are awful tonight minus the Mitrione/Beltran scrap.

Stephens got robbed against a Louisiana thug, and now Dunham? Granted I almost scored the 1st round 10-8 for Sherk, but I thought Dunham got the last two. I like Sherk so I'm not as pissed as the Guillard decision, but Dunham once again started slow and it cost him the fight.


----------



## SavageXsam (May 14, 2010)

dont you guys think sherk controlled most of the fight in the clinch ? i think he won with octagon control


----------



## Guymay (Jul 6, 2009)

> Robbed! Judging ******* SUCKS!!!! 6 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®-dana white


ugh .


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

What the **** does a guy got to do to get a decision?

Seems like if a guy holds a guy against the fence for any decent amount of time, he may as well have rocked his opponent with a flying knee and pounded on him for half the round.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> What the **** does a guy got to do to get a decision?
> 
> Seems like if a guy holds a guy against the fence for any decent amount of time, he may as well have rocked his opponent with a flying knee and pounded on him for half the round.


i unno but it probably involves money or mouth love :thumb02:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

F*** This crowd sucks, I am on delay cause I had to pause it and run to pick up the wife but come on booing Sherk who just put on a hell of a fight. 

I don't have the issue with the decision everyone else does. Sherk controlled the octagon in the second and I think that gave him the round. 

29-28 Sherk seems reasonable to me. 

I do wonder though if Sherk's refusal to really try and shoot in the 3rd didn't come from money problems from the long lay off and if he wasn't trying to cement that FOTN rather than cement the win. I am sure after a steroid scandal and a series of injuries the sponsor money starts to dry out.


----------



## TanyaJade (Aug 31, 2010)

The T-Rex boxing has got to go.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I want to clarify something for a lot of people, I may not like it but time and time again we have seen judges put a lot of emphasis on octagon control when scoring rounds. Historically 90% of decisions that fans get upset about it comes down to octagon control. This was no different and shouldn't have been nearly as surprising. I saw that coming because Sherk imposed his will and controled Dunham against the cage. Holding the opponent against the cage is the new lay and pray people.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Toxic said:


> I want to clarify something for a lot of people, I may not like it but time and time again we have seen judges put a lot of emphasis on octagon control when scoring rounds. Historically 90% of decisions that fans get upset about it comes down to octagon control. This was no different and shouldn't have been nearly as surprising. I saw that coming because Sherk imposed his will and controled Dunham against the cage. Holding the opponent against the cage is the new lay and pray people.


Dunham stopped the takedowns and kept the fight where he wanted it. He "controlled" the fight.

And the sub attempts and strikes but apparently no one gives a **** about those anymore.

Sherk deserved to be booed, all he did was survive deep choke attempts, and hold Dunham against the cage, then eat a bunch of strikes.

Solid performance from Sherk. :sarcastic12:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Dunham stopped the takedowns and kept the fight where he wanted it. He "controlled" the fight.
> 
> And the sub attempts and strikes but apparently no one gives a **** about those anymore.


Sub attempts are great but what really matters is when you get them. Dunham really didn't stop the TD's he kept taking Sherks neck but in doing so he was giving up the TD. TD's score more than submission attempts and like Dunham said that was a mistake to keep trying for the guillotines. Dunham wanted to stand in the middle of the ring and bang away like he did at the end of the 2nd and in the 3rd. He didn't want to stand against the cage he was there because Sherk put him there. The thing is that Dunham didn't punish Sherk really till the end of the second. TD's are big when scoring a fight. Its nothing new its always been this way but people forget it everytime somebody wins that way. See Couture/Vera same thing. Monson/Nelson. ETC.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Toxic said:


> Sub attempts are great but what really matters is when you get them. Dunham really didn't stop the TD's he kept taking Sherks neck but in doing so he was giving up the TD. *TD's score more than submission attempts* and like Dunham said that was a mistake to keep trying for the guillotines. Dunham wanted to stand in the middle of the ring and bang away like he did at the end of the 2nd and in the 3rd. H*e didn't want to stand against the cage he was there because Sherk put him there*. The thing is that Dunham didn't punish Sherk really till the end of the second. *TD's are big when scoring a fight.* Its nothing new its always been this way but people forget it everytime somebody wins that way. See Couture/Vera same thing. Monson/Nelson. ETC.


Why? And says who?

And Sherk didn't want put him there he wanted to take him to the ground. Hence that being exactly what it should be scored as, a neutral position.

And yes, I agree, mostly because American judges don't know what the **** they are doing and it's pretty embarrassing to the sport as a whole.


----------



## VICIII (May 31, 2007)

Dunham won....


----------



## Sousa (Jun 16, 2007)

People are crazy here to think Dunham won 2nd and 3rd.I mean he did good in the last minute of round 2 but that should not overshadow how Sherk controlled Dunham for the first 4 minutes of round 2. He won 1 and 2 while Dunham won 3 for sure


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Why? And says who?
> 
> And Sherk didn't want put him there he wanted to take him to the ground. Hence that being exactly what it should be scored as, a neutral position.
> 
> And yes, I agree, mostly because American judges don't know what the **** they are doing and it's pretty embarrassing to the sport as a whole.


