goes v. henderson: could I have been wrong?

[Americana]

I said recently that I thought Henderson was correctly judged the winner of this fight. The bjj guys have always thought Goes was robbed by the ufc. I just rewatched the fight in an objective manner. I think the bjj guys could be right!

Goes landed at least two big punches against Henderson, knocking him down. Goes also connected effectively with a good number of leg kicks. Goes pulled Henderson into his guard and was agressive in looking for subs (which he didn't get). At one point Goes after knocking Henderson down with a punch, sunk a rear choke in which was broken up by the ref. This choke hold was the direct result, however, of an illegal kick by Goes to the downed Henderson. I hate the no kicking a downed opponent rule myself. But that is the rule and so I don't give Goes credit for the choke.

On the other hand, Goes was gassed in the overtime, whereas Henderson was still strong. Goes also butt flopped several times, looking for Henderson to jump into his guard. I think there is a cultural bias to the butt flopping. Brazilian fighters seem to think it amusing that bit bad wrestlers refuse to go to the ground. Americans think its a real chicken move. Jeff Blatnick put it best saying: wrestling is about putting your opponent on his back. It's not about jumping on a guy who wants to stay on his back. This may have hurt Goes alot in the judging.

What did Henderson do? He did ground 'n pound Goes a little, but I think not to effectively. Henderson was also the agressor in overtime and parts of regulation. However, Henderson just seemed to walk in, oblivious to the strikes he was taking.

So, who deserved the win. Goes should have earned points for the knock downs and the leg kicks. While Henderson may have earned some points for agression, Goes should have as well for parts of the fight he carried. I don't see where Henderson would have accumulated points to overcome two knockdowns.

Could it be that Goes lost points for the kick to the downed opponent? This wasn't clear to me. I don't think it was a flagrant foul on Goes part. So any point deduction should not have been enough to take the decision away from Goes.

In summary, if you're going to do sort of a boxing points analysis, Goes scored two knockdowns and some solid kicks. Henderson didn't come close to this. Unless there was some point deduction for Goes' foul, I don't see how Henderson comes out with the decision.

Any thoughts?

[Ravenman]

"This choke hold was the direct result, however, of an illegal kick by Goes to the downed Henderson"

I actually would disagree with this part. Dan was already rocked (and knocked down) by a punch, and that kick barely touched him. What REALLY sucks is that normally a kick like that would have been given a warning, and the fight allowed to continue.

[Rob B]

Well lets look at the criteria for judging this fight. At the time it was a point each for agressiveness, striking and grappling (I think).

STRIKING - Give to Goes

GRAPPLING - this includes takedowns, position on the ground and submissions. Henderson got all the takedowns, Goes had all of the submission attempts except for that heelhook that Henderson almost got. That might have been the difference in judging this range, If Goes would have got a takedown maybe he could have swayed the decision.

AGGRESSIVENESS- This is a tough one, Henderson layed in the guard for most of the fight however he threw alot of punches while in the guard, giving the illusion of aggressiveness. he got the takedowns which could be construde as aggressive as well. In the end I think Alan really hurt himself by buttscooting, to me that technique does really seem passive and the judges could have felt the same way.

I do believe that there was a point deducted for that foul and the subsequent choke was never counted. This fight was close, but with that foul and the criteria for judging I can see how Henderson got the decision.

I however cannot see how he got the decision over Carlos Newton no matter how I break it up.

[Americana]

Rob:

If the scoring system was 1 point each for striking, grappling and agressiveness, I can see where Henderson might get the decision.

I think that's a horrible scoring system that could easily be manipulated as Henderson and Chipperli might have done. It doesn't take account of whether the component (grappling for example) was an equal contributor to the overall fight.

But you're right. Henderson probably got the nod in grappling. On agressiveness, the butt flopps probably lost it for Goes

[Bau13]

Near the end of the fight, Henderson kept throwing good uppercuts in the clinch...almost all of them connected clean ...I think that had something to do with the outcome as well..

