Benoit Saint Denis Vs Elizeu Zaleski Was That Ufc Fight A Robbery Or What

When Benoit Saint Denis faced Elizeu Zaleski dos Santos at UFC Fight Night: Gane vs. Spivac 2 in September 2023, few expected controversy. But what followed was one of the most debated decisions in recent UFC history. A split decision victory for Zaleski left fans, analysts, and even fighters questioning whether justice was served in the octagon. Was it a close fight with a debatable outcome—or an outright robbery? Let’s dissect the rounds, analyze the scoring, and explore why this fight still sparks heated discussion months later.

The Fight Breakdown: Round by Round

The bout took place on the main card in Paris, France—Saint Denis’s home turf. The French welterweight entered as a rising prospect with knockout power and improving grappling. Zaleski, a veteran with over two decades of professional experience, was seen as a tough but fading test. What unfolded was a competitive, technical battle with clear momentum shifts.

Rounds 1 & 2: Saint Denis came out aggressively, utilizing his reach and crisp striking. He landed clean head kicks, sharp jabs, and controlled the distance. In the second round, he nearly finished Zaleski with a spinning back kick to the body followed by ground-and-pound. Most observers gave both rounds clearly to Saint Denis.

Round 3: Zaleski found his rhythm. He began countering effectively, pressed forward more consistently, and secured a takedown late in the frame. While Saint Denis remained active, Zaleski appeared to win the round on activity and cage control.

At this point, the consensus among fans and media watching live was that Saint Denis had won two rounds and was likely headed for victory. Then came the announcement: Zaleski wins via split decision (29–28, 28–29, 29–28).

Tip: When evaluating controversial fights, focus on effective striking, cage control, and damage—not just volume or aggression.

Judging Criteria and UFC Scoring System

The Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts, used by the UFC, prioritize the following criteria in order:

1. Effective Striking/Grappling: Clean, impactful strikes or successful submissions/control.
2. Dominance: Control of the octagon and dictating pace.
3. Aggression: Forward pressure—but only if it results in offense.
4. Fighting Smart: Strategy, defense, and ring generalship.

In theory, damage outweighs volume. A fighter landing fewer but harder shots should be rewarded over someone throwing more without effect. However, in practice, judges sometimes favor busier fighters—even if their output lacks impact.

In this fight, Saint Denis arguably won Rounds 1 and 2 with visible damage and near-finishes. Zaleski won Round 3 through sustained pressure and a late takedown. Yet two judges scored it for Zaleski, suggesting they either saw Round 1 differently or valued Zaleski’s aggression more highly.

Expert Reactions and Media Consensus

The backlash was immediate. Major MMA outlets weighed in:

• MMA Fighting: “Benoit Saint Denis clearly won two rounds. This is a difficult result to justify.”
• Bleacher Report: Scored it 29–28 for Saint Denis, calling the decision “questionable at best.”
• Dana White: Though not commenting directly on the scorecards, the UFC president later said, “Sometimes the judges get it wrong,” when asked about controversial decisions from the Paris card.

“Damage must matter more than movement. Saint Denis hurt Zaleski twice. That should carry more weight than three minutes of safe boxing.” — Ariel Helwani, MMA Journalist

The broader expert community largely agreed: while close, the fight favored Saint Denis. The perception of a robbery stems not from pure bias, but from a disconnect between observable impact and official scoring.

Was It a Robbery? A Closer Look

The term “robbery” in MMA refers to a decision so contrary to evident performance that it feels unjust. Not every close loss qualifies. So where does this fight fall?

Criterion	Saint Denis	Zaleski
Significant Strikes Landed	78	63
Strikes with Clear Impact	Multiple (body kick, head kicks)	Few (mostly jabs)
Takedowns	0	1 (late in R3)
Near Finishes	Yes (R2 ground-and-pound)	No
Octagon Control	R1–R2	R3

Data supports Saint Denis’s edge in output and effectiveness. While Zaleski showed resilience and improved as the fight progressed, he never visibly hurt or threatened Saint Denis. Under UFC guidelines, this should not outweigh two rounds of superior striking and damage.

That said, judging is subjective. One judge may have felt Zaleski’s forward pressure and late takedown warranted Round 1. Another might have discounted Saint Denis’s flash moments as “uncompleted finishes.” Still, two such interpretations on the same card stretch credibility.

Mini Case Study: Previous Controversial Decisions

This isn’t the first time a UFC decision sparked outrage. Recall:

• Valentina Shevchenko vs. Jessica Andrade (UFC 266): A shutout win for Shevchenko, yet one judge scored it a draw—prompting widespread calls for scorecard transparency.
• Leon Edwards vs. Kamaru Usman I: Edwards won clearly on many scorecards, but lost via split decision—later avenged with a title-winning head kick.

Like those fights, Saint Denis vs. Zaleski highlights systemic issues: inconsistent judging standards, lack of real-time accountability, and regional bias concerns (especially in international events). The Paris card featured multiple French fighters, and while no evidence suggests favoritism, the optics remain problematic when local talent loses narrowly under questionable scoring.

What Can Be Done? A Checklist for Fairer Judging

To prevent future controversies, here’s what stakeholders can push for:

1. Standardized Judge Training: Ensure all UFC-contracted judges undergo regular evaluation and re-certification.
2. Transparent Scorecards: Release round-by-round justifications post-fight, similar to boxing.
3. Instant Replay Review: Allow referees or a review panel to assess clear scoring errors after the fight.
4. Fan Feedback Integration: Use aggregated fan scoring (e.g., ESPN’s live fan polls) as a benchmark for judge performance.
5. Regional Rotation Oversight: Avoid assigning local judges to bouts involving hometown fighters.

Tip: Follow independent MMA scorecards (like MMA Junkie’s round-by-round grading) to compare against official results and sharpen your own fight IQ.

FAQ

Did Benoit Saint Denis appeal the decision?

No formal appeal was filed. UFC decisions are final and cannot be overturned unless there’s evidence of corruption or procedural error—neither of which were proven here.

Has the UFC responded to the controversy?

Not officially. Dana White acknowledged judging inconsistencies in general terms but did not address this fight specifically. The commission overseeing the event (French MMA Federation) also upheld the result.

Will Saint Denis get another high-ranked opponent despite the loss?

Likely yes. His performance earned him respect, and many analysts consider him a top-15 welterweight. He returned to win his next fight, further proving the loss didn’t define his trajectory.

Conclusion: Justice Delayed, Not Denied

Was the Benoit Saint Denis vs. Elizeu Zaleski fight a robbery? Based on the evidence—striking impact, near finishes, and media consensus—the answer leans strongly toward yes. Two rounds of clear dominance should not be erased by a single round of moderate pressure. While MMA will always have subjective elements, this decision exposed flaws in how effectiveness is weighed versus activity.

Yet there’s a silver lining. Saint Denis gained global recognition, proved his elite potential, and bounced back stronger. Sometimes, a controversial loss fuels greater motivation. The sport needs better judging—but fighters like Saint Denis remind us that heart and performance often speak louder than scorecards.

🚀 Stay informed. Question outcomes when needed. Share your take—was this a robbery or a fair fight? Join the conversation and help push MMA toward fairer, more transparent judging.