Who says, do you watch MMA? You can talk about how you think it should be scored and I wouldn't argue with you but I am saying if you look at how fights have historically been judged this shouldn't be a surprise. People often get mixed up between who they think won the fight and who going by how judges score fights is gonna be awarded the fight.

People complain that TD's wthat aren't done anything with shouldn't be scored so heavily all the time. Thing is that doesn't change the fact they are and it doesn't change the fact they will continue to be so when it happens and the fights are scored that way why is it always so shocking?


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Let's take a look, at the thing called the rules.


3 Judging

(a) All bouts will be evaluated and scored by three judges.

(b) The 10-Point Must System will be the standard system of scoring a bout. Under the 10-Point Must Scoring System, 10 points must be awarded to the winner of the round and nine points or less must be awarded to the loser, except for a rare even round, which is scored (10-10).

(c) Judges shall evaluate mixed martial arts techniques, such as effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area, effective aggressiveness and defense.

(d) Evaluations shall be made in the order in which the techniques appear in (c) above, giving the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.

(e) Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal heavy strikes landed by a contestant.

(f) Effective grappling is judged by considering the amount of successful executions of a legal takedown and reversals. Examples of factors to consider are take downs from standing position to mount position, passing the guard to mount position, and bottom position fighters using an active, threatening guard.

(g) Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. *Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking* ; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; *creating threatening submission attempts*, passing the guard to achieve mount, and *creating striking opportunities.*

(h) Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.

(i) Effective defense means avoiding being struck, *taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks.
*
(j) The following objective scoring criteria shall be utilized by the judges when scoring a round;

1. A round is to be scored as a 10-10 Round when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows clear dominance in a round;

2. A round is to be scored as a 10-9 Round when a contestant wins by a close margin, landing the greater number of effective legal strikes, grappling and other maneuvers;

3. A round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

4. A round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round.

(k) Judges shall use a sliding scale and recognize the length of time the fighters are either standing or on the ground, as follows:

1. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round on the canvas, then:

i. Effective grappling is weighed first; and

ii. Effective striking is then weighed

* 2. If the mixed martial artists spent a majority of a round standing, then:

1. Effective striking is weighed first; and

2. Effective grappling is then weighed
*
3. If a round ends with a relatively even amount of standing and canvas fighting, striking and grappling are weighed equally.


Hmm interesting.

But then again, it's the rules, who cares about them?

OCTAGON CONTROL! HE HELD HIM AGAINST THE FENCE! Ignore all other factors please!

Ironically, I didn't see anything about holding someone against the fence in there, unless you count the vague "Location of a fight", if by that you mean literal location(rather than (ground, standing), which is pretty ****ing hilarious.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

You can thump your rules all day long, it happens every time. PAY ATTENTION I am not gonna repeat myself again. I am not arguing its right or wrong but over and over and over and over and over again we see fights scored EXACTLY like this. I gave two clear examples of other fights that were judged exactly the same. After a while we keep seeing fights go the same way and judged the same way and every time everyone gets all pissy about it. After while you should expect it. Things are weighted differently. Your reading rules and pretending all things are equal which clearly history dictates is not true. Don't waste your breath I know what the criteria is but that is not a breakdown of how to judge but rather what is judged. Everytime we see guys pinned against he cage like that we always see that the guy holding his opponent against the cage is earning the points. Why does everyone react the same way. Its the same thing over and over and your expecting different results.

Also not sure why you highlighted stalling, Sherk was not stalling he was attempting a TD most of which he got so therefore he was in control.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Maybe because people expect judges to score fights correctly?


----------



## attention (Oct 18, 2006)

Toxic said:


> You can thump your rules all day long, it happens every time. *PAY ATTENTION *I am not gonna repeat myself again. I am not arguing its right or wrong but over and over and over and over and over again we see fights scored EXACTLY like this. I gave two clear examples of other fights that were judged exactly the same. After a while we keep seeing fights go the same way and judged the same way and every time everyone gets all pissy about it. After while you should expect it. Things are weighted differently. Your reading rules and pretending all things are equal which clearly history dictates is not true. Don't waste your breath I know what the criteria is but that is not a breakdown of how to judge but rather what is judged. Everytime we see guys pinned against he cage like that we always see that the guy holding his opponent against the cage is earning the points. Why does everyone react the same way. Its the same thing over and over and your expecting different results.
> 
> Also not sure why you highlighted stalling, Sherk was not stalling he was attempting a TD most of which he got so therefore he was in control.


You heard the man!
Pay up! :thumb02:

BTW, I think Dunham won...but I bet heavy on Sherk, so Im not complaining :confused05:


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Maybe because people expect judges to score fights correctly?


