Michael Bisping Wants Judges to Justify Their Decisions Post-Fight

Michael Bisping is a fighter who knows a little bit about what it's like to be involved in controversial decision. 

Back in 2007, he was awarded a victory over Matt Hamill in a contest that many fans believed he didn't deserve. Later, in 2010, Bisping was defeated by Wanderlei Silva in a bout he has since claimed was his, a claim many fans agree with.

But while either of these example qualify as "controversial," sometimes "controversial" is hardly the word for what the judges render. Sometimes the more apt description for a judges' decision is "robbery."

And then there are the cases when two of three judges get it right, and the baffling incompetence demonstrated by the third is buried. 

All of these situations, all of these classifications, point to a definitive realization—judging in MMA is imperfect at the least, and at the most, a very significant problem.

When speaking during a Q&A in Manchester (H/T MMA Weekly), Bisping proposed his own solution to the issue, namely holding judges accountable when their decisions are anomalies or affronts to common sense.

"Sometimes a fight happens and I look at it and I think clearly this guy won and all the judges will give it to that guy. But one judge will give it to the other guy, maybe 30-27," Bisping explained. 

So what's "The Count's" solution?

"I think the judge should be pulled to one side....Make him watch the fight [again] and say, 'Why on Earth did you score it for that guy because he clearly lost. So why did you do it?'"

And what if the judge(s) in question produce no acceptable retort? 

"If he can't back up why he scored it that way," Bisping said, "then he shouldn't be a judge anymore."

But make no mistake, Bisping isn't talking about controversial decisions in the literal sense. He is talking about the type of decisions that cause 90 percent of the populace to do a double-take.

His approach therefore begs the questions, when does controversial meet flat-out wrong, and at what point would accountability be demanded?

We may be looking at a partial solution only, but who isn't for more judge's accountability at this point?

What do you think of The Count's proposal?