Bisping Calls UFC, Request Rematch Against Hamill

In a surprising turn around by Michael Bisping after he had time to cool off and soak in comments from American and British fans about Hamill's obvious win against him, Bisping called the UFC and requested a rematch against Matt Hamill. He felt that Hamill won the first round and was extremely gracious (considering what he has done and said immediately after the fight) and apologetic to Hamill in his personal web site.

As most people will of seen the fight with me and Hamil was a close one. I have seen the controversy surrounding the decision so obviously have to reply. I personally feel he won round 1 and I took rounds 2 and 3. That said it was close and can I understand how some people would think differently. On the night I was given the decision and he wasn’t, on another occasion it could of been different.

Looking at message boards it appears that some (major understatement) people are pissed off about my comments afer the fight. Looking back I should of given Hamill more credit as he fought a great fight and has improved his all round game a hell of a lot. What you have to remember is though the adrenalin was running through my veins, I had fought a hard fight and was obviously happy to get the decision. I would like to take this opportunity to say well done to Matt for fighting great and bringing the fight to me big time, I should have commented on this on the night.

I have contacted the UFC and stated I would like to rematch Hamill at everyones earliest convenience as I’m sure most of you know, no fighter wants a win when the decision is debateable. I am happy for the fight to take place where ever, and look forward to settling the score once and for all. I personally feel we put on a great fight for the fans and perhaps people should focus on this more.

I apologise to all my fans who feel let down by anyhting at the weekend, hey Im a young man with alot of emotion and sometimes say things in the heat of the moment.

I’d like to say thanks to everyone who has sent me there messages. Theres been to many to reply to them all. I will say this though, if Matt Hammils gonna cut me next time he might need a carving knife as Ive definately got thicker skin over the last few days.“

Amazing! I have now much more new founded respect for Bisping. After all it was the judges' bad call who gave the win to Bisping. It wasn't his mistake. His only mistake was his attitude immediately after the fight. But I'm sure he must've seen the video of the fight and saw just how bad he was against Matt Hamill. This fight is planned to be free for MMA fans.

One possible idea is to have the two fight for free on Spike TV as the latest installment of the “Bad Blood” series that has featured grudge rematches between Ken Shamrock and Tito Ortiz, and Jens Pulver and B.J. Penn. If the organization wanted to get creative, rematches between Rob Emerson and Gray Maynard, and Nate Diaz and Manny Gamburyan could fill out the undercard.

Get ready for Bisping vs Hamill II!

Hat tip: CF


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Defamation and Libel

When defamation and libel actions are wrong. A case example:

Jeff Carlson,

You have no justification on purposely defaming me. I've outlined how I accidentally came across that website via YouTube. It is common sense to arrange the YouTube listings from the earliest to the latest in order to see the most recent video addition. I check up on YouTube every 2 or 3 weeks and scan only the last two or three pages to see the recent deaf video additions. This is what I did. This is how you do your research. It'd be a waste of time to type in "deaf" and and try and find the most recent videos. I have not lied in what I wrote down in my blog on how I came across that YouTube video. I didn't really believe deaf porn existed. Yet it was you who tested "deaf porn" that day to do your own little research but failed to take into consideration the "date added" tab on YouTube to arrange videos by the earliest date. And finding that video opened my eyes that day which was only 5 days old and so I blogged about it. I didn't even know about Polecat Pictures until someone told me in the comment section. We learn something new everyday, even me. What you have done was out of line. You can criticize me but to make libelous and defamatory claims that you have no evidence of is nothing short of reckless. Porn is insidious as well as it can be degrading. I'm sure you saw how one person treated Mish as discussed in Gnarly Dorkette's blog who made a sexist remark at her? That's the thing, we don't need that sort of thing on the internet.

Now, I rather not be a moron nor am I a lying pervert. I made my case and I'm known for my honesty, sometimes harsh but forward, in my blogs. But since you (Jeff) said you'd rather be a moron than a lying pervert then fine.

Moron \Mo"ron\ (m[=o]"r[o^]n), n. [Gr. mw^ros foolish, stupid.]
1. (Pedagogy) A mentally retarded person whose intellectual
development proceeds normally up to about the eighth year
of age and is then arrested so that there is little or no
further development; an adult having the mental
development of an 8-to-12-year old. A moron is considered
capable of doing routine work under supervision.
[Webster 1913 Suppl. +PJC]

The issue here is really about how people ignore or do not understand the differences when it comes to making libel and defamatory remarks.

Scammers who are Deaf

I have heard briefly here and there over the years about scammers who are Deaf and hearing and the damages they have done to the Deaf/deaf community. I hate scammers of any kind (I'm sure everybody hates a scammer, no surprise there). So, I'll be needing your help by seeking your comments on these scammers but I am mostly interested in scammers who are Deaf and add my finding into my research for my upcoming blogs. Since I am aware that this has happened and continues to occur but at the same time I am not overly familiar with the history of scammers who are Deaf (which, by the way, would make a great book) and their preying practices they have done on their Deaf victims. Have you been a victim of a scammer who happens to be Deaf?

