On Silva-Bisping and Impartiality

One of the very noticeable changes in mixed martial arts- and the UFC in particular- over the last few years is the tendency of fighters to attract truly rabid fan bases.  Whereas years ago, many would tune in more for the spectacle or the name brand itself, even the newer fans that came in when “The Ultimate Fighter” first hit airwaves have watched dozens of events by now.  They’ve grown attached to certain fighters, learned to despise others, and have a (usually) sound knowledge of the sport.  Whereas years ago, only the likes of Chuck Liddell, Tito Ortiz or Randy Couture had real followings, the UFC has approached Nascar in terms of how their fans strongly identify with a wide variety of particular fighters nowadays.

What am I getting at?  You’ll see in a minute.  Perhaps you saw some of the quite-manufactured “controversy” that supposedly occurred in the hours and now days after the Wanderlei Silva-Michael Bisping fight.  While one can’t blame Bisping himself, as he has not made a stink publicly about the result that I’ve seen, his quite loyal fanbase have started to do the job for him.  A quick trip to Bisping’s official site reveals a rant posted by an anonymous person- probably some sort of site administrator, who seems to believe that there is “controversy” in the result, which of course, was a unanimous decision in favor of Silva.

The post concedes the third round for Silva and claims the first for Bisping, which is accurate enough.  However, a lengthy rant then follows that insinuates that Bisping clearly won the second round (and therefore, the fight), citing rather dubious evidence such as Silva’s face being “a mess” and that Bisping “gets the better of nearly every exchange” and calling the judges “hapless”.  Even more amusingly, the rant includes a shot at Joe Rogan and the UFC’s “hype machine”, as the anonymous poster seems to believe that Rogan’s “incessant cheerleading” and the UFC’s decision to focus more on Wanderlei during the Countdown special have persuaded the fans and judges into believing that the wrong fighter won.

If you rely on actual facts (gasp!) rather than the schoolyard assessment of whose face looked better at the end of the second round, you may find FightMetric’s always-intriguing stats to be valuable.  Apparently Bisping was not landing as many “telling shots” as his offical site suggests, as Silva actually out-struck him, 18 to 14.  What about the quality of strikes, though?  Silva landed more power shots than Bisping, with 11 power shots landing to the head, body and legs of Bisping, while Bisping managed just 4 power shots, relying more on his jab throughout the round.

The site’s rant also points at Bisping’s takedowns,while seemingly ignoring the judging criteria that has been used for years now at UFC events.  Silva stood up out of both takedowns without taking any real damage, and the judging criteria states that “a clean reversal is equal to a clean takedown in effective grappling.”  I pointed out a couple of times to friends while we were watching the pay-per-view that standing straight up from a takedown negates any “points” from said takedown, so it’s a common misunderstanding.  Of course, Silva also scored a resounding takedown himself, and what of the guillotine that nearly ended the fight at the end of the round?  Bisping clearly was affected, as he had to take a few seconds to get back up and to his corner after the bell.

When taking into account that Silva landed more strikes, had more powerful strikes, negated any of Bisping’s takedowns, and had a very tight guillotine for several seconds at the bell, just how can the result be labeled as anything other than accurate?  Even if you see that round differently somehow, to claim that this decision is obviously unjust is ridiculous.  We’ve all seen close decisions by now.  Shogun-Machida was a close decision.  Couture-Vera was a close decision.  This one?  Not so much.

What I really want to get at here is the question of impartiality.  First of all, common sense will tell you that the judges were not affected by any sort of cheerleading by a commentator, imagined or otherwise.  The judges do not sit in Joe Rogan’s lap to watch the fights, nor do they settle in with a beer and a pair of headphones so that they can listen to the commentary and relax just like we do at home.  One would think, though it’s impossible to prove, that they are not swayed by fan reactions, either.  If anything, the biggest impediment to a judges’ reaction is that their view can be obstructed or they may have a bad angle at times.  During the Machida-Shogun fight, it was hard even while watching live on television to tell just how many shots were landing when Machida or Shogun were coming forward with quick exchanges.  If anything, this would benefit Bisping, though, who threw 30 punches in the round from a standing position.  It’s not something that would have worked very well in Silva’s favor.

Still, this isn’t the first time, even recently, that I’ve heard a fighter or someone connected to a fighter somehow cite biased commentary while discussing a fight’s result.  Again, let’s remember that the judges can’t, you know, actually hear what Rogan is saying during the fight.  Also, the idea that the amount of screen time devoted to Silva in a Countdown special that only a small portion of the fans actually watched is even worth mentioning is laughable.  To include it in what is supposed to be an article about the judge’s view of the fight is ridiculous.  Are we to believe that one of the judges watched a Spike TV airing of the special and on the night of the fight thought, “hey, this Silva guy is pretty awesome, and he’s on TV much more.  I’m sure he got the better of that round.”  Or even worse, “You know, Bisping comes off really cocky.  I think we need to send him a message…round two to Wanderlei!”

It seems like every event now has a controversial decision; but more often than not, the controversy is mostly unwarranted.  Many are either unwilling or unable to look past their personal allegiances to take their own advice and assess the fight from an impartial point of view.  While advising the rest of us to “watch the fight with the sound off”, they forget that even with the sound off, they can’t seem to quiet their own biases.

As more and more fans become allied with not just big name fighters, but just about every competitor on the card, the impartiality that once made MMA’s then-small fanbase a very intelligent one will continue to be more and more a thing of the past.  Though fans now should be more knowledgeable and have more access to MMA events, news and now statistics then ever, they somehow seem more emotional and less knowledgeable, instead.  No one’s telling you not to cheer on your favorite fighter, but you should know, at some level, when he or she simply did not do what was needed to win the fight.

Oh, and another valuable tip- don’t look to a fighter’s personal website for any sort of unbiased analysis.  Doing so may just unearth a “controversy” that is really nothing more than a small collection of loyal fans with selective memories consoling one another with insincere words.

E-Mail Jon Hartley

Tags: Joe Rogan, Michael Bisping, UFC 110, Wanderlei Silva