[Mr. Miyagi]

I like Goes better than Henderson but in all honesty, I feel that Henderson won the decision very fairly. They both had their moments, but Goes buttflopped at least twice while Henderson was standing, he didn't even try to pull Henderson to guard the way Royce did to Hackney, and I thought that was very unaggressive. If he wanted to fight on the ground he should have hauled Henderson down somehow.
I also don't see why everyone thinks Goes dominated Sakuraba. He had him in trouble a couple times but he spent much of this fight on his ass as well. Saku felt like he couldn't solve the riddle that day but if they fought again Goes legs would be bruised for the rest of the year.

[fil]

In the last moments of the fight Henderson lands a good punch and Goes imediatly does a butt flop to get him away from danger, to the judges they may have considered this a knockdown.

What we see on videotape from the cameraman's point of view is not necesarely what the judges see at ringside. For example when Eddie Goldman was a judge and picked Rizzo over Coleman he mentioned how the damage on Coleman's legs looked much more noticable then on videotape which influenced his contravertial pick in that fight.

As for Goes "dominating" Sakuraba, I am with Mr Miyagi on this one, I dont see a clear winner in that fight.

[royceg420]

I don't like Henderson but the fight was so close I can see the win going to him because of the foul. Goes did have the knockdowns but he didn't capitalize on them like he should have, especially since he so obviosly wanted to be on the ground.
I'll give him Goes but I too, like Rob B, still can't see how he won the fight against Newton.

"Wrestling is about putting your opponent on his back.Its not about jumping on a guy who wants to stay on his back."
I think that's the only reasonable thing I think I've heard Jeff Blatnick say. Remember this one: "there's no real power in those legs to choke".....Royce over the Beast a la triangle.

[Newbie]

"Wrestling is about putting your opponent on his back. Its not about jumping on a guy who wants to stay on his back."

Bullshit. Could you imagine a wrestling coach saying to one of his young students right before a match "Remember Johnny, I only want you to take him down and pin him if he tries to resist. If he willingly lies down on his own back, stay the hell away from him and keep on your feet."?

Maybe Mark Coleman would have lost his first fight in the Ultimate Fighting Championship if only Moti Horenstein had flopped down on his own back voluntarily before Coleman could get a hold of him. Mark Coleman might have simply said to himself "Oh No, I better not go to the ground with this guy. He wants to stay on his back. I must not forget what my wrestling coaches have always told me about guys that want to stay on their backs. MUST STAY AWAY!!! My punches will hurt my opponent if I take him down against his will, except if he goes down voluntarily, all my punches will mysteriously lose all effectiveness."

Perhaps Tae Kwon Do instructors should start teaching their students to buttflop if they ever fight a wrestler.

Also, buttscooting may be boring, except the buttscooter's opponent should be able to either get on top of him or else kick him while he's down. Is the dreaded buttscoot really so effective that it is virtually impossible to hurt your opponent when he uses it? Or perhaps it's just such a thoroughly intimidating sight to see your opponent willingly jump down on his back.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Newbie, your logic has lost me again. Jeff Blatnik's statement is in regards to what wrestlers practice every day, not about an unlikely wrestling match where their opponent buttflops. In the matchup between Coleman and Horentstein, Coleman knew that he wasn't going against a guy with an unbeatable guard so he took him down. Henderson did not want to sit around in Goes's guard and get caught and had the ability to keep the fight standing so he did. Coleman has already stated that he may keep the upcoming fight with Goes standing and strike with him.
As for buttflopping, I don't mind seeing it in Pride because at least the standing fighting can kick the grounded one so that keeps things fair. But in the UFC, if you can't kick the guy on the ground and he's facing you in a crab position, what the hell are you supposed to do? Nothing, except for let him back up.

[Twisted up]

GOES/HENDERSON should've been a draw!