Greg Gunderson to Make His Racing Debut on Sept 15

Hey, big news down the road for Deaf/deaf/hh racing fans which will be revealed in due time here on Kokonut Pundit about the up and coming Greg Gunderson. You will NOT want to miss this news!

Don't forget to show your support for Greg Gunderson who is well on his way to become the first ever Deaf NASCAR driver. The year 2008 will certainly be Greg's finest and most memorable year ever. But wait until 2009 when he plan to become the first ever Deaf NASCAR driver in the Annals of Deaf history.

In 2008 Greg plans to race on asphalt tracks in ARCA Series before attempting to become a NASCAR driver in 2009. Right now he is honing his racing skills for the Sprint race in the upcoming September 15th, Saturday at 4PM race debut. The original racing date was September 8 but it was rained out.

Be sure to help Greg find sponsors so spread the word since he'll need all the support he can get for a great 2008 racing year! He must race a full year at the ARCA Series before making the transition to the NASCAR series. He will need your help and support. Send him an email or let other people known about Greg Gunderson who, just like Matt Hamill, is also another role model for the Deaf community.

UPDATE: Check out this first historical event ever to take place in the ARCA/NASCAR industry to bring the first deaf racing driver to the racing scene. See photos of this historic news.

Hamill Overwhelmed with Support from Bisping Fans

Key points:
You wouldn't think that fans of Bisping would actually go up to Matt Hamill after the fight in show of support that it was he who won the fight and not Bisping. It actually happened.

Back at the host hotel following the bout, the people showed how much they cared for Hamill, who was treated like a conquering hero by London fans despite the decision.

“We went back to the hotel and I said, ‘shower up, we’re going down to that restaurant, we’re gonna have a nice dinner and we’re gonna celebrate because you won that fight, you know it, and everybody else knows it,’” said Hamill’s trainer and manager Duff Holmes. “And we went and sat down, and there was a line at his table. People came up and said ‘we’re Bisping fans, but we just want to let you know that you won that fight and you’re in our hearts now.’ It was just great for Matt, because I was telling him all along during the fight ‘you’re winning this fight, you’re winning this fight.’ After the fight was over, I grabbed him and said, ‘you won that fight.’ And when the decision went the other way, we were just in shock. But having the people say that he won the fight was great. I told him to keep his head high and that I’ve never been more proud to be a part of his team.”

The loss still stings though.

“I was obviously disappointed with the decision,” said Hamill. “But I'm not one to complain or question judges. If they said he beat me, I accept it and move on. I know in my heart I won that fight.”

Pretty surreal and touching at the same time about those Bisping fans acknowledging that Hamill won the fight wouldn't you say?


Here are the key points in the UFC official website article:

Hamill is overwhelmed with the support he received from Internet/people who feel he deserved the win.

Bisping continues to think he won the fight.

Bisping was surprised at Hamill's strategy to go out striking.

Hamill was working on stand-up nonstop for last 18 months

Jeff Mullen, who was one of the judges who favored Bisping, explains his scorecard (pretty detailed).

Dana White reiterates that he also think it's a bad decision, and that is why he urges fighters to never leave it to the judges (in other words FINISH fights).

Bisping's fans actually approached Hamill at a restaurant and told him he won the fight in their eyes.

Bisping says Hamill is the first one to have went the distance with him (it is true.... Bisping has always submitted or TKO/KO'd others in the past).

Hamill doesn't mind having a rematch.

Overall a great article to read! And apparently we'll see lots more from Dana White on ensuring that Matt Hamill deserve the continuing chance to fight in the UFC. Hamill has already shown he has that fighting caliber when Bisping was his punching boy that night. And that's an understatement.

Good man that Dana guy.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Video - American Hero Matt Hamill defeats Michael Bisping

A cool video recap of the fight between Matt Hamill and Bisping with Matt standing while an American flag wave behind him at the beginning of the video. The rockin music called "Born in the USA" sung by Bruce Springsteen. Watch, listen and follow the song's lyrics at the same time. You can only smile seeing Bisping running around trying to avoid Matt's relentless forward attack. If that is what you call a "win" for Bisping, you're absolutely nutz.



Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "Son, don't you understand"

I had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone

He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.

Hat tip: Mattwins


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Dana White Sez "No Brainer" on Rematch for Hamill

Looks like Dana White, president of UFC, has answered our questions about the Bisping/Hamill fight result and felt that two rounds ought to have been given to Matt and not Bisping.

And, while they're at it, the UFC honchos should mandate a rematch between Bisping and Hamill.

White said the rematch is "a no-brainer and I'm going to be on it right away."

Having them fight again in a place where an official athletic commission will oversee the affairs is the only way to remove the stench surrounding UFC 75.

I agree with Dana. The only way to remove this stench surrounding the UFC 75 fight debacle is to do a rematch. If that is the case UFC will have to offer a lot more cash to Bisping in order to try and entice him to come over to America where the fight is better regulated. But here's my prediction. I predict that Bisping won't take the offer saying, delusionally so, that he won the fight "fair and square." And probably use Hamill's own "fair and square" post-fight remark as a reason why he don't need to go for a rematch. He said so right after the fight that the issue between him and Hamill is done with. If Bisping can be that brash and delusional at the same time, not to mention the wanton use of obscene gestures to his chagrin against those who don't agree, then certainly why should Bisping risk losing face with another rematch against Matt knowing full well he got lucky the first time? Why risk it?

