In the world of UFC, judging controversies have been a hot topic among fans, fighters, and analysts alike. Part 3 of this series sheds light on some of the most debated rounds and decisions that have been labeled as some of the worst robberies in UFC history. These instances often involved close fights where many viewers believed the outcome was wrongly awarded to one fighter. One key theme highlighted is how competitiveness in a round can be perceived differently by judges and the viewing audience. For example, in some fights covered, rounds were competitive with both fighters landing significant strikes, but the judges awarded the round decisively to one competitor, causing uproar. It’s important to understand that judging criteria include effective striking and grappling, aggression, and octagon control, which sometimes leads to subjective interpretations. Fighters like Hendricks have been mentioned in these discussions, where despite landing strong strikes and controlling parts of the match, they were not favored on the scorecards. This sparked calls for immediate rematches and criticism from MMA commentators, fans, and even former champions such as Georges St-Pierre (GSP), who allegedly acknowledged losing a fight despite the official decision. The controversies also raise questions about the need for continual improvement in judging standards and transparency. Calls for review systems, public score explanations, and enhanced judge training have been recurrent suggestions aimed at minimizing these contentious outcomes. By reviewing these notorious cases, fans can better appreciate the complexities of MMA judging and why certain decisions trigger intense debate. Understanding these dynamics enriches the viewing experience and fosters a deeper respect for the sport’s challenges beyond the physical battles in the octagon.