Earlier tonight, a score of people—mostly Gallaudet students and alumni—gathered at a house in DC to watch deaf Ultimate Fighting Championship fighter Matt Hamill’s 6th bout. The 3-time Division III wrestling champion was facing a hyped opponent, Michael “The Count” Bisping—who was undefeated with a record of 13-0. The TV talking heads murmured excitedly about the British opponent’s formidable kickboxing skills.
They both started their MMA careers in earnest in a UFC-promoted reality TV show featuring wannabes being trained by grizzled pros (Tito Ortiz and Ken Shamrock) and fighting each other in a tournament, vying to be noticed by UFC. Bisping was the champion but Hamill never had a chance to fight him. Matt won his first two matches handily, but he had to leave the tournament due to an injury. In his mind, he’d have beaten Bisping in the championship match. For a year after the show ended, Hamill repeatedly called on him for a match. Bisping ignored him. Although Hamill’s MMA skills were considered “raw”, he was so completely sure of his abilities he taunted Bisping for being afraid of him. Eventually it hit a nerve in The Count and he finally agreed on a fight to “shut him up”. The media took it lightly, assuming that the more polished, experienced Bisping would win easily.
But once the bell rang to commence the match, it was all Hamill. To our elated disbelief, he simply manhandled Bisping. It was incredible how much he had improved much since the last time I saw him play. We hollered, high-fived, chest-bumped, toasted and hugged each other as he repeatedly took down or cornered Bisping. The Brit looked as if he didn’t want to fight.
We as a whole didn’t care that Hamill maybe could kind of speak. No one brought it up except for one guy. Matt knew some signs and went through the life as an underdog like us and that was good enough. The spirit in the room was probably much like the Irish and African Americans cheering for their brother on the ring in the late 19th and early 20th century.
It was the loudest room in a private residence that I had been in my whole life. I had lapses where I felt kind of sorry for the neighbors. I’ve watched many exciting football, basketball and boxing games with crowds in rooms. The thing is, they were always divided, one party cheering for one side and so forth.
But not there. Our entire energy and goodwill channeled into Hamill, our cheers rising with every good move he made.
After about 2 minutes into the 3rd (and last) round, excitement was in the air. By God, Matt’s gonna pull it off! We thought if he simply avoided being knocked out or forced into a submission, he would win, period—by a huge margin. Bisping looked as impotent as a panda without viagra throughout the match, although he gamily threw a solid punch or 2 as the match neared the end.
The two fighters stood next to the referee waiting for the winner to be announced. I entertained the thought of just walking away from the TV. It wasn’t just 100% certain that Hamill won—it was like 100-plus-infinite-%. I’m stretching things a bit, but not by much. It was one of the most one-sided UFC matches I had ever seen that didn’t end in a submission. The arm-raising “this dude’s the winner, yo” part was a mere formality.
From that point to on, I thought I was hallucinating. The captions rolled in. “30-27″…”29-28″…”29-28″…”split decision”…the referee raised the arm of…MICHAEL BISPING.
The crowd in the room broke in confused cascades of reactions. Wide-mouthed disbelief, hollers, jeers, and, in a few cases, jabbing middle fingers and “bullshit” signs within a few inches of the TV screen. No one was able to sit still.
To make it worse, Bisping trashtalked and carried himself in the swagger of somebody who just kicked somebody’s rear end. Hamill looked shocked and subdued. On the bright side, he probably won over a few fans with his classy and gracious behavior.
A few of the more mild-mannered spectators in the room blankly said, “I don’t understand,” over and over. There was not one area in which Bisping outdid Hamill.
Some of us wondered if we didn’t know the UFC rules as well as we thought. Maybe the takedowns just didn’t count in points? But even if it was true, it seemed like Hamill connected way more punches than his opponent did anyway. Maybe Bisping’s feeble jabs counted for points, even when they landed on Hamill’s elbows? We were lost.
One of them, clearly in height of reality dissonance, said something which I find hilarious now, “Maybe we were so biased we didn’t notice Hamill was losing?”
I found myself wondering about when black fighters first started prizefighting with Caucasian champions in the ring—I wouldn’t be surprised that fighters with the lighter pigment won more than their share of suspicious decisions. I wondered how the African American fans responded at those times.
We also wondered how the UFC fans as a whole responded. Did they see what we saw? Were they as outraged?
I went home and quickly browsed the internet to find out about their sentiments. It turned out we weren’t living in a parallel reality.
