sparkyman - Watching the fight, I said after the third round that it's possible that Penn would need a knockout to win. I could see a judge giving all fiive to Frankie.
Some of the rounds were so close in striking, with Frankie landing more but BJ landing the harder (although it didn't look that way judging from BJ's face), but the difference was who was dictating where the fight took place and who dictated the tempo.
BJ was never in control of the fight.
With all due respect, I feel it's going to be a very tough sell that Edgar won round one.
Using the unified rules and satisfying the definitions of striking, control, aggression and defense, I would like to hear you or anyone else explain logically, with examples from the fight, how or why Edgar could have won round 1.
orcus - "The only round that Penn was not moving forward and controling the octagon was the last round."
How was he controlling the octagon? I've seen some people say he "took the center". Who cares? Edgar wanted to move in and out, punch and get away from BJ's heavy hands before being countered, and that's exactly what he did. I don't know what BJ wanted to do, but judging by his expression and performance as the fight went on, I don't think he did it. <br type="_moz" />
My opinion:
"Taking the center" is being referenced because it's a position that's conducive to engagement. The gray area is that Edgar's in and out movement contained engagement, but also a lot of backward movement, circling, and evasion. Penn mostly walked forward and pursued.
This is important because "effective aggression" specifically references FORWARD movement.
For the "octagon control" criteria, I think this tactic for Edgar (in certain instances) "created striking opportunities"; however, I believe the most important criteria for control is standing versus grappling, meaning that it should hold more weight if one fighter is able to remain in the position of his choice and score offensively with strikes. So BJ stopping Edgar's takedown, or any incident that dictates whether a fight is standing or on the ground is more important than various movement standing.
Of course, "how was BJ controlling the octagon" is not a simple answer, as there were times he did and didn't.
Machida, and previously Chuck, are both celebrated for drawing opponents in. Even BJ's corner coached him against getting drawn into following Edgar around the cage...which means Edgar was dictating where the fight was fought. BJ doesn't win more points for avoiding a takedown than Edgar does for attempting them...at worst they are neutral for Edgar (unless BJ punches him in the face) at best they indicate that Edgar is doing what he wants and forcing BJ to defend against his aggression. Edgar used his take-down attempts to set up strikes on several occassions with success..whose to say he wanted to complete the takedown each time?
The fight was so close i could not pick a winner. But i did think Penn's harder shots had maybe given it him.
Obviously a champ of Penn's stature has to win big or is danger of having inept judges see it wrong. They must've counted his take-down for giving him nearly every round on one scorecard.
It could've gone either way, IMHO. But i thought Penn had edged it out...though i was worried that Edgar had done enough to sway the judges.
The latter came true.
Very difficult fight to judge.
I would also add that, by the 3rd or 4th rd. Penn started looking rather sluggish...while Edgar looked very fresh and ready to go 5 more rounds.
The judges could've also noticed this...along with the fact that Edgar frustrated Penn, landed many strikes, and got a clean take-down.
"Taking the center" is being referenced because it's a position that's conducive to engagement. The gray area is that Edgar's in and out movement contained engagement, but also a lot of backward movement, circling, and evasion. Penn mostly walked forward and pursued.
This is important because "effective aggression" specifically references FORWARD movement.
For the "octagon control" criteria, I think this tactic for Edgar (in certain instances) "created striking opportunities"; however, I believe the most important criteria for control is standing versus grappling, meaning that it should hold more weight if one fighter is able to remain in the position of his choice and score offensively with strikes. So BJ stopping Edgar's takedown, or any incident that dictates whether a fight is standing or on the ground is more important than various movement standing.
Of course, "how was BJ controlling the octagon" is not a simple answer, as there were times he did and didn't.
Machida, and previously Chuck, are both celebrated for drawing opponents in. Even BJ's corner coached him against getting drawn into following Edgar around the cage...which means Edgar was dictating where the fight was fought. BJ doesn't win more points for avoiding a takedown than Edgar does for attempting them...at worst they are neutral for Edgar (unless BJ punches him in the face) at best they indicate that Edgar is doing what he wants and forcing BJ to defend against his aggression. Edgar used his take-down attempts to set up strikes on several occassions with success..whose to say he wanted to complete the takedown each time?
Machida and Chuck are celebrated because they won the punching exchanges, not because of the direction of their movement. It's literally spelled out in the rules that forward movement indicates aggression, and Nick Lembo even commented that Machida's backward movement was NOT extremely effective in Shogun/Machida.
Although I want to focus on the rules, we have to remember the basic idea that this is a fight. You cannot always reward someone for moving away and making someone chase them as effective offense, when it's inherently more defensive. Offense is calculated by the number and significance of the strikes, and who is controlling the action.
Just like cautioning BJ not to get drawn in doesn't equate by any means that Edgar was effective. By not "getting drawn in", he refused to chase Edgar everywhere, but instead stalked forward (most of the time) and made it clear he was moving towards engagement, where Edgar was undeniable spending a lot of time and effort that wasn't dedicated to engaging.
