Which controversial decision do you not see the controversy?

[imissWECPalmer]

GSP/Hendrix
Jones/Gus

 

[PaleBeast]

I think every big fight that was controversial was scored correctly. At least the ones that I watched. One of my friends threw a fit over GSP/Hendricks, but I remember thinking it was 2-2 going into the fifth. After GSP scored that takedown in the 5th I thought Hendricks blew it. When I thought about the fight as a whole it seemed like Hendricks won (and I only saw it the one time), but by scoring round by round I thought GSP won. Same with Bones/Gus. 2-2 and Jon took the 5th.

I think the desire to see an upset usually sways people. Hendrick over GSP, Gus over Bones, Gil over Benson were all enjoyable outcomes that just simply weren't earned on that night. All of them were close, but all of them were scored correctly. It's in our nature to root for the underdog. That's why upsets are so fun.

 

[gravel]

Most of the close fights as people score for their favourite and don't look at the fight objectively. The most recent example is Jones vs Cormier which was correctly scored 49-46

 

[iloveufc123]

Lawler/Hendricks II
GSP/Hendricks
JDS/Miocic

 

[fortheo]

Machida vs. Phil davis

 

[Zanmato]

jones vs. gustaffson... close fight but the correct decision was made

 

[Mattitude V1]

TS doesn't know what controversy means.

 

[Uncommon Valor]

Jones/Gustafsson.

 

[Irenaeus]

From the top of my head, Condit vs Diaz and Jones vs Gustafsson.

 

[vry pwrful]

anderson vs. weidman

 

[Shwartz]

Jones-Gus, had it 4-1 to Jones.

 

[Not Tuf]

I thought GSP lost to hendrix at first but the 1,3,5 is clear cut on a rewatch. I didn't see round 1 as being a toss up like some did. The way to see controversy there would be if someone thought Hendrix took round 1, the other rounds were pretty straight to call.

After reading the post about the Forrest v. Rampage fight I was wondering what fights did you all think wasn't controversial dispite what everyone else thought. Beside the Forrest v. Rampage fight, I never understood the Vera v. Couture controversy. I thought Vera won the second but Couture won the first and third pretty easily.

I would say that Vera and Couture was controversial in the sense that it shows the scoring system isn't good at certain fights. If you looked at scoring a round like baskets in basketball the rounds Couture won had very few points and Vera had the most significant action of the fight. Vera would have at least been in consideration of winning the fight under Pride/Japan fight as a whole winner/loser style scoring. Following the unified rules 10-9 system the fight is clear cut, it just shows controversy in how fights are scored.

Machida Rampage was similar where rounds with little action were weighted equally to a round with more significant activity than the other two combined.

 

[specter1001]

Dillashaw v. Assuncao, I had assuncao winning going into scorecards.

 

[Left Hook Lacy]

Shogun vs Machida

Couldve gone either way yes. Robbery no.

 

[krelianx]

Penn vs. Edgar 1
Forrest vs. Rampage

 

[eli9567]

GSP vs Hendricks is #1 for me. But also Aldo vs Edgar and Condit vs Diaz

 

[foard32]

Condit/Diaz
Hendricks/Lawler I

 

[eli9567]

Dillashaw v. Assuncao, I had assuncao winning going into scorecards.

I did also

 

[SherdogGoat]

Bones vs Gus.

It was an awesome fight and Gus definitely won 2 rounds, but bones won 3.

People act like it was some crazy all time mma robbery.

This. Also, Diaz vs Condit.

 

[Heikki Mustola]

Jones vs Gustafsson

And I was rooting for Gus. And will again in the rematch.

I feel like I was the only one who was rooting for him but thought that Jones won the match.