MMA Debate: WEC hits nerve, while T.U.F. and Kimbo dominate media

From Ben Henderson's interim WEC title win, to the media's infatuation with The Ultimate Fighter and Kimbo Slice, SI.com's Josh Gross and MMA FanHouse's Michael David Smith felt it was time to weigh in. Here's what the experts had to say about all things MMA.

Michael David Smith:Donald Cerrone vs. Ben Henderson was the kind of fight that demonstrates why I love MMA, but the aftermath demonstrated one of the things I like least about MMA: Too often a great fight ends with everyone complaining about the decision.

I won't add to those complaints. Even though I had it 48-47 for Cerrone, I thought it was close enough that a 48-47 decision for Henderson -- as all three judges had it -- was perfectly reasonable. I think people are too quick to jump on judges they disagree with, and I thought you brought up a good point on this week's Gross Point Blank: We have a different vantage point on TV than the judges have cage-side. And while most people who watched the fight on TV favored Cerrone, most people in the arena had Henderson winning it

If we're going to complain about anything (and I don't want to spend too much time complaining after a great WEC show), I think we should complain about one judge giving all three rounds to Yves Jabouin against Raphael Assuncao, and about referee Jon Schorle doing a lousy job in the Dave JansenRichardCrunkilton bout.

But for the most part, my reaction to WEC 43 is simply that it was another good show from the UFC's little brother promotion. I can't wait for WEC 44.

Josh Gross: Here's a tip I firmly believe in: Turn down the volume (second viewing is fine) for a better impression of how fights really play out. Commentary exerts an enormous influence over viewers' interpretation of the action. (Unfortunately, I couldn't do it for Cerrone-Henderson because of DirecTV and Versus.)

Gross: Even though we both had it for Cerrone, he hardly got Beebe'd. It came down to the first round, which could have easily been scored differently based on the vantage point. My sense from talking to several people watching cage-side is that Henderson's strikes came off as damaging and powerful. Yes, he was threatened by subs, but not to the point that the fight was really on the line. And he also appeared calm in his defense, even when Cerrone was at his most dangerous.

Like you, it kills me when judges 20 feet apart can score a fight as if they viewed it through a mirror. This isn't anything new, and neither is Schorle's poor work in the cage. For as long as he's been charged to ref in California and Nevada, you'd think he would be more consistent. It's a hard job and MMA needs dedicated officials. They should also be competent. If it were up to me, regular testing and screening of refs and judges by regulators would be commonplace. Even then, though, how many regulators really -- and I mean really -- understand MMA?

The topic of bad scoring almost always falls back on the 10-point-must system. I never bought into the argument that it doesn't work for MMA. There's no need to tinker with the system, it would just add more confusion at this point. If you know what you're watching, it works fine.

Smith: I was very surprised by the response to the Cerrone-Henderson decision. This was no robbery; it was simply a close fight in which reasonable observers can disagree about the scoring, especially in the first round.