Its all perception but people can complain about how things are weighted in judging criteria but under the current criteria Sherk won. If you want to argue that the judging criteria is messed up then that is a different discussion and I would agree with you but that is not the discussion we are having.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

The criteria isn't messed up, the judges are.

They clearly don't understand the rules.

And it's not necessarily all of them. It only takes 2 out of 3 ignorant dumb****s to mess up a decision. Hence, Sherk won.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> The criteria isn't messed up, the judges are.
> 
> They clearly don't understand the rules.
> 
> And it's not necessarily all of them. It only takes 2 out of 3 ignorant dumb****s to mess up a decision. Hence, Sherk won.


It happens over an over and over. Clearly the fact that so many judges are in your words "messed up" speaks towards the criteria that they are taught to use.


----------



## aerius (Nov 19, 2006)

Figures, they just announced the judges and yup, you guessed it, Cecil Peoples is one of them. Mystery solved.


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Toxic said:


> It happens over an over and over. Clearly the fact that so many judges are in your words "messed up" speaks towards the criteria that they are taught to use.


Not at all. It happens occasionally, and it's pretty sad that it does. But again, it's more the case of incompetent judging.

Under what criteria did Bisping beat Hamill or did Frankie Edgar 50-45 Penn in the 1st fight.

Zero. That's what. It's just stupid people who have no business judging fights.


----------



## Fine Wine (Aug 30, 2010)

E Lit Er Ate said:


> takedowns and a little bit of control are worth more then doing more damage, having deep chokes locked in and winning the standup??
> 
> .


Here goes the wrestling debate once again, and so it should.

The scoring system has to change, this is more of a game of football than it is a fight!


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Not at all. It happens occasionally, and it's pretty sad that it does. But again, it's more the case of incompetent judging.
> 
> Under what criteria did Bisping beat Hamill or did Frankie Edgar 50-45 Penn in the 1st fight.
> 
> Zero. That's what. It's just stupid people who have no business judging fights.


I agree both those were horrible but neither was predictable either. Like I said Sherk winning this was predictable because of how many times we have seen similar situations judged the same way.


----------



## Fine Wine (Aug 30, 2010)

Toxic said:


> It happens over an over and over. Clearly the fact that so many judges are in your words "messed up" speaks towards the criteria that they are taught to use.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dana, do something with your sport, we are watching an MMA fight, not a freeking game of football!!! Really really frustrating!


----------



## Roflcopter (Sep 5, 2008)

Toxic said:


> I agree both those were horrible but neither was predictable either. Like I said Sherk winning this was predictable because of how many times we have seen similar situations judged the same way.


Similar bad judging.

The rules made it pretty clear who won that fight. Just for the simple fact that striking is weighed more heavily than grappling IF the fight spent most of the time on the feet, which it did. These details seem to go ignored though, because inexplicably, some judges are in awe when a fighter demonstrates his awesome ability to hold someone against the fence.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Roflcopter said:


> Similar bad judging.
> 
> The rules made it pretty clear who won that fight. Just for the simple fact that striking is weighed more heavily than grappling IF the fight spent most of the time on the feet, which it did. These details seem to go ignored though, because inexplicably, some judges are in awe when a fighter demonstrates his awesome ability to hold someone against the fence.


I give up trying to explain this to you. You ignore how fights are scored consistently and instead live in your own world pretending that fights are all scored the way you do in your head. Bitch about the criteria because that is the problem not judges not following it.


----------



## Ares Caesar (Aug 13, 2008)

1st round was Sherk easy, the subs from Dunham only allowed him to get off his back, but he clearly didnt trouble Sherk with them (which I still cannot believe). Sherk landed some GnP and that elbow had Dunham reacting to the pain IMMEDIATELY, as you KNOW its bad when a fighter stops fighting to react to pain. 

2nd round was the ONLY debatable round. Here is where the ONLY arguments should be. If you want to break down the fight scoring/overall decision THIS is the only round to argue. While I dont like the fact Sherk probably got the nod for the round because of "octagon control" I have to admit even though some of his takedowns were nullified, do you give the round to a guy simply because he prevented his opponent from doing something, but spent the ENTIRE TIME preventing it while doing little offensively yourself? I dont like it, and I hate when its how a fight is won, but its where I thought Sherk won. 

3rd round Dunham easy, Sherk had some cage control but Dunham did way too much damage the last 1/2 of the round to even credit Sherk for what he did manage to do. 

Personally, part of the problem is that there is no "if the fight would have continued" scoring factor, as I do think Dunham would have perhaps won if the fight was 5 rounds vs 3, but because scoring is round by round ONLY and not "overall fight" based, he lost 2 of the 3 rounds, thus meaning he NEEDED to finish in the 3rd, and I think its the ONLY reason he pressed so hard while Sherk knowing he had 2 in the bag already, phoned in the 3rd round and simply survived.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I hardly think Sherk throwing hands wildly with wreckless abandon qualifies as phoning it in. Sherk went hard in the 3rd he just fought Dunham's fight and was losing the striking exchanges.