Ok. Suppose Bisping takes up to the challenge (of course his asking price would be ten times the amount by then since he's now a "star") for a rematch. He loses to Hamill. Would it then be fair for Bisping to demand another rematch for the best out of three?

All in all, Bisping has shown to be a classless act that night and that leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth, including many Britains.

Hat tip: CF


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

U.S. Newspapers Say Hamill was "Robbed"

Not a surprise. Newspapers and online news across the country are starting to feel the rumble of MMA fans who say that Matt Hamill was robbed of his victory in the much anticipated Bisping/Hamill UFC 75 fight in London last night. Right now the Baltimore Sun is the first to report on this robbery and I will look for more as they come up.

Baltimore Sun - "UFC 75 Recap: Rampage on, Hamill robbed, Houston we have lift off."

Read the comments on this blog and other blogs and forums throughout the Internet and one thing is clear -- almost everyone outside London thinks Matt Hamill won his fight against Michael Bisping. And I agree with them.

I re-watched the fight this morning and rounds one and two easily go to Hamill. Round three could be seen as a toss-up because Bisping had a couple of nice flurries early on in that round. But, Hamill scored a couple of takedowns late in the third round and controlled the second half of that round. I scored the fight 30-27 for Hamill. Being generous to Bisping, one could argue it was a 29-28 fight for Hamill. Either way, Hamill should have walked away a unanimous-decision winner.

At worst, Hamill neutralized Bisping standing up (at best, Hamill controlled the Octagon and landed some very nice punches) and clearly dominated the ground game with numerous takedowns and total control on the ground. I don't remember seeing a single Bisping takedown. Was Bisping's striking that overwhelming to two judges that they gave him two rounds? I just don't see it.

The result brought up another interesting question in my mind -- is MMA judging so subjective that three judges watching the same fight can score the fight so differently? This is an issue that needs to be resolved in the sport in general (I saw the same thing at IFL's team semifinals in August) before people start thinking of the dreaded b-word (boxing) when it comes to decisions. However, these decisions do remind fighters that the only true way to control one's destiny is to win by stoppage. If a fighter doesn't want to lose by a controversial decision, then go for the stoppage!

I've also been asked by a number of readers what UFC president Dana White can do to rectify this decision. In my mind, there's very little he can do. Occasionally, we see decisions like this in the sport (Ortiz-Griffin comes to mind.) However, I do think Dana White can somewhat help the situation by treating both fighters as if they won or at least fought to a draw. Don't punish Hamill and don't give Bisping credit with respect to future matchmaking. And, in the end, maybe the only proper solution is a rematch.

Hamill continues to improve from one match to the next and last night he looked more comfortable on his feet than I've ever seen him. As for Bisping, I would like to see him drop down to middleweight (much like Henderson) and help solidify that division. I think Bisping would have a better chance being a contender as a middleweight than he would fighting at 205 lbs. Last night's fight showed us that both Hamill and Bisping are still middle-of-the-pack light heavyweights.

More to add. If you spot one, let me know.

Brit fans boo Bisping after highway robbery

FANS RALLY AROUND HAMILL - "In what ended up being the focal point for the majority of the fans watching UFC 75, Michael “The Count” Bisping won a very controversial split decision over Cincinnati, Ohio native Matt “The Hammer” Hamill, in what will almost surely go down as one of the worst decisions in UFC history. On the other side of the fight, Hamill showed a tremendous amount of graciousness in defeat and should be commended for not being more upset after a horrendous decision. The fans were also very vocal about this particular fight as the callers into MMAWeekly Radio’s post fight show rallied around Matt Hamill in this bout and voted him Fighter of the Night for his performance and grace in the face of defeat after a decision that no one seemed to agree with. "

Breaking Down Bisping/Hamill - "The bad judging was out side of Bisping's control and he can't be blamed for that. But his behavior afterward is a totally different story. My prediction -- Bisping has been exposed and will begin a downward slide. Hamill is on the upward swing and will be back."

UPDATE: There is a petition going on in support of Matt Hamill's fight.

To: Dana White, UFC President

I and innumerable other UFC and MMA supporters were utterly shocked and completely disheartened at the egregious decision that was made by the judges appointed in deciding the winner of the fight between Matt Hamill and Michael Bisping at UFC 75. This is not merely a complaint clouded by favoritism for one fighter or another, but rather, a resounding outcry being lodged by fight fans, both new and old, at a decision that we find to be exceptionally wrong, as well as an absolute blight to the honor of the UFC and the faith of its ever-growing audience. While we realize that the re-evaluation of such a highly publicized fight will prove costly beyond just monetary concerns, please listen to the fans who know and love MMA, and who are undyingly passionate about this venerable sport (just like you), when a decision such as this is so roundly denounced.

I and those who have signed this petition thank you for your careful and gracious consideration to this matter.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Although I don't know what good it is to petition other than to feel better afterwards. What we really need to see is what Dana White (president of UFC) has to say about all this. This is certainly not something to be swept under the rug when you have over 90% of the people agreeing that it was Hamill who won the fight and not Bisping.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Matt Hamill's Use of His Voice - a Controversy?