I totally agree it made his engagements effective (again, at times), but the deciding factor is the ENGAGEMENT itself, not the small amount of time someone willingly engages. Regardless of Edgar's movement, there were times when it just didn't matter... BJ clearly landed the better and harder and more effective strikes, which, as it should, takes precedence over ring antics.
BJ doesn't win more points for avoiding a takedown than Edgar does for attempting them
Yes he does, it's plainly spelled out in the rules.
Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.
Therefore, your statement that BJ "doesn't win more points for avoiding a takedown than Edgar does for attempting them" is completely contrasted by the rules.
...at worst they are neutral for Edgar
No they're not. They show aggression and ATTEMPTED offense, which score points for Edgar.
(unless BJ punches him in the face)
Which, in Round 1, he did 3 times with very much force and impact.
at best they indicate that Edgar is doing what he wants and forcing BJ to defend against his aggression.
How is trying to do something and being thwarted "doing what Edgar wants"? It's the EXACT opposite. He's trying to change the location of the fight, but is unable to because of PENN's movement and offense. It does score for aggression for Edgar, but that's a lower priority than control and striking, both of which BJ satisfied exactly as the rules outline in this example.
"This is important because "effective aggression" specifically references FORWARD movement."
Yeah, and all Edgar's strikes came when he moved forward. Most of BJ's strikes came when EDGAR moved forward; i.e., by counterpunching when Edgar came in and engaged. BJ landed very little when he went after Edgar, because Edgar controlled the distance and moved away until HE wanted to engage. If we want to stick to literal interpretations of the rules, BJ had virtually NO "effective aggression" because of this.
Holding the center of the ring is only relevant if you're a counterfighter wanting the opponent to come to you. Edgar and many fighters do not want to "hold" anything, because they are using movement to get in and out.
Getting back to literal definitions, I think it's pretty obvious the judges don't (and never really have) pay any kind of literal attention to those scoring criteria. And all of us are guilty of only bringing those criteria up in any kind of strict fashion when we disagree with the decision, even though I think it's very safe to say none of us actually use them when we form our initial opinion of who won. And of course if a strict look at the criteria in retrospect makes it seem the decision we disagree with was the right one, then begin the shouts of "the scoring criteria suck and need to be overhauled!"
"Yeah, and all Edgar's strikes came when he moved forward. Most of BJ's strikes came when EDGAR moved forward; i.e., by counterpunching when Edgar came in and engaged. BJ landed very little when he went after Edgar, because Edgar controlled the distance and moved away until HE wanted to engage. If we want to stick to literal interpretations of the rules, BJ had virtually NO "effective aggression" because of this"
But the forward motion applies mostly to aggression, not striking. Striking is simply the higher number of both legit and significant strikes. That dictates who wins the striking. Therefore, location and direction don't really matter, it's whoever lands the cleaner and more effective shots, and not the quantity.
I also strongly disagree with BJ having no "effective aggression" when he was the one constantly moving forward. Again, aggression is who is moving forward and trying to engage, and BJ wasn't just standing in the center, he was constantly stalking forward after Edgar.
How is Edgar spending just as much time circling and backing away (defensive) MORE aggressive than walking forward constantly and trying to engage? Just because BJ keeps walking forward, and then Edgar hops into range and stops moving backwards does not mean that BJ is being defensive. I think that's a huge point of mine. The great amount of time Edgar spent NOT engaging is more defensive than BJ walking him down and countering when Edgar decided to trade.
Holding the center of the ring is only relevant if you're a counterfighter wanting the opponent to come to you. Edgar and many fighters do not want to "hold" anything, because they are using movement to get in and out.
Again, BJ didn't "hold the center and counterpunch", he assumed the center and then tried to pin Edgar in corners. Totally different. And isn't your description that Edgar used movement to get in and OUT, rather than just IN like BJ, indicative of who is more willing to exchange?
Getting back to literal definitions, I think it's pretty obvious the judges don't (and never really have) pay any kind of literal attention to those scoring criteria. And all of us are guilty of only bringing those criteria up in any kind of strict fashion when we disagree with the decision, even though I think it's very safe to say none of us actually use them when we form our initial opinion of who won. And of course if a strict look at the criteria in retrospect makes it seem the decision we disagree with was the right one, then begin the shouts of "the scoring criteria suck and need to be overhauled!"
But isn't that the problem? The fact that the rules, THE HOLY BIBLE for judging a fight, are rarely referenced by the judges, the media, or the fans?
That's exactly why I did this exercise, like I did with Machida/Shogun and Couture/Vera, and why I pursued Lembo for the interview. Shit, half of the people that actually reference the rules aren't even using the updated criteria.
How can we keep having questionable decisions, and uproars over judges and rules, when only a tiny percentage of critics actually use the rules as a foundation to make a logical assessment of why they were properly or improperly applied?
Isn't the more productive approach to begin to fanatically study and apply the rules, rather than cast them aside as worthless?
orcus - "The only round that Penn was not moving forward and controling the octagon was the last round."
