Could not disagree more. I opened up this post thinking "finally, someone is setting people straight on this issue." But alas, you're actually adding fuel to the offending side.
The thing is, a robbery is when someone is deprived of what is rightfully theirs. A robbery makes no mention of the degree of the loss. Someone could be robbed of $1,000,000 or robbed of $10. Both are robberies.
In close fights where someone deserves to win, even by the slightest margin, it is a robbery if they lose.
Especially at the highest level of athletic competition, where contests are won by the smallest of margins, it's absolutely inexcusable to condone incorrect decisions under the guise of "Well it wasn't that bad; it was a close fight; it wasn't a robbery." Often times, at the top level, the only possible way to win is by a tiny margin. Because of this, the awarding of victories/defeats needs to be sensitive enough to do so consistently and correctly.
Incorrect is incorrect. Period.
IF fighter B wins via 48-47, it doesn't matter if the rightful score was 50-45 for fighter A or 48-47 for fighter A. Both are robberies. In sports, if you win by one round, one goal, one millisecond, you (deserve to) win. Period. No way around it.
Now I can't tell you for sure who deserved to win all these fights mentioned, but I can tell you that in any fight, at most ONE person is an acceptable/correct winner. If the deserving-loser wins, then the winner was robbed of money, a win on his record, sponsorships, possible title shots, etc.
i.e. IF Benson Henderson deserved to win the fight last night, then he was robbed. IF Alexander Gustafsson deserved to win against Jones, then he was robbed. IF any fighter deserves a win but receives a loss, he was robbed.
There's a reason sports have ties and/or tiebreakers. There is absolutely no concept of "Well this match was pretty close, so either guy is the rightful winner." If it was close enough to deserve a draw, then declare the match a draw. But awarding the deserving-winner a loss is a robbery.