----------



## Ares Caesar (Aug 13, 2008)

Toxic said:


> I hardly think Sherk throwing hands wildly with wreckless abandon qualifies as phoning it in. Sherk went hard in the 3rd he just fought Dunham's fight and was losing the striking exchanges.


The accuracy of them seemed more like a method to create distance (because he was clearly getting very tired, something that we dont see from Sherk often, but a long layoff can do, not to mention attempting all those TD's in the second and third). He let himself be constantly pushed back into the cage, covering up and only throwing when Dunham really started pressing him. 

If he DIDNT throw to KO Dunham he'd have had nothing to even convince Dunham to back off from his onslaught, as clearly he was trying VERY hard to finish Sherk, but Sherk just threw a bomb or two here and there to make Dunham halt his assault. 

I like Sherk (I'm from MN, and have met him), but he was gassing and knew he had 1 and 2 in the bag (he's a smart dude) and all that "cage-a-dope" was just surviving. Again, he knew he had the first 2 rounds, so I cant necessarily fault the strategy, but its not as if he was doing anything to actually win/end the fight, it was simply to ensure he didnt get stopped himself.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

But he was leaving himself more open to be stopped. IMO it would have been much easier for him to just grab Dunham and pin him against the cage for another round if he wanted to phone it in. I think Sherk really thought he could finish it but more importantly I think Sherk wanted that bonus.


----------



## sNuFf_rEaLiTy (Feb 2, 2009)

I scored this fight for sherk. I thought he won the first two rounds, though the second round was quite uneventful. He definitely got it through clinch control and a takedown?

Before ths fight I wasn't quite sure what to think of dunham. He didn't look like much to me even though he kept beating the competion thrown at him. This was a good fight to test dunham's wresting defense and strength, cause sherk is strong as hell and it showed.

I said to myself before the fight that sherk needed to focus on wrestling, cause as someone else mentioned...he dude's got tyrannosaur arms. I don't expect sherk to climb much higher or fall much lower that where he is. Essentially going nowhere.

As for dunham...the man has skills and youth on his side. Though sherk is small, dunham still looks pretty damn huge for this division. It was also good to sew him get sliced and see how he reacts. Give him a couple of years and we may have a contender on our hands. Dunham may have lost that fight, but in he true fans eyes...not really.


----------



## Ares Caesar (Aug 13, 2008)

Toxic said:


> But he was leaving himself more open to be stopped. IMO it would have been much easier for him to just grab Dunham and pin him against the cage for another round if he wanted to phone it in. I think Sherk really thought he could finish it but more importantly I think Sherk wanted that bonus.


I guess thats where our opinion differs. Even as Sherk had cage control at points in round 3, he was getting less and less actual "control" with it, and wasnt even getting CLOSE to taking him down. He had already started to gas a bit in round 2, as Dunhams constant scrambling back up and Sherk having to secure the clinch and then takedown again were wearing him out. By the time they reached the 3rd, Dunham was actually able to simply throw him away when he tried to hold him there. *I think* Sherk TRIED early in the 3rd round, and once he realized it was a futile effort to even try to take him down anymore, especially given that he had the first 2 rounds in the bag, he figured he could simply stand and survive (its pretty easy to be elusive if you're not even trying to damage the opponent), and I still say the haymakers which werent even CLOSE to landing were just to keep Dunham honest in his assaults. Sherk knew he was going to get hit, but if he did enough to keep Dunham from just fully unloading on him he'd be able to survive the round for the decision.

Just my opinion. I like Sherk, and I still think he won, I just dont think he tried to finish the fight at all in the 3rd after he realized he didnt have enough in the tank to do so.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

I thought Dunham should have won but I dont have a huge problem with the decision because both fighters basically left the second round up in the air to some degree, I thought Dunham did enough to pull out the second though. 

Very good fight, there was no reason to boo Sherk. I also take issue with people trying to say Sherk was just using lay n pray, he hit Dunham with some good shots from the top even if it was a bit sporadic. 

Id like to see Dunham vs kenflo next and if he wins that fight give him Edgar or whoever has the belt.


----------



## atm1982 (Feb 26, 2008)

Sherk won 1 and 2. Having deep chokes locked in means nothing unless you tap someone out. I would think any points Dunham gained from the choke, Sherk got from escaping the choke. Diego v Fitch a few years ago was similar. 

Dunhams standup was only really prominent at the end of the second round. 

Good fight though. I enjoyed it. Didnt really see the scandal that others are seeing in the decision. Very close but I've seen much worse not even getting a mention on here.

On another note that crowd was the worst I have seen in a while.


----------



## AmdM (Apr 13, 2010)

I´m so fuc*ing disgusted right now, just watched this fight and i´m stunned with the decision.
How can those judges give the guy a W for holding to a knee most of the time?

Edit - 30-27? REALLY????? Bet that was cecil "hand over the envelope" peoples.


----------



## GlasgowKiss (Sep 18, 2010)

Personally think this decision was awful, and at the very least, UFC's scoring criteria needs a major overhaul.


