I must be crazy, because I didn't think the judges 'blew it' at all, and think that the 'rightful winner' was in fact Rampage.
While I do agree that the 10-point-must system was selected arbitrarily in the beginning, and has maybe outlived its usefullness for MMA, I think some serious analysis must be done when choosing its successor.
Does anyone here want to hazard a guess as to how often the 10-point-must system delivers the 'right' result? 80% of the time? 90%? Thoughts?
The reason I ask that is the danger when discussing this issue on the back of a contentious decision is that you can start trying to tailor your hypothetical judging system to address the result of that particular fight. However, one must be wary of the 'ripple effect' - changing the judging system for one fight where you disagree with the outcome could in fact alter the decision of other close fights that you actually agreed with.
One of the fundamental issues with any judging system is that it is subjective, assessed in real time and subject to human frailty. This automatically means that 100% accuracy is a guaranteed impossibility.
So, no matter what judging system is in place you will continue to have contentious decisions, and outraged fans as a result. That should be kept in mind before throwing the 10-point-baby out with the bathwater - let's make sure that whatever system replaces it has been assessed against a large body of existing fights and is heavily tested to see what results it will actually deliver.
Goremire's rules for enjoyable MMA forum posting
Rule 1: REMEMBER that you cannot reason someone out of an argument they did not reason themselves into in the first place.
Rule 2: Albert Einstein once wrote a foreword endorsing a book rubbishing the theory of plate tectonics. History proved him wrong. Moral of the story? REMEMBER: We all say stupid stuff sometimes!
Rule 3: NEVER attempt to mediate in a flame-war between GSP and BJ Penn nuthuggers debating GSP/Penn II. It won't end well.