tbh this was one of the few times where it was so painfully obvious for me that imo MMA rules are pretty arse compared to boxing rules. But the rules apply to both equally, and as Dana use to say, don't leave it to the refs. We know significant strikes and octagon control is how you're judged. Add to that, that MMA usually want someone who aims to take the belt to do more than just play even, they want a bit of dominance. But.
Hendo knocked down Bisping in round 1, knocked him down again in round 2, got a takedown in round 5, while Bisping, looking like carbonara in the face, managed no knockdowns or takedowns or even being close to it, but basically managed to not tap out and stand up again in all 5 rounds, being saved by the bell once, and apparently that wins you the fight because you dominated significant strikes, even if 90% of them were pointless jabs into Hendo's guard. One ref even gave Bisping 49-46? Hendo didn't even get a bruise. I mean I like them both and really don't mind Bisping winning but it was just one of the rare cases where it is obvious that the way they judge performance can look all wrong imo.