First off, I had Gustafsson winning the fight, but I found it extremely close and don't think that it was a robbery at all. If Jones were in Gustafsson's shoes, being the challenger and fighting the fight that Gustafsson fought, would there be an uproar about the decision? Did either man really do enough to definitely say that he won? To me it seems that most of what people are mad about is the fact that Jones is still champion, not that he got dominated in the fight. Davis/Machida was a much more controversial decision, in my eye, yet most people wrote it off as Machida point fighting and that he should have finished if he wanted to the win. Why does that change with Gustafsson. Jones had Gustafsson in far more trouble than vice versa. End of the day, Jones still landed more significant strikes than Gustafsson, so why is there an uproar?