I didn't see the need to put another UFC 123 commentary on the frontpage and clog it up, but first and foremost, I am quite possibly the biggest Rampage fan on this site (sorry Pace) and even I scored it 29-28 for Machida on Saturday. With that said, I rewatched it and felt round 1 really should've gone to Rampage but that's besides the point. I'm really not understanding the backlash of the judging here. I see many people saying that the judges are dumb, Dana White fixed the fight, we need five rounds for main events, we need Pride rules, etc. all stemming from the outcome of this one fight, which shouldn't have been and really wasn't that controversial. It was a close fight, the first two rounds were basically a game of a cat and mouse with small spurts of action or events and of course, round 3 was a clear victory for Machida.
Now here's what I don't understand. Are people upset because Machida did so well in the third round (yet didn't finish) and wasn't given the nod because of that? Or do people really think Machida was head and shoulders more active and scored more in the opening rounds? Should making opponents miss and/or not getting fully hit by your opponent score points just as much as octagon control and aggression? I'm seriously not understanding the volume of upset viewers who have basically turned what was a decent fight between two top level fighters and turned it into a big conspiracy theory/judging fiasco. The judges score it based on the criteria laid out by the Unified rules. Therefore, a fighter doesn't score points for making another fighter miss, they get judged on the actually point scoring criteria and that's basically it. Help me to understand what more they could have done or what actual intangibles inside the cage that played out should have swayed the judges more on Machida's side?