However, Zach Arnold seems to think so:
That was, realistically, a 49-46 win for Cerrone (four rounds to one) over Ben Henderson. And how did the judges score the fight? 48-47 unanimously for Henderson.
Don’t get me wrong - Ben Henderson showed tremendous heart and flexibility, as much as Clay Guida did against Diego Sanchez. However, Cerrone was the aggressor with the submission attempts and he stayed on offense most of the way. Henderson was not even in Cerrone’s level in terms of finishing the fight.
Ehhh, I have to disagree here even though all of you know I thought that Cerrone did enough to get the win. I think it's pretty impossible to have it four rounds to one in favor of Cerrone. Here's how I see it.
Round 1-VERY close round. First half of the round was all Cerrone with the submission attempts and Henderson finished the round very strong. I gave this round to Cerrone. Which basically the difference in the fight for me.
Rounds 2-3 were clearly Henderson's rounds as he was able to dicate where the fight took place and also landed some pretty vicious ground and pound whereas Cerrone couldn't do much off his back.
Round 4-5 I have to Cerrone because he was able to stop Henderson's takedowns at this point and inflict damage, not to mention the close submission attempts in Round 5 that would have put away lesser opponents.
So I had it 3 rounds to 2 in favor of Cerrone, and again the difference in the fight was how you judged the first round IMO. Now, if this fight were judged the way they judge fights in Japan? Then, I think it would have been a pretty clear cut decision win for Cerrone since he was closer to stopping Henderson quite a few times. However, the fight took place in Texas and was judged on the ten point system so the decision the judges rendered is what it is. Again, it was a very close fight and I can see why they would say that Ben Henderson was the winner. There was no robbery at WEC 43. Donald Cerrone himself thought Henderson won the fight.
How did you judge the fight?