All sports fans know that in any given discussion, in real life or otherwise, there are always disputes. That’s a law. Fans bickering over the supremacy of their beloved teams, players, bullpen coaches and their mad fantasy league drafting skillz.
Not in this case.
I didn’t check out every link on the google search results page. All I know is that in every comment I’ve read so far at AOL and ESPN, people expressed shock at the judges’ decision—they were every bit as outraged as we were, some even calling to boycott UFC. I had never seen such an unanimous consensus on something—as of Sunday, 3 am anyway.
“What a joke that decision was. The UFC needs to hold itself to a higher standard. If I want boxing or professional wrestling, I will watch that. Reminds me of Roy Jones in Korea, although that was more lopsided. Dana White, you need to look into this for the integrity of the UFC. Two judges 29-28 Bisping??”
“Are you kidding me!!!!!!! Hamil had this all the way. Bisping was running away like a little boy most of the time. Give me a break..”
“Were the Judges looking at the same fight I was?”
“UN-FREAKING-BELIEVEABLE!!!!!! This is by far the worst referee’s decision that I have ever seen in the UFC. I have disagreed with a few, but none have ever had me screaming at the TV before.”
“I plan to boycott the next UFC pay per view event in protest to this clearly rigged fight. Anyone with me?”
“i know it would never happen–but it would be nice if every honest fight fan in the world would boycott the ufc until that fight is overturned and given to the rightful winner–i know i’ll never watch again until dana white and michael bisping and two of those three judges give written and publicly addressed apologies to hammil. bisping didn’t win more than thirty seconds of that fight, and i agree w/ the last comment–he knows it. i used to be a fan of the guy–but i’ll never watch him again after that. what a waste of an excellent effort by a decent guy.”
“Definitely agree with everyone here. Hamill is known for wrestling yet he beat him in his own house on stand-up. Even Rogan was saying that Bisping better get down to 185 quick. Hamill was robbed but he is too good of a guy to stand up for himself.”
“I totally agree.. absolute disgrace.. UFC must think we are idiots.. It was only b/c it was in England and they need the guy that they market in the UK to remain undefeated… EVEN THE LONDON CROWD WAS BOOING THE DECISION..”
“bisping is a big piece of (bleep) because he knows he got his (bleep) kicked and then still had the (bleep) hole to talk (bleep) about the guy that just whooped him soundly. hammill knows he won that fight and still had the class to congratulate bisping”
“The UFC ,which I had previously sworn by, has now entered the realm of professional wrestling.”
“I suggest any true fans boycott further events until they reverse that decision.”
“I have been a long time UFC watcher. I have watched it since the very first UFC, and from what I have just seen. I know that Matt Hamill was cheated. What did Bisbing pay to win that fight against Matt Hamill. I thought that the UFC was the best thing to happen to sports, and know I think it is just as crolked as boxing I will never order a pay-per-view again”
“Bisping a POS for talking (bleep) after he got his tail handed to him. That was complete Bull(bleep).”
“I agree with everybody. What made the decision even worse was Bisping talking smack afterwards.”
“How in the world did they give Bisping the fight. After he felt Hamill’s power in the first 10 seconds he ran the rest of the fight.”
“I thought the instant replay they showed for Bisping’s post-fight interview was hilarious. All they had for a highlight was him avoiding a takedown.”
Yup, I saved the best for last.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Great post! I wayched the fight at home too and Hammill was dominant and was robbed big time. He is so popular now and will become a big time fighter now. This decision may actually benefit him in the long run. He needs top notch training now which he should get. He doesn’t know how to knock people out, just hurt them. Once he learns how to end the fight he will become a potential world champion.
yeah it’s possible that the whole thing will make him a better fighter. he had opportunities to end the match and take the decision out of the judges’ hands, and didn’t take them. And thanks to the controversy, more people know about him.
Yep. Robbed.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.....-over.html
Oh, same here, man, same here. I was watching it at home. I have no friggin’ idea how they gave that to Bisping. In the third round maybe Bisping was perking up a little, getting in a few more smart jabs, but that’s all I’ll give him. Hamill dominated in aggression, octagon control, everything else. Bisping is maybe just a bit more accurate in landing his jabs. He can’t wrestle at all, he couldn’t avoid nine out of ten takedowns, and his face was a pizza by the end of the first round.
I don’t get it. I don’t understand that decision at all.
I’m not one to immediately point to ‘Audism’ when something idiotic like this happens, but this does make me wonder. Is it because Bisping was a local hero, or was it because UFC is so macho that they couldn’t stand to see a “deficient” fighter unleash a can of whoop-ass?
i think it’s more abt bisping being a local guy yeah- UFC’s trying to expand its fan base in England but looks like its overzealous effort backfired.
