Stephens vs Guillard

[Dirty Sanchez]

Anyone have some idea why the line dropped by over 30 cents? Guillard was -142 and now -110....just wondering what folks see or heard?

[Vaughany]

Its just obvious that this fight is closer than the lines initially suggested...a lot of people saw value in Stephens (including myself).

[illmatick]

sharp money coming in on stephens...+101 at pinnacle

[Marv001]

Omg, I got the assassin at -160.

[lasker]

Glad to see this movement, as I pegged Stephens as the strongest play on the card when he was still the dog and I've bet a lot on him straight up and in parlays. I think he'll finish Guillard.

[snake11eyes]

I got Guillard at -140 and I'm going to get more at -105. I still think Stephens keeps it standing and comes away with the loss.

[LearningTree]

sharp money coming in on stephens...+101 at pinnacle

Why do you think line movement in MMA means something? There are huge shifts in lines in MMA every event and everyone is wrong all the time. It doesn't mean anything.

[illmatick]

of course it means something... try fading the late movement on a pinnacle closer and tell me how you do in the long run.

[LearningTree]

of course it means something... try fading the late movement on a pinnacle closer and tell me how you do in the long run.

Really? So what did they learn? Guillard lost his left nut and kept it a secret until now?

[lasker]

bullshit decision.

[Vaughany]

See above ^^^

[snake11eyes]

bullshit decision.

Granted I was watching in a bar with no sound and probably not paying full attention, but it looked like Stephens never landed anything significant while guillard was scoring. Was the decision that bad.

[lasker]

it was not a highway robbery like the Sherk-Dunham fight, and calling it a bullshit decision was harsh, but I do believe Stephens won that fight. The third round was clearly his (the 30-27 score for Guillard was bullshit), and the first two rounds were very close. In the first round Stephens dropped Guillard right away, landing the most significant punch of the round, but I can see that close round going to Guillard as he got the better of the minimal action that followed. In the second Stephens was stalking Guillard and pushing forward almost the entire round, and he also did more damage with his leg kicks than Guillard did with any of his jabs (not to mention landing a nice uppercut of his own). Stephens landed the more damaging strikes and exhibited more aggression/octagon control in the second round.

The 30-27 score for Bader was also baffling, although I do believe Bader won rounds 1 and 2. The split decision win for Sherk... easily one of the worst decisions I've ever seen.

[snake11eyes]

it was not a highway robbery like the Sherk-Dunham fight, and calling it a bullshit decision was harsh, but I do believe Stephens won that fight. The third round was clearly his (the 30-27 score for Guillard was bullshit), and the first two rounds were very close. In the first round Stephens dropped Guillard right away, landing the most significant punch of the round, but I can see that close round going to Guillard as he got the better of the minimal action that followed. In the second Stephens was stalking Guillard and pushing forward almost the entire round, and he also did more damage with his leg kicks than Guillard did with any of his jabs (not to mention landing a nice uppercut of his own). Stephens landed the more damaging strikes and exhibited more aggression/octagon control in the second round.

The 30-27 score for Bader was also baffling, although I do believe Bader won rounds 1 and 2. The split decision win for Sherk... easily one of the worst decisions I've ever seen.

I liked Guillard a lot in this fight and even got more when the odds dropped before the fight knowing that it would probably stay standing the whole time. I was impressed with Stephens however, I knew he had nice standup, but I thought he would be overmatched in a striking contest. To his credit he stayed in there and did very well. Agree with the Sherk decision that was crazy.

[GoldenYAK]

Guillard clearly won. If you can't see that your blind. Stephens landed way fewer shots, and really that's all there was to go off of. Who won the kickboxing? Obviously Guillard.

The dunham fight was a bs decision. This was a close fight that Guillard won either 30-27 or 29-28.

[Vaughany]

Guillard clearly won. If you can't see that your blind. Stephens landed way fewer shots, and really that's all there was to go off of. Who won the kickboxing? Obviously Guillard.

The dunham fight was a bs decision. This was a close fight that Guillard won either 30-27 or 29-28.

Got knocked down after 5 seconds?

[GoldenYAK]

Fights are scored on the entirety of the fight, not 5 seconds.

[Vaughany]

Fights are scored on the entirety of the fight, not 5 seconds.

So it should be ignored then? I think a knockdown is worth a lot more than 5 to 10 jabs from Guillard!

[GoldenYAK]

Where in the rules does it say that?? No where. Your just making up your own rules and when one of your picks loses instead of reevaluating your picking strategy you blame it on the refs.....

Guillard won rounds 2 and 3 and maybe 1.