When is a controversy not a controversy if 30% of the people who voted in my recent poll asking if Matt Hamill's use of his voice was acceptable or not. Why do 30% of them find it controversial whenever Matt decides to use his voice to speak to hearing reporters (or hearing people in general) for the UFC 75 pre-fight taping? Although Matt did sign and talk at the same time in another pre-fight video during the UFC 75 fight show. Does that make it even more wrong that Matt shouldn't have signed and talked at the same time?

Did Ben incorrectly place me (or was he even talking about me as I wonder) as the controversy in his latest DeafDC blog about Hamill's UFC fight loss in his attempt to slam me personally only because I told people to "grow up" with their mentality towards other Deaf people who can use their voice to communicate.? The controversy should be about the 30% who found it unacceptable for Matt to use his voice. Does Ben have a grudge against me or what? Did he post this comment in my blog about that 30% poll survey?

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.

Ok. So he has an opinion. So what. Why should *I* be the controversy if I pointed it out to those 30% who find it controversial that Matt used his voice in the first place? Maybe it was because I didn't mince words and spoke my thoughts about this whole thing when I see that people who believed Matt ought to have been signing at all times regardless the hearing environment he's in?

Call it incredulous seeing the poll results. It was.

Or am I hearing that the "30%" result isn't large enough of a percentage to be deemed as a "controversy" in the first place? is that what I am hearing? Well, what is it then? 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? 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. Granted. Some deaf people are comfortable using their voice. Many are not and choose to sign exclusively. That is not a problem for me and many others. But for many, it is a problem if one decides or prefers to use his/her voice to communicate.

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." But alas, there exist overly sensitive Deaf people out there who are against other Deaf/deaf/hh people who can use their voice well to communicate to hearing people. Yet I see them as controversial in their own right and say that they need to grow up and get away from that Deaf militant mindset that signing is to be used at all times.

But wouldn't you think by now that many of Deaf people would have gotten over that mentality knowing there exist within the Deaf/deaf community a complete diversity of communication skills? Why should Deaf people MUST sign at all times in all hearing venues? What about in Deaf venues provided that there are interpreters and real time captioners available? Just like I did when I used my voice at the vlog/blog conference at Gallaudet University earlier this year. I knew it would be a controversy but I didn't care and made my stand to make a point. Only a few deaf people at Gallaudet I know of did that very same thing when there were captioners and interpreters available did they choose to use their voice.

Matt can sign. Matt can speak. Does it really matter on how Matt chooses to use his voice in certain environments? Or does it, folks? Or do you prefer to hold to the rigid Deaf militant thinking that signing is the only optional communication mode by those who have the voicing skill to communicate to hearing people? How many times have you used your voice to communicate to a hearing person yet you voted "No" that Matt shouldn't have used his voice in his pre-fight tapings?

Right. And what does that make you?

Uh huh.

UPDATE: I wasn't sure if Ben was trying to slam me. He didn't. He explained it in DeafDC where I offered my sincerest apologies wondering if he was referring to me or not. Blame it on the coincidence of Ben's comment in my blog and in DeafDC that occurred on the same day covering the same subject.

UPDATE II: Jeff Carlson said it well as a guest blogger on Ridorlive (of all places) after seeing it on Deafread did I finally take a peak after one urged me to take a look and realized it was he who wrote that blog piece:

The key to see progression in our deaf community is encouraging rather than ripping them apart, using the term “unacceptable” to describe other people’s choice. That’s counterproductive. It’s almost too typical to see that in deaf community. It’s like a crab-theory in work. It’s time to move forward.

I'd say it's better to respect an adult's communication choice and by doing so can produce positive results. And to think if I hadn't put out that poll result and commented on it Jeff wouldn't have made his blog piece on that very same subject. Go figure.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Bisping Highly Controversal Win over Hamill

I keep seeing forums after forums and now news articles popping up questioning the win judges (2 out 3) gave to Bisping against Hamill in the UFC 75 in London last night. From a British newspaper the Lancashire Telegraph:

Before Saturday's fight, Bisping, 28, of Clitheroe, had vowed: "I will submit him or knock him out", but the fight lasted the maximum three five-minute rounds and the Brit only had his hand raised in victory following a split decision by the three judges.

Many pundits expected the judges to pick 'The Hammer' Hamill and even Bisping appeared momentarily surprised when he got the decision.

Even Bisping was surprised by the decision. I saw his expression on tv last night. If he was surprised by the decision and the majority of people are saying that Hamill won the fight, shouldn't that be a clue that there's something wrong with the judges' decision? It was obvious that Matt did most of the punching and take downs against Bisping while he ran around trying to avoid his relentless approaches.

And now what Bisping said after the fight.

"I know he's a tough fighter so was expecting it to go the distance - it is all good experience for me - but I held out for the win.

"And obviously I am happy.

"Now though, I want to put The Ultimate Fighter show behind me. I proved that title is mine and it is time to put this thing to bed once and for all."

