UFC 119 is over and quite frankly most fans could not be happier to get a lacklustre card out of the way and consign it to the history books.
With no titles on the line, and many of the main card fights failing to live up to the hype, it really was not one of the UFC's finer nights.
However, amongst all the reaction and comments of disdain from UFC president Dana White, there is one theme that was the more pressing to emerge for me.
The value placed on a fighter securing a takedown is too high and is having a detrimental impact on the young sport of MMA.
MMA judging has and continues to be an issue as was evidence at UFC 119. Evan Dunham was robbed of the biggest win of his career and how one of the judges managed to score the Guillard vs. Stephens fight 30-27 is beyond me.
As Joe Rogan eluded to in the Ryan Bader vs. Rogerio Nogueira fight, how can a takedown be given any value if the man taken down returns to his feet quickly without taking damage.
While securing a takedown is an act that should be rewarded, why is it so often the deciding factor in fights? How many times are even rounds decided by a fighter securing a takedown in the last 30 seconds of a round.
The thing bugging me is that securing takedowns and then doing no damage seems to still be rewarded greatly on the judges' score cards.
Sean Sherk vs. Dunham was undoubtedly a great and close fight. Sherk won Round One, but I fail to see how Dunham was not given Rounds Two and Three. The only explanation is the value placed on Sherk's takedowns.
There is no question that the sport of MMA is still evolving and that the judging of the fights will remain an issue.
For me though, as a fan, it is questioning the value placed on takedowns that will have the biggest impact.
Let me hear your thoughts.