10 worst judges' decisions in UFC history

#9 Michael Bisping vs. Matt Hamill, UFC 75 – September 8th, 2007

The fans were shocked when Michael Bisping was awarded a win over Matt Hamill

Some fans would probably have this one higher on the list, but after a rewatch I maintain that while the decision was horribly wrong, it wasn’t the worst robbery in UFC history as many in 2007 claimed – partly because it’s since been surpassed and partly because that opinion was formed due to a backlash against the UFC’s treatment of Bisping at the time.

Regardless though, it remains a bad decision. Fans going in figured that Bisping would have an advantage standing while his TUF rival Hamill would be favoured if the fight went to the ground, but surprisingly, Hamill showed much improved striking and largely beat Bisping to the punch – along with outwrestling him – throughout the first two rounds, hurting him particularly badly with a heavy right hand in the early moments of the first.

The wrestler did slow down a lot in the third round and that allowed Bisping to implement his trademark volume striking, but realistically he never had Hamill hurt or on the verge of being finished, and the fight looked like a clear-cut 29-28 win for ‘The Hammer’. But two of the three judges went the other way, siding with the British fighter, and immediately cries of robbery went out.

Some fans even accused the judges of being biased due to the fight taking place in Bisping’s UK backyard, but that was ridiculous – the lone British judge was the man who actually scored the fight 29-28 for Hamill! Basically, there was no bias involved – it was just bad judging, an unfortunate case of the judges favoring Bisping’s busier nature over Hamill’s far more effective gameplan.