I don't think so, Bisping. Looking at the fight it was obvious that Matt was dominant in Round 1 and 2. And the judges gave points to Bisping for Round 1 and 2? One judge gave all rounds to Hamill but the other two judges gave points to Bisping for Round 1 and 2.

From NBC Sports:

Hamill looked impressive with an improved standup game that never saw him give ground to his opponent, and he also managed several takedowns that should have scored points. One judge scored all three rounds for Hamill, but the other two scored the fight two rounds to one for the hometown hero.

Hey. I'm not alone in this travesty. Some 90 to 95% believed Matt won. And that even came from British and Bisping fans, too. Take a poll on who won that fight and see what others have said. Or take the Sherdog's poll.

I think, according to Sherdog forum covering the Bisping/Hamill fight (over 100 pages!!) that this thing isn't going to go away easily. I see a rematch in the future. I'm sure Couture, Liddel, and many other professional UFC fighters will nod in agreement that Matt clearly won the fight.

What say you Dana White , president of UFC, about the fight? A rematch? Or are you going to ignore 90% of the UFC fans who say that Matt Hamill won?

It's your move, Dana. Make it a smart one.

UPDATE: There seems to be a gathering storm of deaf/hh bloggers saying that Hamill won the fight and he was robbed of that win. Even by those who hated Hamill said that it was obvious that Hamill won the fight. You can't argue against more than 90% who say that it was Matt who won the fight.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Matt Hamill Loses Fight Against Bisping!

Matt Hamill loses!

Matt kept moving in while Bisping tried to avoid his forward assault. Matt threw lots of punches. Several take downs. Matt was dominant in round 1 and 2, or so it seems, and probably a tie for round 3 which Matt showed a bit of slowing down. But round 1 was given to Bisping. Round 2 to Bisping and round 3 to Matt (did I get that right?) Anyway, a very narrow win for Bisping.

You did a great job Matt. Don't give up! Get the fire in your belly.

UPDATE: People are saying the decision was rigged. I thought that Matt did very well in the first two rounds. I was quite surprised to see that the judges' decision went to Bisping. Of course, the event took place in London. Wonder what would happen had Matt won the decision? A riot? Even the fans booed at Bisping after the decision in support of Matt obvious win.

UPDATE II: Go to Sherdog forum (beginning on "page 42") where they are discussing the Bisping/Hamill fight. Lots of discussion taking place and most of the postes are in support of Hamill thinking the judges rigged the fight when clearly it was Matt Hamill who dominated the first two rounds. People are absolutely disgusted with the judges. It'll be interesting to see what Dana White (president of UFC) will have to say about this one. This is sounding more and more like a big uproar coming down the pike.

UPDATE III: "I a fan of bisping but i just have 2 agree and say hamill was robbed... I couldnt believe it, u could see the relief in bisping when it was announced.........." (page 42)

UPDATE IV: In another poll about 95% believed Hamill won the fight. This is not about America vs Britain but solely on the merits of the fight itself.

SIGNED by YAHOO SPORTS

Brit fans boo Bisping after highway robbery By Kevin Iole

Saturday, Sep 8, 2007 5:13 pm EDT LONDON -- A sellout crowd at the O2 Arena roared its approval of everything light heavyweight Michael Bisping did Saturday during his fight with Matt Hamill.

Until, that is, the scores were announced. And though the hometown boy, Bisping, won a split decision, more than half those in the crowd booed the decision lustily.

Judge Chris Watts gave all three rounds to Hamill, scoring it 30-27. But judges Cecil Peoples and Jeff Mullen scored it 29-28 for Bisping. I had it 30-27 for Hamill, believing his takedowns and his standup were the difference.

In the first round, Hamill's standup was surprisingly effective. He bloodied Bisping's nose and cut him by the left eye. He also took him down repeatedly.

Bisping never mounted any consistent offense, though he did manage to connect with his jab more in the final two rounds.

The two were heated enemies from their time together on Season Three of The Ultimate Fighter and both talked big prior to the fight.

But the fight didn't live up to the heat and what fight there was seemed to be provided by Hamill.

There's gotta be a "rematch" in there somewhere.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

Hey! I'm Talking to You! Grow Up!

There is one poll I found to be absolutely appalling and that is seeing one survey result where nearly 30% who participated in the poll voted "No" saying what Matt Hamill did when he used his voice to talk to reporters was "unacceptable."

Now, who are these people? If you are one of those people who voted "No" thinking that talking is wrong then who the hell do you think you are anyway? Matt Hamill is an adult and he chose to use his speaking skill to talk to reporters about his up coming fight against Michael Bisping which will air tonight on SpikeTV at 9 PM ET. This is well within his right to speak with his voice. You people, on the other hand, need to grow up.

For you to say that it was "unacceptable" for Matt Hamill to use his voice at the pre-fight meeting with reporters makes ya'll a bunch of "Deaf militants." Yes. "Deaf militants." Are you guys are a bunch of Deaf bigots, too? Mewling and complaining that Matt Hamill choose to use his voice is "wrong".

What Matt Hamill did was appropriate only because it was his right to choose on how he wanted to communicate. It was appropriate for Matt to use his voice in a venue which was, a no brainer here, full of hearing people. If he decided to sign, then that would be find as well.