Also, Matt had the opportunity to use the standing ‘guillotine neck choke’ several times. Instead he locked Bisping’s head and pounded his head from underneath while standing.
Now, deaf/hh people commenting more in their blogs as seen in Deafread. Even by those who hated Matt Hamill saying he was robbed.
oh yeah i forgot to mention that- i noticed the same thing. maybe hamill was more focused on dominating an opponent than taking him out. am sure he will learn something from the match, at very least.
Ben wrote:
“We as a whole didn’t care that Hamill maybe could kind of speak. No one brought it up except for one guy.”
I believe Ben was referring “one guy” to … you, McConnell.
R-
testing…
Ben incorrectly placed me as the controversy in his latest DeafDC blog about the Hamill’s loss in his attempt to slam me personally only because I told people to “grow up” with their mentality towards Deaf/deaf/hh people who can use their voice to communicate. Even by those who insist their talking is the equivalent of “yowling.”
Why should *I* be the controversy if I pointed it out to those 30% who find it controversial that Matt used his voice? And that they believed Matt should be signing all the time regardless the hearing environment he’s in? Or am I hearing that the “30%” result isn’t enough of a percentage to be deemed as a “controversy”? I was somewhat surprised to see such a large result expecting perhaps 5 or even maybe 10% but 30%? C’mon now. Why are people so afraid of criticizing other deaf people for their rigid thinking? Thin skins or thick skins?
I’m glad that some 65% (there exists the other 5% who are not sure) didn’t care if Matt used his voice or sign. Maybe someday we’ll see that 90% wouldn’t care and that it is an individual choice.
Now, this is about Matt Hamill who got robbed last night and not me and to get off topic.
Mike I’m going to go out on a limb here but I’m going to try to do it respectfully so give me credit for that. My personal problem is that you asked, you were told, and then you judged the answer you didn’t like without leaving room for other interpretations. You might as well have said “(PS, if you choose “not acceptable” I will slam you in my next blog for being rigid-thinking immature Deaf Militants.)” at the bottom of your poll. That’s not a neutral interpretation, that’s bias bordering on hostility. Why is deaf militancy the ONLY possible conclusion? Supposed that someone checked “no” (it’s not acceptable) thinking something like this: If Matt checked with the television people beforehand to make sure the interview would be captioned or subtitled, then it would be okay for him to voice, but if the television people told him it wouldn’t be captioned or subtitled, then he should’ve signed.” That’s not militancy in my book, that’s a very reasonable expectation. Your poll didn’t allow for that kind of message.
Now does Matt have to live up to that expectation? No. But that doesn’t make your conclusion right, either.
I agree with you. But at the same, why do we constantly rise to the bait?
I think it’s time for people to quit answering McConnell’s polls on his blog. It’s very obvious that he words the polls in a biased way, so he can justify his constant scoldings at the Deaf Community. *shrugs*
Show me a poll that isn’t biased.
And are you saying that 30% who said “No” is not controversial that basically tells Matt that his use of voice should not be used at all?
I am in support of people’s own right to decide on which mode of communication they use.
Yes, Chris. I am questioning those 30% who responded believing that the use of the voice is not acceptable at all. And you don’t find that controversial at all? Tell me. And perhaps you could be right it may not be the only possible conclusion but how else would you interpret by those who said talking is not even acceptable at all? And yet are these the same people who voted “No” have also talked to hearing people in the past? This is about Matt’s individual right to speak as he so chooses. And for those who believe he shouldn’t use his voice at all I tell them to “grow up.”
Let’s have some thick skin around here.
Also, I wasn’t slamming anybody personally in my poll. That’s the difference. When did I ever slam personally against a single person in any of my polls? I do though question many people’s thinking. Polls are meant to be informative (but not always meant to be an accurate reading) and give insight on what the whole community thinks. And when I do see the polls I and many others do have an opinion on the results…good or bad.
Me think there are people who tend to be the overly sensitive type on the issue of use of voice. And I’m talking about adults here who make that choice. Denying them that option/right, isn’t that controversial enough?
A poll cannot be FULLY unbiased, but McConnell.. you ask loaded, poorly worded questions *repeatedly*, so you can go off at the Deaf Community.
To me, your comments show that you’re trolling for arguments. And it’s very unfortunate that we keep taking the bait.
I would have to respectfully disagree with your assessment.
Chris, as a culturally Deaf person, I’m tired of seeing deaf people on TV *not* signing.
