My thought process when it comes to these types of situations is this:
Many fighters stress all the time that you never want to leave it in the hands of the judges because you never know which style, techniques, and executions will sway them. So as a fan, whether YOU think a fighter legitimately won a fight or not ultimately doesn't matter in the world of fighting, because the most important people, whether you think they are dumb asses or not, are the judges.
The best, and sometimes the only way to keep a robbery from happening is to finish the fight. If the fighters don't finish, then whoever the judges thinks won the fight, won the fight. Many people argue that Frankie won the second fight. But guess what, the most important people scored the fight for bendo, so he is who won. I personally think Carlos Condit was robbed in his fight against Kampann, but yet again, he didn't insure his victory by finishing, so Kampann won because the judges said so.
My point is that if all these people that won these fights, TRULY won the fight, it wouldn't have had to go to a decision in the first place.
It's not like the fighters wanted to go to the cards. Just neither guy could finish the other. I disagree that the only "true" way to win is get a finish. Sometimes that's just not in the cards.
I also don't have to base my views on fights and fighters on what 3 generally incompetent judges have to say. I don't have to accept all decisions as law and I never will.