These "Deaf militants" who voted "No" need to grow up. Seriously. And recognize individual choices and rights when it comes to mode of communication with other people. You guys need to get out of your fantasy little Deaf world thinking that signing is only allowed at all times for it to be "acceptable." Never mind the fact you have Deaf people with all kinds of communication skills who can hear, listen, speak, talk, sign, use the phone and so on.

Hey! I'm talking to ya! G...R...O...W UP!

BTW, good luck to Matt Hamill on his fight tonight. It'll come on in 3 hours from now. Don't miss it!


UPDATE: After getting reviews, comments and criticisms I realize as I look back that my tone was indeed overly harsh. I am very supportive of deaf/hh people who are comfortable using their voice to communicate. And I was utterly aghast by those who would go to the distance to try and deny a deaf/hh adult the right to speak and use his voice to communicate. Instead of "grow up" it should've been replaced with the fact that I wished those people would have an open mind instead about adult's choices and rights to use his/her own voice to communicate and doing so the person shouldn't be demonized for doing that at all.

It is amazing to see how a deaf person who can speak well enough to be understood without ever hearing his own voice! It is MY belief that communication preferences are varied among us and we shouldn't demonize no one for their communication choice and preference, even if it means just speaking alone. So, in the end, and I'm big enough to see why people may be upset about my blog piece, I would like to apologize for the improper wordings and tone. As I look back it does look a bit harsh perhaps too much since negative experiences could play a big factor in why one picked "No." However, having said that, I am having trouble over the idea when people use his/her own experience as an excuse to deny other's their own adult's right to use his/her own voice. That simply does not compute.

Lastly, my blog poll piece about the Hamill's use of voice clearly was about those 30% who voted "No. " My blog piece has never been directed at the whole deaf community. Please get that straight, folks. In fact those 30% who voted at this time consisted of only 27 out of 100 participants so far. The 27 people who voted "No" is in no way representative of the larger deaf population. Please keep in mind, my comments were directed at those 27 (and counting) who voted "No" and not against the 900,000 or so Deaf people in the United States. Commenting against those 27 is not the same as scolding the entire deaf community. Please understand the difference here.

Hamill vs Bisping Pre-Fight UFC Videos - Captioned!

Get ready to watch the UFC rumble between Matt Hamill and Michael Bisping tomorrow on Saturday at 9 PM Eastern Time. The show titled "UFC 75: Champion vs. Champion" will be free to watch on SpikeTV channel. Don't miss the fight!

Here are two pre-fight videos about Michael Bisping and Matt Hamill by SpikeTV. Mike McConnell produced the captioned text in the first video seen below for your viewing pleasure. Stop by and pass along a thank you to Mike for his effort on producing a captioned video portion of Matt Hamill and Michael Bisping.

The captioned video of Hamill and Bisping starts at 6 minutes and 38 seconds into the video. You'll have to fast foward to the time stamp at 6:38.




The second video with subtitles produced by SpikeTV called "Matt Hamill's Unfinished Business."

Heavyweight Matt Hamill talks about his upcoming fight with TUF 3 winner Michael Bisping at UFC® 75. Where does Hamill plan to take the fight and how important is it to him? You can see Hamill vs. Bisping free on Spike TV Saturday September 8th @ 9PM.

Now, in the second video "Unfinished Business" Matt Hamill was using his voice to talk to reporters rather than signing. Should Matt have signed instead of talking? Or that doesn't matter to you? Choose your answer in the poll below.

In the second video Matt Hamill was talking and using his voice but not signing, is that acceptable?
	Yes
	No.
	I'm not sure.
	It doesn't matter since I'm not the overly sensitive type about deaf people talking.
pollcode.com free polls

Here's a poll for you UFC fans.

Who do you think will win? Matt Hamill or Michael Bisping?

Who do you think will win at the UFC 75 fight?
	Matt Hamill
	Michael Bisping
pollcode.com free polls

To see all blogs and interviews of Matt Hamill in my Kokonut Pundit blogsite please go here and you'll find a Google list of Matt Hamill related blogs.


Check out all of Kokonut Pundit's blogs on Matt Hamill. Including exclusive interviews with him by Mike McConnell.

UPDATE: There were unconfirmed reports that several Deaf people purposely voted "No" in one question ("In the second video Matt Hamill was talking and using his voice but not signing, is that acceptable?") with the claim it was done to "rile" me up and make this into a "controversy." If this is true then we have several very dishonest Deaf people who managed only to hurt themselves and perhaps the Deaf community. Currently 28 (out of 116 votes currently) voted "No" which makes up 24% of the total votes. If several Deaf people voted "No" on purpose (when they really would've voted "doesn't matter") it would bring down the percentage to only about 20% or so. Which means 20% of the 116 votes, currently. It does not mean 20% (or 30% in this case previously) of the Deaf community that voted "No." Please understand the differences, folks. We're talking about the current 116 votes and not the whole Deaf community population.

