please show me the rules that says title fights are judged differently!
they all follow the same rules, no matter what fight it is

Lyoto won. <---period. The judges said he won. Unanimous decision. All the "highlights" of Shogun, all the crying in the world, and all the arguments that anyone could offer will not change these facts. Who gives a sh$t really? Why don't you people devote your time to something productive?

You notice how the few people that agree with Machida winning have nothing good to say except for "the judges said he won". Im not trying to start sh!t but seriously if you guys want to disagree with us fine but dont be little b!tches about it. Especially when all you have to back up your argument is "the judges said he won" lol. I think most of the mma world would agree with me when I say that Shogun got robbed.

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't contriversial. I was just making the point as to how futile all the arguments are.

Common sense dictates that it would be, just as in all other sporting events, the championship games are officiated differently than regular ones(and often that means more leniently). However, in sports like MMA and boxing, where the championship directly belong to one participant, you would be foolish to think that the score card would not tilt in the title holder's favor. It's a natural train of thought to think that if the challenger must take the fight to a decision, that he may not have the ability to defeat the champion.

Of course it is not in the rule book, but you would be a fool to think that the score card does not lean toward the champion, as he is at the pinnacle of his weight class and it is the job of the challenger to knock him off, not the judges. You can complain all you want, but at the end of the day, the champion will always retain the belt in a close fight.

Like I have been saying all along: it would be harder for the judges to justify taking the belt from the champion in a close decision as opposed to letting him retain it; if you cannot convince the judges the belt should be yours over the current champs, then they will let the champ retain his belt.

But in a bonus poll we ran throughout the past week, we wanted to know if MMAjunkie.com readers agreed with the hotly debated decision.

In the most popular and voted-upon poll in MMAjunkie.com history, the final results proved rather than one-sided – but perhaps by not as wide of a margin as one might have predicted.

When disregarding the 5 percent of voters who didn't watch the fight, that left tens of thousands of whom did witness the pay-per-view headliner.

And among them, four in five – 80 percent in all – awarded the decision to Rua. The other 20 percent felt Machida did enough to defend his belt.

I have to wait until I see the full fight without biased highlight shots, from what I hear though it was a hell of a fight and could have easily went to either fighter...but I'm yet to see the fight so I can't say either or, but regardless, I can say I'm sure both fought with all their heart and put everything into the match.

what would be foolish is changing the rules and giving one fighter an advantage for one fight, if the contender wins fair and square he deserves the title..
take a look at jackson vs griffin and tell me the title holder had an advantage on the score cards there..
and i know you said the ufc has offered griffin many things...
guess what, the judges arent even chosen by the ufc, ufc CANT choose winners or title holders that will make them more money since the judges are from the state athletic commision in respective state!!!

You're not understanding what I'm trying to say, not even remotely.

The cards leaning in the favor of the champion is a state of mind, not a part of any rule book. Look at it this way, the judges are scoring the fight like this: Machida is the champion, Rua, prove to me you are better than him. If they are even, the points will go to Machida because he is the champion, and if Rua cannot prove he is better than him (not just even), he does not deserve the points for that round.

As far as Griffin, like I said, I never saw the fight so I cannot comment on it. However, you have got to be kidding me that Dana has not handed him things, and that does not mean the judges scoring fights in his favor, but rather the fights he gets and the opportunities outside of the ring. I'm not complaining or anything, I like Forrest, but if you're trying to tell me that one of the two men who probably saved the UFC doesn't get preferential treatment, then you're crazy.

I understand what your saying, but its still ****ed, and im done with this discussion...
and where did i say that griffin havent been handed things to him?
the ONLY thing i said about him was about his fight against jackson, so i dunno where the **** you got that from