It makes for bad PR…I would like to see every deaf/Deaf person SIGN on TV, so that ASL will not seem strange or foreign to hearing people.
Every time a deaf person doesn’t sign on TV, it gives more points to the oralism camp…and trust me, the oralism camp appreciates the plug.
I don’t give a sh*t if it makes me sound militant…I think it’s time deaf/Deaf people stood up for ASL and stopped pandering to hearing people.
Think of long-term effects! Think of every potential hearing parent (or existing hearing parent)…they NEED to see more deaf signers whenver they appear on TV (which isn’t all that often).
Remember Heather Whitestone? Same thing. She rarely signed in public/on TV.
Marlee Matlin frequently accepts roles where she doesn’t sign.
And deaf/Deaf people have the nerve to complain about wanting hearing people to use ASL, and to complain about oralism? Sheesh. If we want hearing people to use ASL and if we’re sick of oralism, then we really have to be consistent about using ASL on TV. Otherwise we are being hypocritical.
Michele, I understand all of that, and have my own views on it. All I’m talking about here is that we’ve already got plenty of people out there who are all too ready to bash us all for being “Deaf Militants” every time we have an opinion they don’t like, even if our opinions are far apart from each other. McConnel’s poll makes no room for any differences for what that “I don’t think it’s acceptable” thing means. He’s saying that all the people who checked this oval don’t find it acceptable under ANY circumstances, but it doesn’t read that way to me. A lot of people might’ve just checked that oval because they had other reasons for disagreeing that have nothing whatsoever to do with what you just said above. And it’d be nice if someone recognized that.
You have a choice. It’s either “acceptable,” “not acceptable”, “not sure” and “doesn’t matter.” I think there are plenty of room there to choose from. This issue is about Hamill talking during the pre-fight taping. Right there. You saw it. He’s talking. Whether there was an interpreter nearby or not it doesn’t matter. He’s talking to the UFC reporter using his, gasp!, his voice. Now, on what he did was that acceptable? Yes? No? Doesn’t matter? Or not sure?
If not. Then they can always post their comments anonymously explaining why they choose “No” but nobody elected to do that. I have no problems with the poll. Had the results been 0% in the “No” category would you have gone off and complain that the poll wasn’t “clear enough” on the choices?
Right.
I’m not bashing all for thinking militantly. Just the select group who wouldn’t stop for a second to try and deny Matt his right to use his voice because they say it is “wrong” when really it’s about individual choices and rights here.
Mike, there’s an easy way to solve this. Set up one more choice and label it “Other” and then link it somehow to a box where the poll-taker can write in an explanation. Of course not everyone will do this, but still, it’s there. See where it leads.
The comment section is already available to those want to explain their votes. Besides, I don’t see “other” as a viable choice to use when the question is about a deaf person who uses his own voice to communicate. There’s is the “not sure” selection for those who may or may not see it as “acceptable” to a degree. And people did vote for that but none wanted to step up to the plate and explained why they choose “No.”
Has anyone ever seen “Tommy”?
That deaf,dumb,blind kid sure plays mean pinball.
There are none so blind as those who will not see or deaf as those who will not hear…..or ignorant as..
signing is a “foreign language” It requires translation for most people.
I know, maybe we can make everybody happy………
Face it no matter what, someone somewhere is going to feel left out.
If this were a perfect world, we’d be in Heaven.
If we were all the same that would be called cloning or robotics.
and remember “Tommy” he isn’t blind deaf or dumb, turns out his “Uncle” was fiddling about, fiddling about. Add to that Loss of a parent, and the cold cruel world, and, and, and…
pass out the cheese, please…..
cue the violins, find a hole and stick your head in it,
Personally I thank God for creating us as individuals and allowing us choice to our lives. I’d drive me crazy dealing with me as you everyday.
Matt, if you do read this stay true, do what you love, love what you do.
Huh?
Kimbyonit, I’m going to hazard a guess about you. Are you hearing and new to the Deaf world? Or have you recently lost your hearing?
In any case, let me take the time to inform you that the use of the word “dumb” is deeply offensive to deaf/Deaf people everywhere, for several reasons.
1) “Dumb” implies that deaf/Deaf people have nothing to say, when it is far from the truth. We do have something to say, even if we say it through our hands. Even though we communicate through our hands, it does not mean we are “silent”, and to label us as “silent” is to demean our unique language and communication style.
2) “Dumb” is also offensive to deaf/Deaf people, because too many hearing people traditionally think that we lack intelligence because we don’t communicate the same way hearing people do, or sound as good as they do.