----------



## cisco2403 (Apr 12, 2010)

This was a bad decision. I thought Dunham clearly won Rounds 2 and 3. Sherk was completely outstruck in those rounds and from what I remember rocked in both rounds.


----------



## Machida Karate (Nov 30, 2009)

Nick_V03 said:


> Oh, I have. I don't think Dunham would even come closing to submitting a prime Sherk, but the fact is he has had a long lay off and Frankie Edgar nearly submitted Sherk with a guillotine choke, but the round ended before it came to pass. It's safe to say that Dunham is more capable of submitting someone than Edgar.
> 
> Either way, I think it will probably go to a decision, but i wouldn't write off a Dunham submission win with all things considered. :thumb02:



Yeah so keep re watching those Sherk Fights :thumbsup:

At one point in the fight he was purposely giving him his neck....


----------



## Stapler (Nov 18, 2006)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here with that post.. I already said Dunham probably wouldn't submit Sherk, but it was a possibility. You must have missed that. You didn't prove me wrong because I pretty much felt the same way but accepted the possibility. Sherk isn't "impossible" to submit. It may have paid off here, but giving your neck out to someone as a gift isn't the best idea. Regardless, he still got caught in a guillotine choke by Edgar and the round ending was what probably saved him from being choked out. You could make a case that he didn't put all of his effort into getting out because he knew the round was ending, but you couldn't prove that, it's all speculation.

I knew a submission win for Dunham would be hard because I have seen Sherk fight and he has great submission defense, but with the way he has been performing lately, the lay off, and him starting to get older, I wasn't ruling out a submission win for Dunham. It would be naive to rule that out before hand. I'm just glad to see that Sherk is still in the picture.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

Sherk won that fight imo. 1st round was clearly his and in the 2nd round he was again clearly winning up until the last minute. Even in that last minute Sherk landed some really nice counters but Dunham just powered through them and kept pushing forward. It looked like Dunham was dominating but really he wasn't landing all that much more, his size difference made it look like he was ragdolling Sherk though.

Dunham clearly won the 3rd round and likely could have won the fight if it was say a 5 rounder but that is the problem with 3 round fights that are judged round by round instead of as an overall fight. If Dunham had turned up his striking and using his extra range earlier he may have won the 2nd round and the fight but he just waited too late.


----------



## Freelancer (Jul 5, 2007)

420atalon said:


> Sherk won that fight imo. 1st round was clearly his and in the 2nd round he was again clearly winning up until the last minute. Even in that last minute Sherk landed some really nice counters but Dunham just powered through them and kept pushing forward. It looked like Dunham was dominating but really he wasn't landing all that much more, his size difference made it look like he was ragdolling Sherk though.
> 
> Dunham clearly won the 3rd round and likely could have won the fight if it was say a 5 rounder but that is the problem with 3 round fights that are judged round by round instead of as an overall fight. If Dunham had turned up his striking and using his extra range earlier he may have won the 2nd round and the fight but he just waited too late.


I strongly disagree. Sherk had a few takedowns and almost all of them ended with him in a guillotine so you can't give him points for that. The only decent thing he has done was that elbow that cut Dunham. On their feet Dunham was clearly superior, in fact it's almost safe to say that he was tooling Sherk.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

standing it was all dunham.

Sherks GnP wasnt that great.


this is the fact, unfortunately.....

Dunham lost the fight CUZ HE GOT CUT.



a glancing elbow is much more likely to cut you open like a razor blade than a solid one.

That was still the only really "signifigant" shot Sherk landed the whole fight, a glancing elbow that cut up Dunham.

Cuz Dunham looked like a freakshow, the judges and alot of ppl think he was doing some crazy damage.

He wasnt.

How are TDs worth so much?? Do TDs win fights?? If you TD somebody and get caught in a tight ass choke, i think chokes end fights.....

either way, the ground was pretty much stale mate ish, some control by Sherk, not much damage (besides the elbow) and he got caught in really tight chokes a few times and Dunham got up a bunch of times.

Standing, it was all Dunham. Esp in the 2nd and even more so in the 3rd.


----------



## recanizegame (Dec 14, 2009)

anyone who thinks sherk won that fight is smoking crack.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

is cool because Dana knows whats up, no biggie.

Like i said pre fight, alot of ppl arent realizing how good this kid is, now they do.

Its still a win for Dunham, if anything his stock rised imo not alot of young fighters can fight thru that kind of adversity in the 1st round and that NASTY ass cut.

He showed alot of heart and skill vs a very experienced and talented wrestling based vet.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

This looks about right to me.
http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/09/sherk-vs-dunham-fightmetric-report.html


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

you didnt know, going 5 for 18 on TDs and landing an elbow = win!!

doesnt matter if you are outstruck 2 to 1. and almost subbed 3x.


