Phil Davis: I think I definitely did enough [to win]


Phil Davis earned a controversial decision win over Lyoto Machida at UFC 163. Many watching, including UFC President Dana White thought the fight went the other way, however Davis believes he did enough to win:

"I think I definitely did enough (to win)," Davis told Fuel TV after the fight ended. "I trust the judges. I've got to trust the judges when I lose, I've got to trust the judges when I win, they gave me the wink, they gave me the nod, so I've got to say thanks."

He knew he was walking into enemy territory by taking on Machida in his home country of Brazil, but ultimately he had to stick to his guns and just fight his fight. He says he will have a better perspective of the fight once he gets home and watches the tape, but he knows just from being in the battle with Machida that it was a close affair.

"Here's the thing—this is his home country, I know it was a close fight, I know that I was in there. I had fists graze my head the whole time. I know," he explained. "It's one of those things where you're so close to the action you have no idea how it looks from the outside. A lot of times I watch fights and then I go home and I'm like man that looks completely different from a first person perspective.

"I was thinking 100 percent, man this is close, please go my way."

read entire article...

Related MMA gear from the UG Store


Venum Competitor Brazil Inspired Dry Fit Shirt

Venum Competitor Brazil Inspired Dry Fit Shirt

Only $39.99

Roots of Fight Machida Karate Shirt

Roots of Fight Machida Karate Shirt

Only $34.95


Recent Comments »

TARRat site profile image  

8/7/13 2:51 PM by TARRat

IIRC, one of the measures/definitions of a "significant strike" is simply one that is landed from arm/leg length. It doesn't take into account how much damage was inflicted. As such, just landing more "significant strikes" doesn't really mean all that much - it just sounds cool.Unless, of course, I am misremembering the definition.No, I do remember correctly. From"A quick definition: significant strikes refer to all strikes at distance and power strikes in the clinch and on the ground."A 'strike at distance' isn't necessarily a damaging blow.

Gilkuja site profile image  

8/6/13 10:20 AM by Gilkuja

The judges dont have Fight Metric stats in front of them when making a decision though...and the point is what did Machida do in round one and two that would make him a clear winner? I dont believe it to be absurd that Phil Davis won that fight. If every fight was judged completely on who landed the most significant strikes we would see alot more fights going a different way.

Bucephalus site profile image  

8/6/13 4:40 AM by Bucephalus

If that is a thread-ending post, then the thread ends where it began... with the overwhelming majority of people feeling that Machida won the fight and with Fight Metric supporting that opinion. Pseudo-logic and mock objectivism won't change that fact. And speaking of facts... real facts... 1. When it comes to striking, the most influential criteria is significant strikes (that's why they call them significant). 2. A fight is not judged by mere aggression. It is effective aggression that scores points. Machida, landed more significant strikes overall and in 2 out of the 3 rounds.. and landed almost half of the significant strikes he threw, while shutting the wrestling superstar down to 20% takedowns and 23% significant strikes. That alone, tells you who was able to dictate where the fight took place and who was able to assert their will more effectively.

Gilkuja site profile image  

8/5/13 7:23 PM by Gilkuja

Well that's a thread ending post if I've ever seen one. I agree completely.

Bipolar site profile image  

8/5/13 6:16 PM by Bipolar

Calm down, drama queen. Using caps and mock incredulism doesn't change the facts of the fight. To act like it wasn't even a close fight is totally insincere. Or just plain ignorant. The lack of output by both fighters was pretty pathetic. Yet by your response, it would seem that Machida absolutely dominated those rounds - or any rounds. So explain how, please. From what I saw, neither did much at all. Do you disagree? From what I saw, they threw about an equal number of strikes. Do you disagree? From what I saw, Machida had one flurry in the first round where almost nothing landed flush. Disagree? I believe Davis was rocked once. Did you see something else? Davis countered Machida's little flurry with a take down, advance of position, and sub attempt. And he had another take down and gnp in which 5-6 shots landed. That barrage was as good or better than anything Machida threw. And I also noted that Davis was the clear aggressor in the fight. Do you disagree? Again, please explain in detail, not why you believe Machida won the first two rounds, but why you seem to think it's completely crazy that Phil could have possibly taken them.

bispingpokedmybrowneye site profile image  

8/5/13 5:27 PM by bispingpokedmybrowneye

Pretty cool enlightened response. He admits he didnt know what way it would go and since he didnt watch it he trusts the judges, even in a loss.Hated th e decision but I cant hate on Davis.

GarlicSauce site profile image  

8/5/13 5:02 PM by GarlicSauce


AlexanderTheGOAT site profile image  

8/5/13 4:51 PM by AlexanderTheGOAT

29-28 machida

Gilkuja site profile image  

8/5/13 4:42 PM by Gilkuja

Didn't that flurry by Machida that ended with the knee completely miss Davis? But it looked dangerous so he should have gotten that round I guess.

DoomFarmer site profile image  

8/5/13 4:39 PM by DoomFarmer

" I wrestled in highschool, I know what I'm watching, the wrestler won" - Pretentious chin-strokers of the UG