Hope that’s enough for you to get the picture. Stop using “dumb” in conjuction with “deaf” or even “blind”, OK?
I’m having trouble knowing just where to begin my reply so let me begin with Apologies, if I offend that was not my intention. I am sorry that I am so sorry. Now, here comes the part where I am supposed to in my defense create an offense to explain why I said or what I meant was or, or, or to answer let me ask you when read what I said did you just see certain words waving big flags at you or did you read what I said? Was it your intention to enlighten or to repremand me? Am I supposed to put footnotes in or offer myself as a sacrifice to stop sarcasim in it’s tracks. I find myself choosing my words carefully, in regards to your hazardous guess about me, if I had recently lost my hearing that would in fact make me new to the deaf world. But I must be the dumb one, I’m assuming you know something I don’t. My keyboard won’t do anything unless I use the buttons with letters on them. Is there a special one I have to get?
I know I am not “known” as you are I came across this site to show support for Matt Hamlin. Tommy is a rock opera produced in the early 70’s. Yes, I can hear enough to not be considered as impaired my challenge arises in different ways. Like if I’m in a room full of people and evryone is talking all I get is murmur. It affects my speech and at times I’ll get vertigo and have to grab the floor before it grabs me. All I get from Drs is shrugs,attempts to drug and a bill.
I don’t prejudge or preclude. I believe God places people where they need to be.
So you and I were meant to butt heads and learn something from each other in the process.
for now I’m hittin to rack it’s almost 3am.
Kim.
That would be “Matt Hamill” and not Matt Hamlin.
Kimbyonit, my posting was made to educate you. Or enlighten, if you prefer.
That’s all it was. Consider the information I provided you as a gift. Use it any way you wish.
Mike. Mike, I know this fact that you’d delete my comment at your blog so I reposted my comment for everyone to see:
You’re whining even more than before! Grow up, will you?
No one gives a F**K if Matt can speak or not. NO ONE but you. Quit whining and grow up.
As I said in my rules, personal ad homenim attacks against commenters and/or use of foul language is ground for editing or deletion. How come you masked the expletive in DeafDC and not in my Haloscan comment?
I don’t care if Matt talks or signs but apparently some 30% of those in my recent poll would disagree with you that they do give a darn that Matt use his voice.
That was my whole point. It’s those 30% who whined that it wasn’t acceptable that Matt used his voice. I’m in the same camp as you are, David. I don’t care if Matt chooses to use his voice or signs.
how many people is 30%?
If 50% of them went to lunch, would the other 50% fit in the bathroom?
sorry but statistics can mislead especially since polls are bias and questions can only ask so much and people only hear what they want to…
Thank you, David. I agree with majority of the people that agreed with you.. So what if Matt Hamill spoke. The point is he is not ashamed being deaf! See his shirt? HOVRS hands on relay, and so on… it’s nice to see someone sponsoring deaf community in some way.
I am tired of deaf being put down by the deaf community rather than getting support simply because they spoke and signed. It’s a hearing world out there, until it’s a deaf world, then we have no excuse for not speaking. ha. McConnell, you disappointed me for making a blog about Matt Hamill and his speaking controversy whether you support it or not. You even made a poll out of it!!! Show some diginity and support for deaf people in the medium!! it’s bad enough we are slammed by the real world so we do not need a double whammy! Thanks a lot!
Brian, I support a person’s choice to either sign or talk. Doesn’t matter to me. As I have said before, I am the inquisitive type and have these questions. Polls are one way of seeing how people think. But with the Hamill poll I was surprised to see so many people who would have no problems denying a deaf adult’s right to use his/her voice. I didn’t make it out to be a controversy about Matt speaking but rather it ended up that 30% of them who voted made it to be a controversy. I didn’t think it was a controversy that Matt talked. But they certainly did.
Here’s a poll for you, Republicans. Is President Bush a true and patriotic American thinker among a sea of incompetence? For your information, this poll is biased.
I could be wrong, but I think Ben was referring only to the people who were at the party… not all the people out there in the blogosphere.
http://www.haloscan.com/commen.....62/#484916
I am still wondering about that.
yes, i’ve had my say.. and moved on.
The same for me. We need to throw our support for Matt. A travesty I’d say.
no, all the people i referred to were with me in that room. i wasnt talking abt mcconnell.
If that’s the case, then I offer my deepest and profound apology to Ben. Blame it on the coincidence of your comment in my blog and in DeafDC that occurred on the same day. I’d be more careful the next time.