For those who voted honestly I would question them if they are actually being closed minded about Hamill's right to use his voice at the MMA fights (both pre-fight and post-fight examples). Hamill already apologized to those who felt upset when he choose to use his voice to talk. Hamill was the bigger man to apologize to those who disagreed with him using his voice (and even to guys who believed in playing the dishonesty game in the poll vote). The statistical percentages will still stand and evolve while people continue to vote. And, if this is true, then those Deaf yahoos who played around in that poll vote will now see the consequences of their action knowing that the public will see that 24% result when it could have been only 15% or even 10% of those who participated voted "No."

Nice going them guys. If this actually happened then they certainly deserve the Darwin award. I expect people to be honest with themselves rather than play games of dishonesty when it comes to these things.

Democrats Stunned by Accuracy in Deaf Repblicans Website

I couldn't help but chuckle when I came across "Into Dean's Cyberspace," a Democrat blogsite, about how they were "stunned" by Deaf Republicans accurate claims on what Republicans have accomplished for deaf and hard of hearing people, and people with disability.

I got this e-mail from a friend of mine. I read them very carefully, and the list those accomplishments on disability issues were passed by all Republicans really stunned me. I always have been a democrat. I never realized they are all Republicans who passed them. I wonder of those accomplisments are accurate information? Have any Democrats passed any disability issues? Anyway, I thought I would want to post to let the readers read about this…

And I scrolled down to see if anybody made any comments on the accuracy of Deaf Republicans' claims...... none replied.

Enough said.

UPDATE: Correction about the blogsite. I was informed by the owner that the blogsite that he isn't a Democrat. Not sure what party affiliation he's with but certainly nobody expressed any interest on discussing the details.

Any Deaf Black Republicans Out There?

I'm sure there are some deaf black Republicans out there somewhere since there are in fact many black Republican bloggers such as here, here and here which is just a short list of names. There are even black Republican organizations such as the "National Black Republican Association". And recently there's a new national magazine called "Black Republican" where you can download and read the first and second edition online magazine. And read articles with titles like,

• Seven Keys to Financial Independence for Black Americans
• Prominent African Americans Break from the Pack
• Black Politicians Are Switching to the Republican Party Across the Country
• Hillary’s Plantation: Democrats Trap Urban Blacks in Poverty
• Democrats:“By Their Fruits,Ye Shall Know Them
• Rev. Wayne Perryman Sues Democratic Party for Reparations: [Democrats Admit Racist Past in Court]
• CONDOLEEZZA RICE:Most Powerful Woman in the World.

In the National Black Republican Association website they have articles, video or radio ads that discusses,

• Republicans Promote Prosperity - Democrats Promote Dependency
• MLK was a Republican
• The KKK: The Democrats' Terrorist Arm
• Democrats Demean Blacks
• Democrats Take Black Votes For Granted
• Democrats Owe Blacks An Apology
• Democrats - Apologize NOW!

Now, again, I'm sure there are many deaf black Republicans out there somewhere. Yet I wonder if any deaf/Deaf black Democrat/Libertarian/Independent know about these magazines, black Republican organizations and some of the racist history (e.g. Democrats murdered black Republicans) of the Democratic party and its people in the past (and even into today)?

Now, what will people say about Republicans who happen to be black or African American? That they're a bunch of Uncle Toms? What if they're deaf/Deaf black Republicans? That they all are nothing more than "token" people? If you believe that then you better start reading "Black Republican" magazine before you open your mouth the next time. They are just as capable as any white, purple, yellow, green, or blue people out there to do what they want and succeed in life. We're no better than they are but as equals.

A Poll: Deaf Owned P0rn Company be Allowed at Deaf Expo?

Here's the question: Should a Deaf owned Deaf p0rn company be allowed at Deaf Expo as long as nudity and offensive language are not used? Yesterday, I ran a blog piece about my discovery of a Deaf owned p0rn company that I accidentally came across on YouTube after I punched in the key search word "deaf". And because of my blog piece I was recently informed via email about how a different Deaf owed p0rn company called "Polecat Pictures" was promptly thrown out of the Deaf Expo despite, from what I could read in the old Deaf Weekly newsletter, the agreement they had with Deaf Expo officials that no nudity and language were to be used at the Deaf Expo booth. Although this happened about three years ago.

The exhibit booth of a deaf-owned company promoting its new porn flick "Sexy Sign Language" was shut down by Deaf Expo officials last Saturday. PoleCat Pictures said in a press release that it paid its booth fee and had been welcomed for its diversity to the Nov. 12-13 event in Anaheim, Calif. The company agreed in advance to exclude nudity and profanity from its booth, yet show officials ordered the removal of all flyers and signs in the booth, and finally told PoleCat to "pack up and leave" at noon Saturday, the press release claims. Deaf Expo director David Rosenbaum told Deafweekly he worked hard with PoleCat reps to address the "unfavorable comments and grave concerns" of attendees, exhibitors and sponsors, but was not successful. "As a result and by mutual agreement, the exhibitor vacated his exhibit," he said.

Interesting story. The agreement was made on no language and nudity (I'm guessing for the sake of minors who would be among the attendees at Deaf Expo), the booth already paid for but it was the people who attended the Deaf Expo had these "concerns" which prompted officials to ask this porn vendor to leave. I wonder, did the porn vendor get his/her money back?

