The fight highlighted what most fight fans would consider an excellent pay-per-view card (many talented fighters were featured from a variety of different weight classes - e.g. Joe Stevenson, Josh Koscheck). In the end, though, the outstanding five-round fight may have caused more controversy than anything else.

The first round of the fight saw a fairly even exchange of stand-up. Forrest probably landed more punch and kick combinations, but when Rampage landed, he undoubtedly did more damage. He rocked Forrest late in the round and almost had the fight won, but Griffin was able to survive and fight another round. These rounds are probably the hardest to score in MMA. One fighter does more work, but one fighter does more damage. Where do the judges draw the line? Who actually wins the fight - the busier fighter or the more damaging one?

The second round was much more clear cut. Forrest dominated the stand-up with devastating leg kicks that obviously affected Rampage's movement. This eventually led to Forrest taking down Rampage and dominating the remainder of the round on the mat. I scored this round 10-8 because it was clearly Forrest dominating the action and doing more damage.

This is where it starts to get really fun. Rounds 3, 4, and 5 were all very close rounds. Many fight fans could have seen these rounds go either way. Personally, I had Round 3 to Rampage and 4 and 5 to Forrest. But I could completely understand if somebody disagreed with me.

The main issue is the lack of certainty in the decision - a problem that has not come up for the UFC too much, one that has forever tainted boxing. The UFC needs to somehow come up with a way to make clear and definitive winners in their big-ticket fights. This will keep them as the “fastest growing sport on the planet” and keep UFC fans everywhere happy.