As Dana White's cries of outrage about the decision in Saturday's UFC 167 main event still echo through the halls of the MGM Grand Garden Arena, why don't we all take a deep breath, grab a cup of tea and focus on the real problem this sport is facing: the 10-point must scoring system.
Bear with me, dear MMAFighting community. Did I personally think GSP won the fight? No, I had it 48-47 Hendricks. Did I think GSP won the fight based on damage and the 'streetfight-style' scoring many MMA fans seem to use? Hell no.
But still, let's look at the facts. On Saturday, these two formidable athletes fought under the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts. Under these rules, as we all know, fights are scored using a 10-point must system based on effective striking, grappling and octagon control. So let's apply this system to the UFC 167 5-round championship bout between Georges St-Pierre and Johny Hendricks:
Most people will agree that Hendricks clearly won round 2 and 4, and GSP quite clearly won round 3. Round 5 was rather close, but I gave it to GSP. Which - for me - leaves round 1 as the big decisive round. Now, no matter how you scored this round, the fact that the scoring of a 5-round fight depends on the outcome of one single round already tells us that this fight was in no way, shape or form the "biggest robbery of all time" - it's not like that's a good thing, but we've seen way worse. As for the scoring of round 1, I strongly suggest you rewatch it with the commentary turned off - try to judge the action solely based on the official scoring criteria, forget about the storyline, forget about the overall outcome of the fight. Again, I personally gave that round to Hendricks, but is it really completely out of this world to give it to GSP? Why not score it as a draw, making the overall fight a draw? Why not have the 5th round a draw too, giving the fight to Hendricks?
Now, if you honestly analyzed the fight based on the official rules and still think the fight was a so called 'robbery', then that's your valid opinion, and I can live with that. What I'm trying to say is: if you're going to blame anyone, should it be the two judges who sat cageside Saturday night and might have been a little off in the first round, or should we focus on the scoring system that once again - in it's current form and the way it is employed - proved to be unsuitable for judging MMA fights in a satisfying way?