MMAjunkie.com is not mincing words with the Pendred vs. Spencer outcome: "MMA judging sucks." That is their conclusion. A couple of paragraphs from MMAjunkie's just-published "MMA judging sucks" article: Even UFC President Dana White and UFC commentator Joe Rogan could not defend the judges’ scorecards following a botched call in a three-round bout between Cathal Pendred and Sean Spencer. Despite getting soundly outstruck by Spencer (12-4 MMA, 3-3 UFC) over 15 minutes, Pendred (16-2-1 MMA, 3-0 UFC) somehow won all three rounds on two judges’ scorecards and two of three on another. http://mmajunkie.com/2015/01/ufc-fi...d-tops-sean-spencer-because-mma-judging-sucks And then there was the Cerrone vs. Henderson decision. Would that be two decisions that "sucked" in one night? So, do you agree with MMAjunkie.com that "MMA judging sucks"? Or do you think that the Pendred vs. Spencer decision was an anomaly (and that the Cerrone vs. Henderson decision was also an anomaly)? Or do you think the judges actually got it right?