Yes, you read that right.
Phil Davis, an accomplished wrestler, was 20% successful at his main thing- the takedown. That means that Machida was 80% successful at doing his part- stuffing said takedowns. Well, then Davis must have significantly outstruck Machida on the feet, right? Nope. I think he landed a few more shots, but his accuracy was much worse than Machida's and Machida landed a lot more 'significant' strikes. All Davis did was land 2 takedowns, both near the end of the rounds in which they occurred. Machida, on the other hand, stopped an accomplished wrestler from taking him down 8 out of 10 times. That means He kept the fight where HE wanted it, and while he was there he did more damage. Yet for some reason, the judges don't seem to allocate points for stopping a takedown, which is INSANE. A takedown attempt is a fighter's attempt to establish Octagon control (placing the fight where you want it; one of the scoring criteria used by the inept judges). If the fighter in question is successful, the gain points (and rightfully so). However, if the opposing fighter fights against the takedown and is successful, he gets.....no credit?
How the fuck is that fair, reasonable, or logical?
Machida won that fight and I believe the UFC should award him a title fight.