Sean Sherk defeats Evan Dunham via a controversial Split Decision

Former UFC Lightweight Champion Sean Sherk managed to defeat the young prospect Evan Dunham via a (controversial) Split Decision, in what could easily be as UFC 119 Fight of the Night. Sherk dominated Dunham in the First Round, managing to deliver a punishing ground and pound from the top. Sherk also managed to cut Dunham above his left eye,, but the previously unbeaten prospect managed to survive.

Second and the Third rounds were a little bit different story, as Evan Dunham fired submission attempts  and effective striking combinations, forcing Sean Sherk to close the gap and look for a takedown. The Muscle Shark survived in an impressive fashion, answering with striking combos of his own.

In the end, it was a 29-28, 28-29, 29-28 Split Decision for Sean Sherk, who improves his MMA record to 34-4-1. Evan Dunham is now 11-1 in his MMA career, with sights on bouncing back stronger than ever.


18 Comments

  1. Profile photo of BigNog22

    BigNog22

    September 26, 2010 at 6:41 am

    that what i call BS
    and shitty judges

  2. Profile photo of UnderdogGreatness

    UnderdogGreatness

    September 26, 2010 at 6:44 am

    The judges got that one wrong IMO

  3. Profile photo of griffin

    griffin

    September 26, 2010 at 6:45 am

    sherk is back! Sherk won round 1 rnd 2 sherk controlled for like 3 min and then dunham last 2 but coulda went either way, rnd 3 dunham. Evans face was the deciding factor

  4. Profile photo of JoaquinC

    JoaquinC

    September 26, 2010 at 7:59 am

    Thank God Dunham has the heart he has, it’s only his love for the sport that’s going to have to keep him going, because the sport’s major player the UFC apperently isn’t showing him much love in return.

  5. Profile photo of Jizzle11

    Jizzle11

    September 26, 2010 at 8:02 am

    I had Dunham winning

  6. Profile photo of Nik_Hulstein

    Nik_Hulstein

    September 26, 2010 at 8:43 am

    This was the only good fight on the main card :(

  7. Profile photo of WingChun

    WingChun

    September 26, 2010 at 8:55 am

    To: Sean Shirk

    From: 3 Judges Ringside

  8. Profile photo of cranestyle

    cranestyle

    September 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    What BS! That last round was 10-8 for Dunham so even if Sherk won round 2 (which he didn’t) at worst it should have been a draw.

    Horrible night for the judges! Little Nog beat Bader and how did one of the judges have Stephens beating Guilard?

    Oh, wait…Cecil Peoples was one of the judges. That explains everything.

  9. Profile photo of rflynn

    rflynn

    September 26, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    @griffin
    did you watch the fight? dunham won 2 and 3 easily, thank god your not a judge

  10. Profile photo of rflynn

    rflynn

    September 26, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    @cranestyle
    i agree with you that dunham won the fight but bader did beat nog, he got plenty of takedowns and managed to land some good strikes in the standup

  11. Profile photo of Rigo

    Rigo

    September 26, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    Controversial? Sherk won Round 1 and 2
    While Evan won 3 . where is the controversial decision ?

    by the way i had Evan by Decision on my picks

  12. Profile photo of Rafaelroberto840

    Rafaelroberto840

    September 26, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    I got Sherk for 29-28 due to Takedowns

  13. Profile photo of Rafaelroberto840

    Rafaelroberto840

    September 26, 2010 at 10:54 pm

    I rewatched the fight and I think Dunham won

  14. Profile photo of cranestyle

    cranestyle

    September 27, 2010 at 1:43 am

    Bader did score several take downs to Nog’s zip, but never managed to achieve a better position once he got the takedown.

    So really, the takedown is somewhere between an unsucessful submission attempt and a flash knockdown, in terms of scoring.

    Bader landed some heavy shots, but so did little Nog, and each one of his had two stiff jabs before it. So for Bader to win that fight, you have to equate a brief advantage in wrestling, 3 times for about 15 seconds, to superior striking for almost the whole fight.

    If Bader had landed those takedowns and then dominated Nog from a superior position, different story. But he popped up like a jack in the box.

  15. Profile photo of cranestyle

    cranestyle

    September 27, 2010 at 1:51 am

    There’s takedowns and then there’s takedowns.

    If you take someone down, but then spend the the rest of the round fighting off submission attempts, you have gained no tactical advantage. At best, the takedown and the submission attempts cancel out.

    But if you get taken down, and spend the rest of the round struggling not to get GnP’d into oblivion, obviously that’s a decisive advantage.

    Really, I think the judges need to be held accountable the same way referee’s are in other pro sports. Fro example, google Cecil Peoples, and you’ll find a history of bad decisions.

  16. Profile photo of PatB

    PatB

    September 27, 2010 at 7:48 am

    Evan may have lost the first round but even the first was close. The second and third round were easily won by Evan. Other then two good take downs and a few elbows in the first round Sherk did nothing substantial to gain an advantage the rest of the fight. Evan on other hand choked sherk until he almost passed out at least twice, kicked him in the face so hard sherk dropped to one knee and all around pummelled sherk the rest of the fight. Sherk was lucky to get out of the third round conscious, that fight wasn’t even close as i see it. And here is a fix if it was so close,(which in my opinion it was Evan easily.) Then make close fights like this get an extra round added to decide, if this had gone to a round four I am positive Evan would have wiped the floor with Sherk

  17. Profile photo of PatB

    PatB

    September 27, 2010 at 7:49 am

    Oh by the way that was the worst called decision i have seen since i started watching UFC, and i have been watching since the early nineties.

  18. Profile photo of DELETE ME

    DELETE ME

    September 28, 2010 at 12:17 am

    The people who paid to watch that shit also got robbed!

    The wrong decision of the judges to give the victory to Gallard over Stephens got me worried but this one is too much! 2 days afterthe event and im still furious!!!

    UFC and its judges have lost all of their credibility in my book.

    It’s one thing to show that as an organization you are favoring the wrestters, through various means (scoring takedowns that led to nothing significant, encouraging “laying n praying” , making Rogan talk about the virtues of wresttling over other m.a. 10 times during an event etc.)
    And a totally different thing to pull stuff like that so provocatively!

    Arrrrgghh….. I’m soooo mad!!!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply