This is really a subtle point, and I'm not going to claim to be right and you are wrong. I know that you were speaking from the heart. The fight, for the most part, turned out just as you thought it would. I'm not going to malign or cast aspersion on either your integrity or your professionalism, both of which are top notch.
I just want you to consider something - we don't KNOW how the fight will end. We don't KNOW how the fight will go. What we have are strong hunches and likelihoods. Consider these three angles:
o The fact is, Monson dropped Pe de Peno with a jab. I found it interesting to see if Monson, who has professional boxing in his background, would be able to slip the jab and get inside...or jab, slip in and blast. Those are interesting questions to ask the audience, to get them into the fight.
o Pe de Peno would lean his head back with his chin on prize ever encounter. Pointing out that fact educates the fans on striking, as well as heightening the tension if Monson can capitalize on that mistake.
o Though they were neutralized, punching on the ground can create vastly different results from pure grappling. Could one alter past grappling stalemates with strikes? That's an interesting question to ask the audience to get them into the fight.
Do you think that discussing any of these three points instead of the "boring" comments would be a compromise? Would the effect on the fans heighten the tension and enjoyment of the fights? I think they would.
Those points are legitimate ways of looking at the fight, and how we see something determines how we feel about it. I think it's better for the fans and better for the sport to find legitimate angles with which to view the fight that brings out as much flavor as possible.
Again, Joe, you know what an asset I think you are for the sport. I did want to mention this to you and discuss it with you and the fans.