I have to agree with Ben Moore’s article. By pure luck I had just finished watching Ocean’s 12 last evening (or was it “Ocean’s 11”?) so I changed the channels and that was when I saw the start of Matt Hamill’s UFC bout against his opponent, Mike Bisping.
I was engrossed by the entire three bouts because Hamill controlled entire event. Prior to the first bell of the bout, Bisping had a cocky and relaxed air. In less than 45 seconds of the first bout, the look of concern and worry on Bisping’s face was apparent to everyone.
Several times, Hamill would take Bisping down to the ground, inflict some damage, and then let him up. Then the cycle would repeat itself. Towards the end the bout, Hamill’s control was to the level where Bisping had stopped trying to kick him and was focused on moving away from him within the ring. I do not mean simply “circling” around Hamill, I mean that Bisping was literally scrabbling away from Hamill in any way possible because he knew that Hamill was looking for another take-down. In the end, while I know nothing of UFC]s rules and how points are scored, the result was clear to me: Hamill won.
So I agree with the prevailing sentiment here: the decision in awarding Bisping the decision does not make sense in the slightest bit. I did ask myself whether I was somewhat biased because Hamill is deaf but after some reflection about what happened in the bout, I am very comfortable in saying that my bias is not the reason why I’m stunned by this. Hamill is a world-class athlete, he controlled the event in a superb manner and he clearly kicked serious butt.
I am sorry to say that I missed the post-fight interview. From what I understand, Hamill handled himself with class afterwards and left it at that. If that’s true, then that increases my admiration for him and I will like to hope that is how Hamill will be remembered by everyone: not only for the way he manhandled Bisping like a rag doll but, more importantly, for the way he conducted himself after the match. In the game of life, Bisping does not even understand what it is he just lost.
I also sincerely hope the UFC promoters will take note of Hamill’s conduct and reward him appropriately by giving him another chance.
Another chance is warranted; nevertheless, this is an entertainment sport and they are actors in a way. A lot of fraud, bribes, and so many other words are used against these kind of so-called-sport. This kind of entertainment are unregulated and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Entertainment fighting sports have their own way of staging things. It does not matter if Matt destroyed his opponent but what matters is who looks good and who is sponsoring whom. If Matt was sponsored by an important group of investors and he will not lose because too much money is at stake.
Money talks mostly and image as well. We knew Matt won the match “Hands-down” but the group of promoters chooses his opponent because he looks better. What Matt needs to do is to knock out every opponent so there will be no misunderstanding _or_ Matt may be told not to do those these and who knows?
Again, its a moneymaking entertainment fighting sport like the professional wrestling and nothing is binding in a way.
Hamill told Joe Rogan that he thought that Bisping “won it fair and square.” I’m not convinced this was his true sentiment, and I’m one or the many that think he was shafted, but this was absolutely the right thing to say. His ability to maintain his composure is remarkable and I think that this has helped him not only win a lot more fans, but also when it comes to sponsorship.
I don’t know if I’m interested in a rematch. Sure I’d love to see Hamill beat the sh*t out of Bisping, but having known Hamill while at RIT, I think he’d want an opponent that would provide a challenge of some sort. Bisping showed us all that he is nowhere near the caliber of a challenger that Hamill would want to face in his next fight.
scott, good comment. i watched the game again on DVR- the program says UFC fights are scored based on striking, grappling, controlling the octagon and aggression.
found an interesting article on judging UFC matches: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Figh.....90-cp.html
Yep, Hamill was robbed no doubt. I would have scored it 29-28 Hamill at worst (giving Bisbing the final round).
Bisbing had no class at all after the win…
Incorrect, Ridor.
Some 30% said they found it UNACCEPTABLE that Matt used his voice. It was they who brought it up by walking the Deaf militant path that speaking is unacceptable, no matter where you are, even if you have a good enough voice to begin with and use it when opportunity arises. I was pointing out to those 30% who found it unacceptable.
Thanks alot, Ben.
Now, if people really didn’t care if Matt spoke or signed 30% of them wouldn’t have voted “No” saying that speaking was *unacceptable*. If it didn’t matter to them they would’ve voted “It doesn’t matter since I’m not the overly sensitive type about deaf people talking.”
I guess there exists the overly sensitive deaf people out there when it comes to speaking.
No surprise.
You’d think by now they would have gotten over that knowing already the complete diversity of communication skills that exist within the Deaf/deaf community.
Matt can sign. Matt can speak. Does it really matter on how Matt chooses to use his voice in certain environment? Or does it, Ben? Or even you, Ridor?