I actually like Dan Henderson. I like Goes too and I think he is one of the best fighters out there right now.

I think that the decision was not a good one, because I'm not in favor of judges decisions. I think that fight should have been called a DRAW!

Lets consider this a moment. If a fight can end in a draw, would that not make fighters try to go for the WIN? ESPECIALLY if the issue of a paycheck is on the line? I say if a fight ends in a draw, the purse should be then evenly distributed, and perhaps even lessened. Didn't the "MARS" fight work something like that?

It's fights just like the Goes/Henderson one that give validity to this argument. Either man could have been given that win (though I would lean toward Goes), Goes did some very good things as did Henderson.

As fighters become more equally skilled (read, CROSS-TRAINED), we will be faced with exactly this situation more and more in the future.

SOMETHING should be done in my opinion. I am not perfectly clear on the rules of each event anymore (as they seem to change them so often) but, I think that many fights that I've seen SHOULD have ended in DRAWS. This particular one CERTAINLY should have!


What do you guys think?


John

[Rob B]

Mr. Miyagi

If a was fighting a guy who buttflopped, I would fall to the crab position and start chasing him around till he stood up. Wouldn't that be a site.

[Jean-Jacque]

Aside from the Goes fight, the Newton fight, and subsequent decision was a joke. Newton clearly won that fight. His striking was better, his takedowns were just as good as Henderson (he double legged a world class wrestler) and he had good defense on the ground. He also broke Hendersons jaw, so his striking was obviously effective. There was no way that Henderson should have gotten the decision.

[Martial Artist]

I like the way BJM broke the choke because of a violation.

[Newbie]

Mr. Miyagi

"Jeff Blatnik's statement is in regards to what wrestlers practice every day, not about an unlikely wrestling match where their opponent buttflops."

No, Jeff Blatnick's statement was a cop out. He was minimizing the fact that wrestling as a martial art stresses defeating your opponent on the ground. PERIOD. You are taught to take your opponent down and put him on his back whether he wants to go there or not. It is obviously assumed that he will not want to be on the bottom. This assumption is based on the belief that whoever fights from the top is fighting from the superrior position. When a Gracie Jiu-Jitsu practicioner defeats a wrestler from the bottom, he nullifies everything a wrestler has trained to do. Taking your opponent down to the ground is not an end in and of itself, it is a means to an end. The ultimate goal for those who practice wrestling, and all ground fighting arts for that matter, should be to develop the ability to not only get your opponent down to the ground by whatever means neccesary, except also to beat the ****** out of him him once you get him there.
I know that from a personal point of view, the ONLY reason I went out for wrestling in High School was to become a better fighter. I always looked at taking my opponent down to the ground as a means to an end when I looked at the potential of using it in real life. I would always have preferred having my opponent on his back when wrestling was all I knew. If my opponent WANTED to fight from his own back, I would have been ecstatic. I knew nothing of any other ground fighting arts at the time. I never once won a fight by any means other than holding my opponent down and punching him.

"In the matchup between Coleman and Horentstein, Coleman knew that he wasn't going against a guy with an unbeatable guard so he took him down."

That was exactly my point. Jeff Blatnick's statement minimizes the significance of the fact that the only reason a wrestler would be afraid to go the ground against a GJJ practicioner is because that wrestler is not as good of a ground fighter as his opponent. It doesn't deny it, it minimizes it's significance. It'd be like Mike Tyson being afraid to fight a stand-up battle against a stand-up martial artsist of another style. It would be very significant. Jeff Blatnick does not give GJJ the respect it deserves when he makes a remark like that.

"Henderson did not want to sit around in Goes's guard and get caught and had the ability to keep the fight standing so he did."

Goes did not want to stand around on his feet and get caught and had the ability to keep the fight on the ground, so he did. What's the difference? If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If buttscooting is not a valid defense, attack the person buttsooting.
The only thing I would like to see different is that I feel it should be within the rules to kick a downed opponent.