Been trying to post this thread for a few days now, thinking my phone hates me 
At the UFC 167 post fight presser Dana White said that damage is what should be counted in the GSP v Hendricks fight.
Me personally believe this is the case for every fight..... Because it's a fight.
That said I've heard this before I think the last time I heard it was from Nick Diaz but when he said it, it fell on deaf ears and nobody cared.
The criteria is too cloudy to me, how do you weigh an effective low kick to an effective body shot to a head shot or a high kick, (to me if the body shot doubles an opponent over or damages more than the head shot, the body shot gets the nod). Then throw in grappling and submissions, how do you weigh a take down to an effective strike.
Octagon control and Aggression, what if someone is using footwork and head movement to evade an opponents attack while landing counters, but his opponent keeps coming forward, there's no clear guideline on who takes this situation (and it's happened plenty of times). It leaves it open to the judges discretion which opens it up for bias and corruption. On top of that we have judges who seem to either not know what they're watching or don't care because a) there's no guideline/rule for them to follow or b) there's no repercussions for breaking a guideline/rule that doesn't exist.
Damage in my opinion should be the deciding factor, if fighter A is damaging fighter B more in the striking but fighter B is landing more clearly fighter A is winning this fight at this point if fighter B then takes his opponent down and bust him up more then fighter B is winning this fight.
It shocks me that damage isn't even in the criteria for a "fight" sport
Agreed you can argue that certain fighters cut easier and bleed more than others but durability is an attribute just like speed, power or heart. It's changing to the point were stalling has become the most effective strategy.
Damage should be. Not facial damage, rather the force/impact with which strikes land should be factored.
If I am not mistaken, Effective Striking is written not just as a strike counter (volume), but should also take into account how clean and hard those strikes land in certain commissions wording of ES. 
FETT_ Cains._Burrito_In_My_BrownEye - Damage should be. Not facial damage, rather the force/impact with which strikes land should be factored.I think cosmetic damage should be taken into consideration for a few reasons.
If I am not mistaken, Effective Striking is written not just as a strike counter (volume), but should also take into account how clean and hard those strikes land in certain commissions wording of ES.
- if a fight can be stopped because of a cut it is effectively a finish.
- because it is the clearest indicator on the effect strikes are taking on the fighters bodies.
- because it is fight which the goals to inflict pain and damage to your opponent.
FETT_ Cains._Burrito_In_My_BrownEye - Damage should be. Not facial damage, rather the force/impact with which strikes land should be factored.In more cases than not if someone is cut up from a strike it's because the strike landed hard enough for the bone on bone (knuckle, elbow or knee) to cause the cut, which would indicate a certain force/power.
If I am not mistaken, Effective Striking is written not just as a strike counter (volume), but should also take into account how clean and hard those strikes land in certain commissions wording of ES.
Swelling and bruising are another indication of the force of the strike, all these could be considered cosmetic and that would confuse people and judges more, when in reality if you hit someone but cannot mark them with either a bruise or cut etc than it's probably due to the fact that you lack technique or hit like a Nancy.