It was a close fight so the judging was not a travesty but it WAS bad. I had Machida clearly winning the first and Davis winning the second. My gripe is with the third.
If the judges are going to give so much credit to wrestlers like Davis just for being on the offensive, even if they fail to accomplish anything (Davis accomplished a little at the end of the second but that was it), then they have to credit Machida's wrestling in the third. Not only did he win the striking battle (as he did in every round) but he was the ONLY one to get a takedown in the third round.
How do Davis' several failed take-down attempts trump Machida's successful one? Even if one accepts the unbalanced weight the judges give to wrestling, they failed to be consistent about it in this fight, giving Davis a round where Machida won both the striking and the wrestling.