At first, I was really disappointed by UFC 204’s title match.
The two most commonly predicted outcomes were that Dan Henderson gets lucky and shuts the lights off on Michael Bisping one more time, or that the Brit would punish the aging legend for a midway finish. Instead, we got a fight that was very close where Bisping seems to have massively underperformed.
I drove straight home after the fights, so it wasn’t till this morning that I realized how contentious the decision for Bisping apparently was.
Let’s settle this now: Michael Bisping (almost definitely) won.
The 49-46 scorecard was iffy (I gave Henderson both rounds he knocked down Bisping) but other than that 3 rounds for Bisping is reasonable. Yes, Henderson won his two rounds far more convincingly but unless he was gifted a 10-8 he still lost the fight. I’ve heard that Bisping should’ve lost a point on his second groin kick, but that’s wishful thinking from the part of Hendo fans. At most I can see an argument for a 47-47 draw via a 10-8 in the first round for Henderson (though it would’ve helped if Bisping hadn’t gotten back to his feet).
I’m a guy was ready to riot when Shogun lost his first decision against Machida and Gustafsson to Jones, and even I can see Bisping squeaking by in round 5. It comes down to “what exactly does a takedown count for”? Sure the commentators put emphasis on it, but the judges and commentators have rarely ever seen eye to eye. After seeing the judging on Hendricks vs. Lawler II, I’m willing to believe that takedowns with no activity and/or a quick stand up count very little towards points.
I’m going to subscribe this to the fact that everyone loves an underdog and Henderson is about as lovable as it gets. And that the 10 point scoring system has downsides. After everything is said and done though . . . could we have asked for a more perfect ending?
Michael Bisping gets to keep his title, the one he earned through nothing more than back breaking work ethic and guts. The one he earned by slaughtering the goliath of the middleweight division on two weeks notice. Henderson fans can dissuade themselves to the result of the fight all they want, but not one of them can argue that their hero deserved that title shot.
It may have lit the world on fire to see the 46 year old legend face plant Bisping one more time, but in an era which the UFC brass has transparently valued PPV buy-rates over worthy challengers wouldn’t it feel . . . icky? Perhaps I’m soft by imagining the apocalypse scenario, but a Henderson win would justify all the convenient matchmaking that the UFC has engaged in for the past two or three years. We don’t need that.
But Henderson gets to walk away with his pride (heh) intact. The likely scenario many of us imagined was that Bisping would embarrass Henderson in the same way Gegard Mousasi did by countering and sleeping him. Instead, the PRIDE champion got to make a respectable scrap of it and almost took the title on two occasions. Our last memory of Henderson gets to be a man who tried his hardest and bowed out with grace, more akin to Rocky Balboa than Chuck Liddell.
The coolest thing is that their second meeting looked a lot like what their first meeting should have been.
There was Bisping, flicking out combinations that stung but didn’t punish. There was Henderson, his plodding and ungainly movement in stark contrast with his ability to load and time his Sunday Punch. He clocked Bisping twice as the Brit (infuriatingly) dragged his left hand back instead of retracting it. But the middleweight champion was too stubborn and too well conditioned to realize he should be in a coma, managing to point fight to a narrow win.
The sports gods are cruel, so let’s accept this blessing. Two men, their rivalry reignited by a marketing team, managed to leave the Octagon with both their dignities intact and the “right” man winning the title.
And if you really wanted Bisping to lose, don’t worry: the winner of Weidman and Romero awaits.
