Every once in a while, somebody on this forum expresses the opinion that a fight should have been ruled a split decision, and it always fascinates me to think of any reasons how that could be possible.
Might it because no two judges are ever sitting at the exact same place at the same time, so because they are watching the fight from slightly different angles, it should have seemed to one of the judges like the other guy scored more points, and because he should be impartial, he thus should have given the win to the wrong guy?
Or did one of the fighters many years ago save the life of one of the judges' first born son, making it morally acceptable for that judge to score the fight in that fighter's favor in case there was even the slightest doubt that the other fighter won the fight?
Or, is it the posting member who is suffering from dissociative identity disorder, and one of his identities, a teenager with dreams of becoming a professional MMA fighter, scored a lot of points for takedowns and submission attempts, while his other identity, a middle aged boxing enthusiast who enjoys collecting stamps, only scored the standup?
"I don't think you can underestimate the amount of motivation that Quinton Jackson will have coming back here and fighting in Japan." - Joe Rogan