As I understand the rules, being an exhibition and in theory a two-round fight, the third round is "sudden victory," meaning the first two were split one each. So whoever wins the third round is the winner. The first two rounds , you might as well pretend didn't happen.
So if Hill got the only takedown in the third round, he got a checkmark or tick or "X" or whatever in the takedown box on the judges' scorecards and Secor didn't. That's the only way I can make sense of it.
In absolutely no way did that decision make any sense. I watched the promos saying that it was the most controversial decision of the season, and I still couldn't believe it when it was read. It was without a doubt the worst decision I have ever seen. Under no circumstances do those judges even deserve to watch an mma fight again much less decide the outcome of one. The only way it can be justified is if the judges thought they were watching a "keep a grown man on your back for 5 minutes competition" , in which case Hill dominated. I know it gets said alot, but if that was me I don't think I could accept that victory.