28 Responses to “UFC 75 Video: Matt Hamill vs. Michael Bisping”

1. Anonymous Sep 9th, 2007 at 8:29 am

   bullshit

2. Russell Sep 9th, 2007 at 11:03 am

   What a fluke. Fuck the UFC for letting this happen

3. Anonymous Sep 9th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

   he act’s like he kicked matt hamill’s ass and he did do shit! the only reason he got the win was because he’s he home town fav!

4. Anonymous Sep 9th, 2007 at 12:53 pm

   what a joke, theres no way bisbing won that fight. hamill had multiple take downs, a good right hand and bisping backpedalled the whole fight

5. mma fan Sep 9th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

   matt won the fight!better take down,landed stronger cleaner strikes.

6. Ih8bisping Sep 9th, 2007 at 7:38 pm

   bispings a fag he thinks hes so great that cocky dick word hamill killed him and was the much much better all roud fighter he took it to bisping on the stand up. worst decision ever dana white should fire the judges n change the result himself

7. teg Sep 10th, 2007 at 9:57 am

   matt hamill is deaf 2 judges are blind! Bisping must give world class blow jobs, seriously top of the food chain.

8. rt Sep 10th, 2007 at 10:21 am

   The judges must have come from the WBO (boxing).
   Sad to see the UFC allowing such an obviously incorrect score.
   Hamil was tired in the third but no way he lost the fight.

9. Anonymous Sep 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am

   nowt like being biased towards americans! if you actually scored the fight on connecting strikes rather than who looks like they’re winning, Bisping has it by a country mile

10. tonyd Sep 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am

    The first time I saw this fight I thought Hamill won like everyone else. But after watching it a close second time I can see how Bisping got the decision. Hammill won the first round no question about it. But if you watch the second and third rounds closely they could both easily go to Bisping. Hammill took him down about 5 times, but did absolutely nothing to him after he took him down, and Bisping was able to get up with out suffering any damage at all. This is MMA not a wrestling match. So just taking someone down and then not doing anything to them at all means nothing really if you cant even keep the person down. IN the 2nd and 3rd round Hammill was clearly gassed, he dropped his hands alot, alowing Bisping to slip in punches. In the third round bisping stuffed 3 take downs by the great wrestling hammill, landed some punches, a knee and a kick in the face. Close fight, great effort by both. But I am no longer mad that the decision went to Bisping.

11. Anonymous Sep 11th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    two judges saw it one way by just a point and hte third saw it go the other way by a few. Doesn’t look like they were all looking at the same match.

12. Anonymous Sep 11th, 2007 at 11:37 am

    i;m confused why people think stuffing a takedown attempt means anything. so you nullified an attack, so what? Does hamill get credit for blocking dozens of bisping’s punches? So if you block a takedown it scores points, if you land a takedown it doesn’t count for anything until you hurt the guy? Huh? Does blocking a takedown hurt someone more than getting slammed on your back? What about if you get him in side control and take his back, like hamill did? Not to mention a few elbows on bisping’s face, with leverage, unlike bisping’s token shots from the bottom. And bisping got points for “trying to roll for an armbar” from mullen. TRYING. TO ROLL. he was unseccessfully attempting to PREPARE to BEGIN an armbar, and mullen liked that. You don’t have to actually do anything or put your opponent in any danger with a submission attempt, but god knows you better do more with a takedown than just get side control and rain elbows.

13. Anonymous Sep 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Anonymous at 11:37am Today on 9/11 said it ALL!! I too have wrote many blogs,forums,emails about the statements of ALMOST SUBMISSION, ATTEMPTS and The BEGINNING of the 2nd rnd counters-OK-now where else and how did he win. So the attempts get counted and some counters in the beginning od 2nd rnd is better than ACTUALLY TAKING DOWN MATT WAS TOTALLY THE AGGRESSOR Wher are those points? The judges sound even more stupid with those remarks about ATTEMPTS,ALMOST and BEGINNING OF A ROUND (only the beginning)…UH>> THE BRIT DID IT RIGHT..Tha Americans WERE PAID.. Its the only explanation REALLY! I am STILL OUTRAGED, my 2 boys were and still are hurt.

14. anonymous Sep 12th, 2007 at 11:02 am

    Unbelievable how such a one sided fight could be judged so poorly.
    If the UFC wants to retain any ounce of credibility then Dana White must overturn the decision.

    Hammil was such a good sport about it even though he knew without a doubt he won that fight.

    Bisping on the other hand was a complete jerk. Did he actually believe the load of crap he was dishing out?

    I always thought Bisping was a dominate fighter but Hammil made him look bad. Hammil could’ve dominated him on the ground the whole fight but chose to keep letting Bisping on his feet and beat him at his own game.

