I don't know why this disease has entered the forum once again but why is the outcome and performance of both fighters being attributed to a negative on Anderson Silva's part as opposed to a positive on the part of Michael Bisping?
People will try to support this with some twisted version of the facts but truly the answer is because (1) people hate Bisping and find it impossible to give the guy credit where credit is due and (2) because they may also have difficulty in accepting that Anderson Silva, their hero, lost to Bisping.
One way to make your hero look good in defeat is to say that something that isn't his fault was wrong with him and that is what caused his defeat. But of course there is no way that Bisping didn't just beat Anderson Silva because Bisping was the better of the two fighters that night. No way could that happen, right?