Now. This is about Matt Hamill who was robbed of his win and not about me, mind you.
Don’t you, all realize that the UFC is just purely a professional wrestling as another venue of mindless public entertainment?
The world of professional wrestling usually make deals via backstages and the upper management to decide whom will be victorious in the padded wrestling ring. Just an entertainment, not the real sport.
I never bother to watch the professional wrestling stuff despite buffed and muscular bodies on the TV screen.
Mark Hamill’s use of voice showed his real side to be pandered to the ideals of hearing world for the sake of his own self-promotion. He is more like a parrot, who mimick the human voices to please the society at large, instead of sticking to his guns to promote the image of culturally deaf. Hamil ought to get an award from the AGB organization for giving such an illusion to the American society a real wrong idea about us, deaf people as a whole.
Mark Hamil ought to hold the press conference to explain himself that his use of voice definitely not symbolize the generalization of deaf people. Or he will be a real pariah in the deaf community? Any deaf people using voice for media interview that contribute to the cycle of oppression against deaf people as an agent of misconception and illusion. Same thing with black performers doing the minstrel shows to please white audience.
Let’s take on Matt Hamil in the wrestling ring and sew up zipper on him for just a sake of entertainment!
How sad of the American society at large spend a lot of time and money on professional sport, not on the taxes for funding of our educational system!
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
UFC is NOT wrestling. It’s a mixed martial arts (MMA) venue. I challenge you to say that very same thing ina roomful of MMA fighters that what they are doing is wrestling.
It’d be a bad move on your part. Never call it wrestling. It’s MMA.
Next, Matt Hamill shouldn’t even apologize for using his voice. What you are doing is tantamount to Deaf militant thinking. Of course Matt belongs to the community. Are you saying he doesn’t belong just because he choose to speak? Or sign and speak at the same time? He has a speaking skill, so let him use it. Denying him that right makes you no better off than AGBell.
This “cycle of oppression” claim is getting no where here. Matt’s an adult. He choose to speak. Just as I have chosen to speak at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet. There is no “mimicking” of human voices because he has a human voice! His voice is clear but muted (ie “deaf voice”).
Matt Hamill to be a pariah in the Deaf community just because he choose to speak? Right now people left and right are supporting him that he was the real winner last night.
So this makes my 10-year-old deaf son a pariah also? He who auditioned and got accepted into 5th grade choir, he who is fluent in spoken English, etc.? This is becoming tiresome, a lot of posturing at who is an ASL militant and who is a pariah.
Lighten up, please. There will always be someone deaf who could speak and listen. Don’t silence/isolate them. And speaking/listening IS not a crime.
I agree with you, Karen, and so do most of us. But some pot-stirrers who wanted to see McConnell go off at us, (according to Banjo’s post) voted yes on McConnell’s poll whether it was controversial for Hamill to speak. They knew what would happen afterwards.
The controversy over that poll then was brought here. I assure you, Karen… the majority of us don’t care. I don’t think your son is a pariah, nor should he be one in the community.
I disagree with you Robert. You are making a big deal about this. You saying that Matt Hamill should not be on UFC because it represents the deaf community? So I guess the NAACP should feel the same way about African-Americans fighting in there too?
It’s a sport! If you don’t like it, then don’t watch it. Why are you targeting Matt Hamill for your dislike of UFC? That is the problem! Why target the minority? Be open minded about it.
Uhh … say again, RLM?
R-
I don’t understand what this “voicing” issue is really about. If Matt can use his voice and more power to him. Who really cares if one signs or not. The so called Deaf Militants does not represent majority of the Deaf Inner Core groups because we have other things to worry about. You would be surprised the Deaf Inner Core groups are a very intelligent and rationale type of people. They do not go out and see if a Hard of Hearing person speaks on the media and make waves and that is not who they are. They do not care about this at all and they care mostly the rights of the Deaf, and more important issues that impacts the Deaf society at large.
Deaf Militants are a cute label for maybe less than 100 people in the United States while the others are much larger and keeps to themselves and ready to fight when our civil rights are threatened.
Lastly, if you chose to speak and that is your business and who cares, really? If you chose to use American Sign Language and you get more respect because a lot of Deaf people will understand the message. As we know there are different kinds of deafness and we respect their communication choices but do they respect ours?
I agree. It’s funny. Ever see the irony in the deaf community? I mean I am all for ASL but when I meet some deaf people yelling or pissed off about someone speaking than signing on TV…I am like? You just went to McDonalds and spoke to order foods and you did not sign! Why is that any different on TV? Is it Matt’s job to be the role model of the deaf community? No… it’s to show that Deaf people come in all shape and form. That everyone is unique in their own way whether they speak or sign or write.