----------



## box (Oct 15, 2006)

One of the worst decisions in the UFC as of late. It really turned me off to the rest of the fights that night. It's time the UFC judges got schooled on mma 101.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I disagree with every decision on this card, but this is by far the worst. I'm not even talking submissions and escapes here. Dunham landed heavy on Sherk in round 2 and 3 and should have won these rounds. I have to think the same thing I thought about Nog/Bader. The takedowns that led to nothing won Sherk the fight. As random and strange as the Japanese scoring system is I find it A LOT better than this bastard child of boxing and wrestling judging criteria that makes no sense whatsoever and makes the UFC and every American MMA promotion look shady as hell although they're probably not.


----------



## Ares Caesar (Aug 13, 2008)

E Lit Er Ate said:


> you didnt know, going 5 for 18 on TDs and landing an elbow = win!!
> 
> doesnt matter if you are outstruck 2 to 1. and almost subbed 3x.


It goes both ways man.

At what point was Sherk in trouble from the striking? Did ANY of the strikes actually do much damage? Simply because he threw a ton more strikes, doesnt mean they should be worth a lot. 

Thats the same as saying Sherk should win because he had a ton more takedowns, and Dunham had none. 


Outtakedowned 5 to 0, held against cage/clinch for over 2/3 the fight, and submissions that resulted in finish = zero.

It was an INCREDIBLY close fight, but saying Dunham won simply because he threw a ton of punches and kicks with only a couple shots actually even hurting him (and I'm not sure they did), shouldnt be the reason he gets the nod anymore than Sherk getting the nod because he got ALL the takedowns and Dunham had none.

As for all those submissions, while I do think they should have SOME value, it was clear after 4+ separate attempted guillotine chokes that Dunham was NOT going to get it, then why should each one be valued much at all? He had deeper chokes on Sherk than I've seen most guys get finished by, yet EVERY TIME Sherk defended them successfully, and almost made it look like he was never even affected by them. The first couple had me worried, but after Dunham kept trying and failing it was clear they were NOT threating Sherk from taking down Dunham.

The arguments for both fighters go both ways, and it was insanely close. Personally I prefer draws in these situations because its not as if either guy likely would have finished the other fighter at any point in time during the fight, and neither did enough real damage to say "he clearly beat up the other guy more" infact Dunham looked a lot uglier afterwards despite getting punched a lot less. 

If anyone seriously thinks Dunham won it clearly or decisively or even vice versa with Sherk winning it decisively then they werent actually watching the fight and just wanted X fighter to win. The fight was THAT close, it wasnt some clear cut decision.


----------



## StandThemUp (May 30, 2008)

This fight was scored very consistently with the way the UFC has been scoring fights for a while now. Now I say consistently, but not fairly or accurately in my oppinion. I will say, I have seen far worse offenses in this regard than this fight. This is the most recent, but much closer than others.

I think the UFC puts wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much emphasis and gives way too much signifigance to takedowns and leaning against a fence. They have skewed this "mixed" MA sport way to far into the favor of wrestlers and have have made wrestling appear to me a far more effective style than it really is.

I want to see the Ultimate "fighting" Championship again. Not this continued expansion of the Ultimate "impose my will" Championship, or the Ultimate "clear the cobwebs against the fence" championship as we saw with Sherk.

If after 10-15 seconds a fighter doesn't signifigantly advance his position against the fence, the ref needs to center the fighters and make them actually fight. But no, they let them lean against the fence for 30-60 and even 90 seconds and more. In a 5 minute round that is insane. At that point it's not fighting, it's full contact dancing, or crunking or whatever.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

The UFC doesn't score fights the athletic commisions do. But yeah its consistent and like I said earlier by no means surprising.


----------



## StandThemUp (May 30, 2008)

Toxic said:


> The UFC doesn't score fights the athletic commisions do. But yeah its consistent and like I said earlier by no means surprising.


Well whoever is actually scoring UFC fights needs to actually be educated about MMA. I know that sounds crazy, but it's just a thought.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

Dunham didnt land any big shots standing??


were we even watching the same fight?? he staggered Sherk in the 2nd and he lit him up like an Xmas tree and had him reeling in the 3rd.

again, its a simple equation to me.

No cut = Dunham winning

the cut made everything Sherk did look more gruesome and made it look like he really was doing damage when in fact, he didnt do much.


----------



## Syxx Paq (Feb 19, 2010)

It sure does suck when you think "I wanted to see sherk come back and win but this is easily going to dunham" and then you have to pick your jaw off the floor when the judges flip you a scorecard like that...


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

E Lit Er Ate said:


> Dunham didnt land any big shots standing??
> 
> 
> were we even watching the same fight?? he staggered Sherk in the 2nd and he lit him up like an Xmas tree and had him reeling in the 3rd.
> ...


THIS^^^^^^^ Seem to be agreeing with you a lot today! It was a pretty obvious 29-28 Dunham, but that cut will have stuck in the judges minds cos it was horrific and would not stop bleeding. Shame for Dunham but the loss wont hurt him one bit.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

exactly, its amazing to me that caught up in all the hoop la over the bad decision, ppl arent discussing the real reason the decision was made.

