The Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) and its executive director Keith Kizer came under fire once again this past weekend after the UFC 167 main event in Las Vegas. UFC welterweight champion Georges St. Pierre retained his title with a controversial split decision win over challenger Johny Hendricks.

“This is the thing that makes people not like fights," UFC president Dana White said after the event.

"I don’t even know what to say. I’m still so blown away by it. Georges knew he lost, his corner knew he lost. Hendricks knew he won, his corner knew he won...This commission is just despicably horrible.

"The Nevada State Athletic Commission has a lot of work to do – a lot of work to do - and it makes me sick. They better get to work, and they better figure out how to not destroy, not only the sport of boxing, but this sport, too.”

Kizer and the Nevada commission were also pilloried after one judge scored Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s lopsided win over Saul "Canelo" Alvarez a draw this past September. Despite the criticism, Kizer denies that there is a problem with scoring in the world's fight capital.

When asked Monday by Cagewriter if there is a judging crises in Nevada, the state chief flatly says, "No."

Furthermore, Kizer rejected the idea that St. Pierre's decision win should be considered controversial. "I understand the controversy in the Mayweather fight," he explained.

"But I don’t see controversy in the GSP/Hendricks decision. The media seems split on who won. The LA times scored it for GSP. All seemed to agree that Hendricks won rounds two and four and that St. Pierre won three and five. The first round could have gone either way."

This writer scored rounds 1-4 for Hendricks and round 5 going to St. Pierre.

Kizer understands that people will disagree with judges' decisions on any given fight. However, even if one disagrees with the UFC 167 main event decision, as Dana White did, Kizer says criticizing the commission for it doesn't make sense.

"Even if you disagreed with the scoring, how is that something to criticize the commission for," Kizer asks.

"Before the fight, both the St. Pierre and Hendricks camps were fine with the proposed judges... [Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and former NSAC executive director] Marc Ratner and Dana White have also told me that they believe Sal D'Mato and Tony Weeks (the two judges who scored the fight for St. Pierre with scores of 48-47) were two of the best judges, if not the best, in MMA. You can tell they feel that way by where the UFC has taken them."

When the UFC holds events abroad in places without athletic commissions, they often choose to hire officials themselves. Weeks and D'Mato have judged many UFC events all over the world and so Kizer says that Nevada was not out of line in any way by choosing them to judge the UFC 167 main event.

Kizer says that the training and evaluation for established judges like the ones who officiated over UFC 167 consists of both formal and informal elements.

"There's formal and informal things we do with officials," Kizer explains.

"The formal part for us are the seminars we put together for officials where we go over things like judging criteria but also things like rules of ethics. Don’t ask for autographs, don’t sneak people in, etc. We go over fight films and discuss many things. After events we informally talk with officials as well about the calls they made and decisions they gave, reasons for doing so and we discuss things."

Story continues