15. Ton-that-viet Truong Sep 12th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

    ye bisping kick ass!! h dominated the first round and all others. woot

16. Shawn Sep 13th, 2007 at 12:29 am

    I liked Bisbing during the Ultimate Fighter, he’s a good fighter and has a good future ahead of him. BUT, he lost me when I saw how he responded after this fight. No class… none at all. I can only guess that he responded like that for three reasons:

    1. He was still dazed from Matt Hamill’s STANDUP owning him in the first round.
    2. He felt so embarassed that he got his butt kicked ON HIS FEET to a WRESTLER in front of his home crowd that he effectively gave an elementary school bravado speech.
    3. He’s delusional and he believed the crap coming out of his mouth.

    It was clear Matt won that fight. Bisbing probably took the third, and granted the second was much closer than the first. But he did clearly lose.

    I wish the UFC commentators were allowed to comment truthfully. You could tell from this fight that if the judges throw a fight to a UFC fav that’s marketable, they’ve can’t question it.

    If the UFC is to remain without people questioning the integrity of the decisions, honesty should be allowed from the guys calling the fight.

17. craig"mma" weber Sep 16th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    hey “ton troung” you are an ABSOLUTE BOZO…. even BISPING admitted he LOST round one…. Just go die moron.

18. Daniel Sep 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    first round Hamill definetly , second neither and 3rd hamill again, i dont see how bisping won that fight.

19. bobbysmith Sep 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    whats up guys new here..great site

20. Cbonk Sep 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    I must agree, just because bisping got up so fast from the takedowns does not score him points. Hamill won the fight on the feet and the ground. Bisping did no damage at all in the fight, all he did was attempt to do things. If you are gonna give bisping points for his strikes then how can you not give Hamill more for his huge right hand in teh first round and his other huge blows when he had bisping in a headlock. I hate Bisping and I think the UFC is a joke. The fight had to have been fixed and the judges were obviously given alibyes for their scoring. The whole thing was a joke. Is Bisping going to win a fight everytime the UFC goes to England just so the English fans stay interested…even if he lost the fight? The UFC is a joke. White needs to do something.

21. chris lloyd Sep 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 am

    After watching the fight I have to say that Hamill has massive potential, more than Bisping.

    But in this fight Hamill was his own worst enemy. Even in the second and third rounds he has Bisping on the floor a fair few times, but what came of it? A few punches in the third but nothing else. He didnt dominate he just seemed to think that once Bisping was on his back the job was done.

    I think Tito needs to pull the guy aside and teach him a few pounding techniques. If he had landed a few more then he would no doubt have won the fight. Taking someone down and laying on them proves nothing, he shouldnt be rewarded for simply being the more powerful of the two fighters.

    Also his stand up lacks any technique, he seemed to be throwing and hoping, whereas bisping was picking his shots. Bombs when they hit though.

    Can’t wait for the rematch, unless Bisping improves massively he’s gunna get hammered.

    –

    Oh and stop with the ‘Bispings hometown’ rubbish. London isn’t Bispings hometown, in fact saying this is the equivelent of saying Tito’s home town of New York. He’s from the complete other side of England.

22. Jonny Sep 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 am

    Bollocks Did Bisping Win, Hamill Damaged Bisping in the 1st and second round… + scoring… 29-28 to bisping… then 30-27 to hamill… so that puts hamill 2 points ahead… and then 29-28 again to bsiping…. hamill still should of won!

23. martin Sep 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    the first time i watched this fight i was a bit like (what the hell) but i watched it again and bisping won it fair ,some ppl are sayin hamill was such a good sport…….what the fuck dose that have to do with it eny good fight will know if they one or lost by .1 of a point or what ever he still lost or one by that .1 of a point,either that or americans just cant handle the fact not only americans can fight no offence america

24. kingofmma Apr 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am

    i watched the fight muliple times and came to the same conclusion each time, bisping one it was close and he lost the first, but he won the second to!! and btw they DO give points if you stuff a takedown. please dont jump on the ‘deaf guy’ bandwagon.(no offence intended to hamill hes a good fighter)btw im canadian so i make a fair point.

25. Anonymous Apr 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am

    lol god knows what angle you were watching the fight im from england and even i can admit if there is a winner it clearly is Matt hamill, maybe it sohuld of been a draw to save all these arguments but if i had to say a winner its got to be matt. every1 can clearly see that bisping was struggling with matt. im a liddell fan and the fight he had with silva was extremely close a whole lot closer then this fight but no1 gave silva the benefit of the doubt. if liddell won his fight with silva then matt hamill should of been the winner against bisping.

26. drbabs Jun 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    THIS WAS THE NUMBER ONE WORST CALL BY OFFICIALS I HAVE EVER SEEN IN 35 YEARS OF OFFICIATING

Leave a Reply