[brooks85]

Guillard, with out a doubt, did not win round 3 and round 1 was his best round

[Vaughany]

Where in the rules does it say that?? No where. Your just making up your own rules and when one of your picks loses instead of reevaluating your picking strategy you blame it on the refs.....

Guillard won rounds 2 and 3 and maybe 1.

ha Epic fail...didnt lose money brah, had Guillard by decision and Guillard in a parlay with Grant and Mitrione...look at my thread! I'm not surprised Guillard won, and I'm not talking about the rules, I'm just saying how it should be...common sense tells me that a knockdown should score highly that's all.

[lasker]

Guillard clearly won. If you can't see that your blind. Stephens landed way fewer shots, and really that's all there was to go off of. Who won the kickboxing? Obviously Guillard. The dunham fight was a bs decision. This was a close fight that Guillard won either 30-27 or 29-28.

I'm actually not sure Stephens landed way fewer shots -- unless you go the Cecil Peoples route and ignore the *kick* part of kickboxing. And if you really thought Guillard could have won round 3, you are blind.

Where in the rules does it say that?? No where. Your just making up your own rules and when one of your picks loses instead of reevaluating your picking strategy you blame it on the refs..... Guillard won rounds 2 and 3 and maybe 1.

Where in the rules does it say that?? No where. Your just making up your own rules and when one of your picks loses instead of reevaluating your picking strategy you blame it on the refs..... Guillard won rounds 2 and 3 and maybe 1.

I agree with Brooks, Round 1 was Guillard's best round in spite of the knockdown. I fail to see how he won round 2 when Stephens was the one moving forward, and when he was landing multiple leg strikes that seemed more damaging than any of Guillard's jabs. Stephens landed the most significant punch in both rounds 1 (the early knockdown) and 2 (his uppercut). If you really think Guillard won round 3 you can be the next Cecil Peoples. That round is not even in question; Stephens won it clearly.

[GoldenYAK]

ha Epic fail...didnt lose money brah, had Guillard by decision and Guillard in a parlay with Grant and Mitrione...look at my thread! I'm not surprised Guillard won, and I'm not talking about the rules, I'm just saying how it should be...common sense tells me that a knockdown should score highly that's all.

To be honest i don't care who you had. And you obviously were talking about the rules when you said a knock down should be scored more then 10 jabs. Your homemade rules and judging criteria obviously aren't reliable if you think stephens won...

The only fight that was truly a robbery was Dunham.

[Vaughany]

To be honest i don't care who you had. And you obviously were talking about the rules when you said a knock down should be scored more then 10 jabs. Your homemade rules and judging criteria obviously aren't reliable if you think stephens won...

lol Well u "obviously" (your word of the day?!) do care otherwise u wouldn't have ranted about it in the first place! The fact is I won money thanks to Guillard but I'm still objective enough to admit that he didn't win tht fight, it should of been a draw at very least.

[GoldenYAK]

lol Well u "obviously" (your word of the day?!) do care otherwise u wouldn't have ranted about it in the first place! The fact is I won money thanks to Guillard but I'm still objective enough to admit that he didn't win tht fight, it should of been a draw at very least.

No really I don't care who you pick. But if it makes you feel better I'll stop saying it.

Also, based on your "expert" analysis that a knock down should be scored more then 10 jabs I can see you have no clue how an mma fight is judged. Try actually reading the unified rules.

[lasker]

The only fight that was truly a robbery was Dunham.

Yeah, I do agree with this. The one judge who had Stephens-Guillard 30-27 for Guillard was insane, but it's not at all a robbery to score it 29-28 Guillard (though I had it 29-28 Stephens).

Sherk-Dunham was robbery of the year.

[Vaughany]

No really I don't care who you pick. But if it makes you feel better I'll stop saying it.

Also, based on your "expert" analysis that a knock down should be scored more then 10 jabs I can see you have no clue how an mma fight is judged. Try actually reading the unified rules.

U still dont seem to understand! I'm saying that the unified rules are not necessarily the right way...just because something is a rule doesnt mean it cant be wrong! Yes, perhaps in the actual 'rules' a knock down might not be worth much, but I'm saying that it should, the same as a takedown seems to be worth a lot while sub attempts dont seem to be worth as much (the Dunham/Sherk fight is a perfect example).

[brooks85]

well if guillard gets his matchup again, its gomi next. Im all for it.

[lasker]

If Guillard fights Gomi the way he fought Stephens, he should also outpoint Gomi to a decision. Gomi and Stephens have similar styles. I wonder if Greg Jackson is telling him who to call out.