In an electrifying clash at UFC 307 held in Salt Lake City, Julianna Peña emerged victorious over Raquel Pennington to claim the UFC bantamweight title, but not without stirring up a hornet's nest of discontent over the judging.

Peña secured the victory by a close split decision with scores of 47-48 and 48-47 from two judges, while one judge favored Pennington. This match marked Pennington’s first title defense, adding to the pressure and intensity of the bout. The controversial outcome has ignited debates within the MMA community, highlighting ongoing frustrations with judging inconsistencies in high-stakes matchups.

Social media, as expected, exploded with fighter reactions, numerous professionals expressing their disbelief at the judges' scoring. Former fighters and analysts took to platforms to voice their opinions, with one prominent fighter remarking, "These judges f*cking suck!"—a sentiment shared by many fans who felt that Pennington was robbed of her title.

Critics are now calling for an overhaul of the judging criteria and more extensive training for judges, arguing that something must change to ensure fairer outcomes in future fights. The inconsistency in judging has become a hot topic following several controversial decisions in recent UFC events, leading to calls for transparency and accountability.

As the dust settles from UFC 307, Peña's hard-fought victory and the uproar surrounding it are sure to be discussed for weeks to come. Will this lead to a rematch, or will Pennington ask for a review of the judges' scores? One thing is for certain: the debate around fight judging is far from over.

Stay tuned as we continue to follow the fallout from this intense battle and its implications for the future of UFC competition!