Over at Five Ounces of Pain, Ben Fowkles has a post titled "The Unpopular Position: Michael Bisping Was Robbed". You can clearly see what he's driving at, so how robust is the defense of this position? Ben tells you himself at the end of post:
Now, having made all these arguments, I'm still not sure I really believe that Bisping should have won. The fight was close no matter how you look at it, and judges' decisions are always going to be maddeningly unpredictable. I suspect that a lot of people wanted to see him lose a close decision because they felt he stole one in his last fight. It's kind of like what's going on with O.J. at the moment, only Bisping isn't at fault for what the judges did in his last fight and O.J. is, well, really at fault for a lot of stuff.
Which is it: was he robbed or are you "still not sure" who won?