Ben,
Great blog! I could not agree more. I have been wanting to discuss about this issue since I saw the fight yesterday. We had a whole bunch of deaf people at the bar watching the fight. When Matt Hamill smacked the crap out of Bisping who was constantly on his back defending himself with his legs like a girl in the first round, we knew Matt has this round hands down!!! 2nd round - I was not being biased and carefully watched the round and Bisping and Hamill were pretty close and it was a tough decision for me to decide who was better in that round but in round 3 - it was Bisping who did pretty well in the beginning but then Hamill started to conquer Bisping and we knew Hamill has this in his hands!!!
I also commented since this UFC fight was in England and Bisping is from England and UFC wanting to spread their UFC in UK… could this be a “biased” judgement against Hamill? I believe it is. Could his deafness be a factor in favoring Bisping. I do not know what UK feels about having a “handicap” beating their own English fighter. I do not know.
It could be some kind of set up there that they would take off points or add points toward Bisping to make it look like Bisping is a sure winner!
(Someone commented Bisping keeps running way from Hamill) That is totally true the entire 3 round it was Hamill who keeps going after Bisping who keeps prancing back and sideways.
It was a fixed decision - that’s my opinion.
I forgot to complete the sentence when I said “handicap” I do not view deaf people as a handicap and I hate when we are referred as one.
As you know I am big fan of UFC — I had opportunity to watch UFC 75 last night by myself at 2:00 AM. (DVR record, must be nice huh?)
Anyway, I watched it closely and I really thought Hammill won by unanimous-decision winner but I was wrong. I figure I don’t know whole rules by UFC and judges.
Next day, I was reading DeafRead.com and saw all blogs about it. Whoa, I knew I was right, Hammer could have won. Geez!
I have never seen anybody revise the judge decision from UFC match before such as petition online. (Correct me if I am wrong)
You go, Hammer!
gwlj
That’s real sad!
It’s totally obvious that it was fixed.
That’s why I am not fond of any sports with “judges” who could “FIX” the results!!!
UFC proved it.
Someone posted a web video of Hammer’s fight:
http://www.ufcgirls.com/post/9.....-75-video/
I just wanna say Matt Hamill dominated that fight, I got so mad when the gave that fight to Bisping, he clearly got beat down! My twelve year old brother was watching that fight with me, and hardly know’s anything about mma fighting, and he was shocked when they gave the decision to Bisping!Hamill may be deaf but the judges were blind!
Rematch coming up? Dana White, president of UFC, says he’s working on it. Said it was a “no brainer…”
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.....match.html
Good!
A rematch doesn’t necessarily make things right since Matt clearly won the first match. Why does he have to fight someone twice to win what he had already won?
Because, as Dana White said it’s the only thing that can remove the stink from the UFC 75 fight travesty. It’s about keeping to a good name by requesting and setting up a rematch. He believed Matt won but that in of itself isn’t enough because you have the fans saying he was robbed. You got to do something about that or risk further tarnishment. The UFC clearly doesn’t want that to happen and I think Dana showed great judgement of character when it comes to doing things like this. Even in the TUF3 he awarded two contracts to two fighters when one lost in a tight decision because both fought their hearts out. Dana sees that in Hamill and he also saw how much Matt Hamill has improved his MMA skills in the ring.
It simply has to be done. And I agree.
Peyote Pete is right.
I am also getting e-mails through Facebook asking for support of the rematch between Hamill and Bilspring. I chose not to reply or support the rematch because it is not how to solve the problem.
I only care to hear the judges to offer their apologies on the error on their part.
Rematch doesn’t always make things right. If you feel that way, why don’t we have a rematch of the cheating Patriots superbowl game because they were caught cheating? Would that be a good way to avoid putting asterisks in their superbowl recognition? :)
The rematch is going through per Dana White after Michael Bisping called UFC to request a rematch.
A rematch is the best way to help smooth over the damage done last week and help restore the UFC. And I agree with what Dana White said. And he is certainly doing something to address the scoring system as I have already reported in my blog.
The analogy using the superbowl isn’t the same. This is about one person fighting another person. Rematches are quite common. This is not about whole teams. And this isn’t about cheating as far as I’m concerned but the lack of an appropriate scoring system which uses a boxing score rather than a laid out UFC style scoring system.
Bottom line, a rematch is the best alternative solution to all this.