Repeat thread: A "robbery" is when fighter clearly and undisputingly dominates the other and still does not get the decision.


Also all you babies and "robbery!" criers accusing the UFC judges of bias seem to forget that it was a fucking SPLIT DECISION which is very fitting I think for close and debatable fight.

Let me repeat that in close and debatable fights, there can be no "robbery!!!"

Please shut the fuck up you these incorrect "robbery!!!" accusations or learn the definition of it before you start using it in your vocabulary.

Wasa-B has delivered the message from the mountain and we should all bow down to his wisdom.

Wasa-B: Haven't seen the fight. That said, I may not always agree with you, but you at least always seem to know what you are talking about and express it well. In this case, I fully agree, without even having seen the fight. If it is widely considered to be a close fight, then no decision could possibly be a "robbery." Well said.

Blaze, Vitor did NOT clearly win round 1 and it was a close round hence the 3 judges themselves being SPLIT on it.

Many MMA writers think Vitor won but they all say round 1 was close too and that they could also see it going the other way.

Besides, if its so indisputingly "clear," why do other writers and fighters think Tito won? Not that they are wrong but that is "clear" that either fighter won.

You are exactly the type of problem I am talking about.

Hodges, you are incorrect aswell, Coleman/Rizzo was another close fight.