The judging in Larkin-Carmont is not only the worst I've seen this year, it may be the worst that I can ever recall seeing in any fight.
Lorenz Larkin out-landed Carmont in every round, despite the fact that Carmont was doing everything he could to prevent a fight from breaking out. Larkin's takedown defense was Penn-esque, as he prevented a Tristar-bred, point-fighting Drago from doing the one thing he's halfway decent at.
Larkin scored brutal leg kicks and counters, and when Carmont did eventually get him down in the third round, Larkin did more damage from the bottom than Carmont did on top (which was easy, because Carmont didn't throw a single blow from top position).
So now, not only do you win if you're a wrestler and you're able to dominate position without doing damage, you also get to win fights for simply TRYING (and failing) to LNP your opponent.
In dog training, there's a concept called positive reinforcement, where you reward the behavior you want to see and ignore everything else. Dog sits when you say sit? Treat. Dog keeps running around? Nada. It is an amazingly effective technique.
Applying this to MMA, if you want action fights, where fighters feel compelled to initiate offense and attempt to do damage, you develop a judging system that rewards those behaviors. If you want mind-numbingly boring fights where fighters do their level best to avoid offense, keep the one we have.
If nothing changes, the MMA product as a whole will only get worse. Judges need to be trained to drastically devalue positional control and drastically increase the value they place on acts of aggression that do damage.
Oh, actually, not quite. If you wanted a reason to never pay attention to anything Kevin Lole says about MMA ever again, he scored that fight 30-27 Carmont.