And so this leaves me thinking by setting this poll up.

Should a Deaf owned Deaf p0rn company be allowed at Deaf Expos or conventions as long as nudity and offensive language are not used?
	Yes!
	No!
	Yes but with more restrictions.
	I am not sure right now.
pollcode.com free polls

If yes but with restrictions you choose, what would those restrictions be? Being the only adult (ie p0rn) vendor in a mostly family-oriented (ie kids are there, too) type Deaf Expo, how would this "diversity" of Deaf owned companies be allowed to show their wares and services to the deaf and hard of hearing public? Would this be any different from religious "zealots" (for a lack of a better word) at these booths who are hocking their wares or information that some/many attendees would find such a booth a bit offensive, too?

A Deaf P0rn Company?

Went to YouTube and punched in a keyword "deaf" to see what's up and then I saw a recent video that was put up 11 hours ago by a new porn company called "Deaf Bunny Productions." Now, it's not a surprise that it'd be a matter of time until we see the first ever Deaf p0rn company complete with signing "actors." I'm sure there's a market for this kind of thing since when sex doesn't sell? But doesn't this bode bad news and more trappings for Deaf people? What are the pros and cons on having a Deaf p0rn company? Acceptable or not? A need for Deaf smut? Although I do wonder, does the bunny symbol used by this Deaf company infringes on Playboy's famous bunny trademark since it has the "look and feel" like the famous Playboy's bunny image? And are those "actors" really Deaf or hearing?

Hands and Voices

Karen Putz did a story on me for Hands and Voices a few months back that appeared in the printed version. The article is now available on their website titled, " 'Renaissance Man' in Pursuit of
Personal Goals." A good little read on what I have done and the goals I continue to pursue. Although I am not currently trying to raise money for a new piano via my blogsite, as reported in Hands and Voices. I advertised my donation request via buying my Ragtime products was done as a lark just to see what kind of reaction I'd get from people reading my blogsite. I'll get my piano of choice in due time and get back into practicing 2 to 3 hour everyday once again honing my ragtime piano skills. How many deaf/hh Ragtime pianists do you know anyway?

A New Kokonut Pundit 's Milestone

As I make my way thru the blogosphere I noticed that sometime today or last night my blogsite hit a new milestone of 200,000 hits. Not bad considering that I cover a wide variety of topics of interest to both hearing and deaf readers and with special thanks to many political blogs that linked to my breaking political blog topics. Over the past year has been my best! My recent first 100,000th hit occurred last year some 10 months ago. Many thanks to those who continue to read my blogs while I continue to be a positive and contributing member of the blogosphere, politics and everything else.

Deaf, Illegal Alien Charged With Murder

There's a big illegal immigration problem here in the United States. Anyone who enters the United States without proper documentations (or none at all) is breaking U.S. laws. They are in essence serious law breakers. These includes deaf illegal aliens as well and all illegal immigrants should be reported and deported back to where they came from.

Now, with this story we have Oswaldo Martinez, 36, who is charged with capital murder, rape, robbery and forcible sodomy in connection with the murder of a 16 year old girl, Brittany Binger, in January 2005.

Martinez, a deaf-mute illegal immigrant, has been learning American sign language at Western State since late 2005.

Experts have said that at the time Martinez was arrested in February 2005, he could not read, write or use sign language.

During a competency hearing in May, it was revealed that after a year and a half of instruction, Martinez could effectively communicate with doctors and staff at Western State.

Williamsburg-James City Circuit Judge Samuel Powell III ruled that during the next six months, Martinez's attorneys, Tim Clancy and Beau Webb, begin meeting with him in an effort to determine his ability to aid in his own defense. The move to the regional jail will make those meetings possible.

What makes this so unique is that Martinez lacked any effective communication to offer his own defense after investigations found his DNA in the form of scraped skin under Brittany's fingernails when she tried to fight him off. The culpability is there with the DNA evidence to charge Martinez with murder and more.

These things shouldn't happen. There are millions of legal immigrants who came to America using proper and legal means to enter and eventually become American citizens in Newark, NJ. Americans deserved to be protected from illegal aliens who break laws or committ murder against American citizens.

So, how many deaf illegal immigrants are out there in the United States? If there are an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States, I'd say the number of illegal deaf immigrants may be around 60,000 based on my own earlier population study. It could be much more than that since there are no real credible studies in this area as far as I know determining the number of deaf illegal immigrants in the U.S. Yet we do hear stories from time to time on how illegal deaf immigrants were captured like the ones reported here, here and especially here.

Regardless of how they got there, illegal immigrants simply need to be deported back where they came from. From the countries where these deaf illegal immigrants came from it is that country's responsibility to address the plight of these deaf individuals rather than have them foisted upon American soils because they don't want to address the problem. There are ways where countries can collaborate to help fund or offer expertise to help make lives better in the country from which those deaf illegal immigrants came from.

As a side note, Michelle Malkin is active in this area reporting on our illegal immigrants problem in the United States and how they have murdered and killed American citizens. Her latest story is about an illegal immigrant in connection with the triple slayings of three young people.