Its funny, but I think it questions the way we question advantages. For example maybe its not wrong to make a challenger prove he is better than the contender he is fighting. In the words of F.X. Toole Hamil was brought in "to be the opponent, and being the opponent means you lose." And in Hendo's example, he clearly won the first two rounds, but when it came to the pivotal third did he do enough? Was it wrong to make the challenger bring a game that was notably higher than the contender? Is it wrong to ask the person expected to lose to do enough to erase the predisposition in the judges head? These are the questions we need to honestly answer as fans of the sport.
It seems silly in the end, but it reality is it wrong to make people fight against the human desire to pick a "winner" before hand?
I pooped a hammer once.