Posted by Menard_StC
I thought the decision was correct. Most unbiased people did.
How can you make that claim? You just write people's opinions off as bias when they don't fall in line with yours? How do you know what most people's bias is? Did you go around the planet and give everyone personal interviews to determine their bias? Do you believe that everyone who scored it in forrest's favour was unbiased and most people who scored it in rampage's were biased?
Really ridiculous statement, really completely incorrect. Argue either side if you want but stop falling back on the "bias" and "fanboy" arguments. There are probably just as many if not more people biased towards griffin as there are toward rampage. It works both ways. They're both highly popular fighters.
From what I've seen it's split almost perfectly down the middle, and bias has nothing to do with it. The fact that several rounds could be scored for either fighter depending on criteria used is the reason. It's not about fighter preference, it's about judging criteria. Everyone places different emphasis on things like submission attempts, position improvements, power and peppering shots.
Even the play by plays done on most MMA sites are split down the middle. MMAweekly had it for forrest, Fightmetrics had it as a tie, of the 3 sherdog judges one had it for rampage, one had it as a tie, and one had it as griffin. MMAjunkie also scored it in rampage's favour. Is everyone just biased or could it be that there are very legitimate arguments for both fighters winning? Claiming people are just biased is a cop out and a way to avoid actually having to back up your argument at all. That way you can just say "I'm right and you're wrong" without ever having to make any valid points.
As I've said I can see arguments for it going either way, but I'm sick of people like you claiming that half of the world is biased, or racist, or blind or some other nonsense.