One of the most gruesome cuts in recent memory, when they opened it open between rounds to put in GSP juice you could see bone, it looked like Fedors cut that cost him a fight once.

That cut made the fans cringe, made the judges cringe and made Sherk look like he did a ton of damage, when really that blow was glancing and his GnP wasnt really that effective even tho he was targeting the cut.

All props to Dunham, i know his stock raised and despite the blip on his record, im sure Dana will treat it like he treated the Jon Jones "loss". Dunham will move up the ladder.

Imagine, young fighter vs an all time great vet, you get taken down early and opened up badly.

alot of fighters crumble in that spot. Dunham has mad heart.

Sherk is such a vet, at one point i noticed him really squeezing and trying to get more blood out of that cut, so it would look worse and worse. He was trying to punch it all the time and milked it for all it was worth because really, that was the extent of "signifigant" damage that Sherk did, a glancing elbow that cut Dumham open very badly.

Ppl wonder why Pride and SF had no elbows on the ground??


----------



## Calibretto9 (Oct 15, 2006)

I wanted Sherk to win, was disappointed when he actually got the decision, and thought Dunham got robbed. That fight was boring and to me showed that Sherk hasn't developed his game at all. Sure he's tough to sub, but the guy still gets into stupid exchanges on the feet.


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

I just watched the fight for the first time today and I thought Sherk CLEARLY won the fight and don't see how it is supposedly a bad call. I've read all the posts about the fight but couldn't watch it until today and was expecting a one sided beat down from Dunham but it was the other way around. The only time Dunham was in control, imo, was the last minute of the third round. Sherk easily and clearly won that fight, imo. I really like Dunham and hope he comes back even stronger and hungrier.


----------



## AlphaDawg (Nov 16, 2009)

js9234 said:


> I just watched the fight for the first time today and I thought Sherk CLEARLY won the fight and *don't see how it is supposedly a bad call*. I've read all the posts about the fight but couldn't watch it until today and was expecting a one sided beat down from Dunham but it was the other way around. The only time Dunham was in control, imo, was the last minute of the third round. Sherk easily and clearly won that fight, imo. I really like Dunham and hope he comes back even stronger and hungrier.


Agreed. People are over exaggerating about the whole thing. It's not like Dunham destroyed Sherk the entire fight. It's a completely reasonable decision. If this was DREAM judging, I'd be surprised. But since it's in the states, I saw it coming.


----------



## G_Land (Aug 11, 2009)

Yep yep yep this was a little clearer that the Nog?Bader fight but it was still kinda close. I had Sherk ahead but thats just me!....I knew Sherks sub defense was good but I didnt know it was that good!!!


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

I scored the last round a 10:7 for Dunham!


----------



## kickstar (Nov 12, 2009)

1. round- Sherk
2. round- Dunham
3. round- Dunham


----------



## Inkdot (Jun 15, 2009)

kickstar said:


> 1. round- Sherk
> 2. round- Dunham
> 3. round- Dunham


Exactly, Dunham won this... Hope some change is gonna come soon. Funny thing is a couple of year ago the judging was not this biased towards wrestling as it is now. Hopefully the scales will shift back a bit as I think the current way the judges judge is kinda imbalanced.


----------



## js9234 (Apr 8, 2007)

I don't think anyone's really that stupid.


BobbyCooper said:


> I scored the last round a 10:7 for Dunham!


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

Toxic said:


> The UFC doesn't score fights the athletic commisions do. But yeah its consistent and like I said earlier by no means surprising.


Still with that said its the wrong decision, with no real accountability athletic commissions are going to be slow to fix this issue. 

Even though we have see a lot of fights go this way I think this is one of the more extreme cases of a high profile fight IMO.

I know fightmetric is not the be all end all but it is a useful tool and to me it kind of hi-lights how poor of a job judges do trying to apply the ten point must system not necessarily how poor the system itself is. I know they could improve the system but all in all when used correctly it comes out right.

http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/09/sherk-vs-dunham-fightmetric-report.html


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

slapshot said:


> I know fightmetric is not the be all end all but it is a useful tool and to me it kind of hi-lights how poor of a job judged do trying to apply the ten point must system not necessarily how poor the system itself is. I know they could improve the system but all in all when used correctly it comes out right.
> 
> http://blog.fightmetric.com/2010/09/sherk-vs-dunham-fightmetric-report.html


Fightemetric is useful, but only if interpreted right(their calculated winner is not necessary correct).

For example, in the 2nd round Dunham scored 1 significant strike in the clinch and 0 on the ground. That is where the majority of the fight took place. As I pointed out in another thread judging is based on grappling and striking depending on time spent doing each thing. The 2nd round was a grappling match for ~ 70% of the time and therefore is held in higher regard then the striking. Sherk won the grappling that round and the striking wasn't one sided until the 3rd round. That is why Sherk did win and deserved to win under the current judging system.


----------



## E Lit Er Ate (Aug 28, 2010)

it disappoints me how many knowledgeable fans on here think Sherk won 

his GnP was basically nothing, no real damage done, just a whole lotta blood.

