Close vs. Controversial

A note to sports writers - call it as you see it, not how the public sees it. That is the idea, isn't it? So the next time a crowd boos a fight's decision, remember that that doesn't necessarily mean the wrong guy won. There's an annoyingly popular trend of tricking me into believing something that isn't so. Inexcusable.

The latest case - a "controversial" decision win by Diego Sanchez over Martin Kampmann. Quotation marks note a lack of controversy upon viewing. Dish Network wants me to pay extra for Versus, so I had to rely on a handful of online stories and a quick highlight video, all of which had me assuming that Kampmann was robbed. Not so.

Granted, when I saw the five-second ESPN highlight, I initially wondered why Sanchez was allowed to wear a red mask in the cage. During the intro, sure. I'm all about hype. But it didn't seem to be regulation equipment. My mistake. Blood. OK, so he didn't have any more skin on his face, that's definitely gonna cost him some points. If you were judging the fight based solely on each guy's post-fight attractiveness, you would have a clear winner.

Once I watched the fight for myself, the controversy was gone. It was a close fight, with a correct decision. Close does not equal controversial. Sanchez suffered all the facial damage in round one, but was superior in rounds two and three. All three judges scored it 29-28. A rare case of flawless judging, in fact.

In a close fight, a certain percentage of the public is going to think the other guy won. That doesn't make them right. And if they're not, don't think you have to agree with them. I'm holding the professionals to a higher standard. Unfortunately for Diego, his courageous performance may forever be unfairly considered controversial. (Also, how do you boo a guy whose face looks like that?)