He got rocked several times and was in deep chokes several times.


That is worth a helluva lot more than TDs with no damage in my book.

Hell at least Bader at Nog rocked with the GnP and had his head bouncing like a basketball off the mat.

Sherk really didnt do much but a glancing elbow and ppl are acting like he did damage.

oh well, Dana knows who really won, Dunham is moving up the charts and Sherk will likely stay put, which is what should happen.

Bottom line is, Dunham threatened to finish this fight from every aspect, striking to grappling. Sherk did not. Dunham did much more damage and got up everytime he was put down along with 4 tight chokes.

Top it off with 5 of 18 on TDs, Dunham did defend most and made Sherk pay. Out of the 5 TDs he got up 5x and locked in subs, 3 of which looked extremely deep.


----------



## BobbyCooper (Oct 26, 2009)

E Lit Er Ate said:


> it disappoints me how many knowledgeable fans on here think Sherk won
> 
> his GnP was basically nothing, no real damage done, just a whole lotta blood.
> 
> ...


Nice post and nothing but the truth here!!!

Plus you forgot, that Dunham nearly KO'd Sherk 4-5 times in the last round too. Count all those attempt to finish the fight and Dunham would have won it by Unanimous Decision if the fight was scored as a whole fight, like it should be.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

E Lit Er Ate said:


> it disappoints me how many knowledgeable fans on here think Sherk won
> 
> his GnP was basically nothing, no real damage done, just a whole lotta blood.
> 
> He got rocked several times and was in deep chokes several times.


If you look at the fight as a whole Dunham probably should win. The problem is 3 5 minute rounds scored on a 10 point system.

Sherk clearly won round 1 and Dunham clearly won round 3.

In the 2nd round Dunham had only 1 decent choke attempt and Sherk had already shown he wasn't too worried about being choked. Sherk was also not really badly rocked until the 3rd round, the striking in the 2nd was in Dunhams favor but not lopsided(Sherk was landing decent shots as well as Dunham but Dunham was doing a good job at hiding by continuosly moving forward and using his size and reach to push Sherk back). It even looked like Sherk dazed Dunham with one punch but Dunham just powered through it. 

The majority of 2nd round was Sherk controlling Dunham, even though he didn't do a lot of damage he wins the round because of the scoring system. People can be disappointed about Dunham losing all they want but he shouldn't have won that fight given the current system in place for judging fights. It was a great learning experience for him and he will learn from it and will become a better fighter in the long run because of this loss. There is no shame in losing a very close decision to a guy like Sherk, the guy is one of the best.


----------



## Rachmunas (May 15, 2009)

I just watched the fight for my first time. Round 1 I gave it to Sherk. Round 2 and 3 Dunham. I just didn't think Sherk did much damage rounds 2 and 3. He just pressed Dunham into the corner working on a take down and defended the submissions real well round 2.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

420atalon said:


> Fightemetric is useful, but only if interpreted right(their calculated winner is not necessary correct).
> 
> For example, in the 2nd round Dunham scored 1 significant strike in the clinch and 0 on the ground. That is where the majority of the fight took place. As I pointed out in another thread judging is based on grappling and striking depending on time spent doing each thing. The 2nd round was a grappling match for ~ 70% of the time and therefore is held in higher regard then the striking. Sherk won the grappling that round and the striking wasn't one sided until the 3rd round. That is why Sherk did win and deserved to win under the current judging system.


You're wrong on this point, scoring is not based on striking & grappling. Its based on EFFECTIVE striking grappling and octagon control. 

For as much time that was spent on the ground a good chunk of it was spent defending submissions by Sherk, when Sherk was defending he wasn't producing offence and therefore was losing on two fronts control because he was forced to act defensively and grappling because he was defending a submission.

So if applied correctly its not just time spent in top position that dictates scoring its how effective was he in top position. Who came closer to finishing the fight on the ground? Who was more effective? 

The real issue is that the judging guidelines are too vague and need to be more descriptive about what move strike etc has more scoring value.


----------



## 420atalon (Sep 13, 2008)

^ Sherk spent about 10 seconds that round defending submissions(Dunham only had 1 close choke) and the rest of the time controlling Dunham. Dunham spent the majority of that round just trying to avoid being taken down and keeping Sherk from doing damage, there is no way you could say Dunham won the grappling in round 2...

And because the majority of the round was spent grappling it is the major factor in determining the winner of the round, striking comes 2nd and Dunham didn't have enough of an advantage in round 2 to make up for being controlled most of the round.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

A. The striking was more significant than that, Dunham landed 36 strikes to the head standing. There was more than one choke attempt and he spent way more than a few seconds defending.

B. Sherk attempted 8 TD's but only landed 2, true he did land a few strikes but too few to say he was winning so domently on the ground that it overshadows the stand up and thats mostly due to Dunham's defense. 

To me that was a 10-9 round Donham all the way.


----------