How was he controlling the octagon? I've seen some people say he "took the center". Who cares? Edgar wanted to move in and out, punch and get away from BJ's heavy hands before being countered, and that's exactly what he did. I don't know what BJ wanted to do, but judging by his expression and performance as the fight went on, I don't think he did it. <br type="_moz" />
My opinion:
"Taking the center" is being referenced because it's a position that's conducive to engagement. The gray area is that Edgar's in and out movement contained engagement, but also a lot of backward movement, circling, and evasion. Penn mostly walked forward and pursued.
This is important because "effective aggression" specifically references FORWARD movement.
For the "octagon control" criteria, I think this tactic for Edgar (in certain instances) "created striking opportunities"; however, I believe the most important criteria for control is standing versus grappling, meaning that it should hold more weight if one fighter is able to remain in the position of his choice and score offensively with strikes. So BJ stopping Edgar's takedown, or any incident that dictates whether a fight is standing or on the ground is more important than various movement standing.
Of course, "how was BJ controlling the octagon" is not a simple answer, as there were times he did and didn't.
Taking the centre certainly does not mean you are controlling or dictating the action.
Stopping a td in itself absolutely does not mean you are dictating the fight IMO. You can also look at a td like a strike, even if its defended, you are still putting the opponent on defense and guessing what happens next.
You have to look at that the same way TDs should be considered in general for scoring IMO: in the overall context of the action.
If like Chuck or CC used to do, beat people up on their feet and make opponents try tds in desperation but they are shutting that donw along with their opponents standup (See Chuck vs Tito, CC vs Coleman) - THAT is fight control or dictation.
BJ stuffing Edgars tds did not signal fight dictation at all to me. Those were reactionary defensive measures on the part of BJ to Edgar being the more aggressive and engaging fighter IMO.
<i>BJ doesn't win more points for avoiding a takedown than Edgar does for attempting them</i>
Yes he does, it's plainly spelled out in the rules.
<em>Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. <b>Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking</b>; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities.</em>
Therefore, your statement that BJ "doesn't win more points for avoiding a takedown than Edgar does for attempting them" is completely contrasted by the rules.
Disagree completely.
Your statement is a subjective interpretation of those rules. At the end of the day, no matter how clear the criteria is, human judges have to subjective judge and interpret what they see.
Even Greg Jackson, Ricardo Liborio and Pat Miletich may differ on what they see. Lets no forget that sometimes fights are not clearly won and lost.
In itself, defense is not dictation.
In itself, defense should not win more points than offense.
But again, i dont think you can draw too much on tds by itself or 1 or 2 strikes. You have to judge in the entire context of the round/fight imo.
"I also strongly disagree with BJ having no "effective aggression" when he was the one constantly moving forward. Again, aggression is who is moving forward and trying to engage, and BJ wasn't just standing in the center, he was constantly stalking forward after Edgar. "
The rules define effective aggression for scoring purposes as "moving forward and landing a legal strike". Strictly going by that definition, I think it can be argued that BJ had virtually none, because as I said, he was almost entirely ineffective when he tried to go after Frankie and land punches; virtually all of his punches were when BJ was NOT moving forward but Frankie WAS. Frankie landed his punches when he moved forward (effective aggression), while BJ landed his when Frankie moved forward, not BJ himself.
Anyway, that kind of distinction is pretty dumb to me. I don't think it should make a difference if you land your strikes moving forward or moving backward. The only time a strict counterpunching strategy should score less than a "moving forward" strategy is if all else is equal; i.e., if strikes landed are the same, etc, then I can see giving the nod to the guy who at least tried harder to make the fight.
I see a big difference between Machida's style (or even Anderson's sometime style) and Edgar's. Machida often does not engage until his opponent comes to him. Edgar moves away when his opponent attacks, but moves in himself when he chooses to attack. He does not dance around doing nothing unless or until his opponent rushes in and gives him opportunities on a silver platter. There is a difference between moving away from your opponent's attacks -- but moving in to attack yourself -- and only attacking IF and WHILE your opponent is moving forward and you are moving away.
Uncle Justice - <i> "Yeah, and all Edgar's strikes came when he moved forward. Most of BJ's strikes came when EDGAR moved forward; i.e., by counterpunching when Edgar came in and engaged. BJ landed very little when he went after Edgar, because Edgar controlled the distance and moved away until HE wanted to engage. If we want to stick to literal interpretations of the rules, BJ had virtually NO "effective aggression" because of this"</i>
Not sure who's quote that is but I disgree with that as well with regards to the fact that a fighter cannot be winning or score more points in striking because he is landing strikes in counteing or when the opponent is coming into him.
In striking or ring generalship in general, the control of distance and range is important but it takes a back seat if you are being outstruck by your opponent for example.
GSP is imo the best ring general or best fighter with control or dictation of range and distance. But what makes him so good is equal parts footwork, speed, timing in striking and tds.
If he moved as well as he did but was being outstruck and had his td attempts stuffed, that would be a diff story though of course.
Take the Alves/Kos fight. Alves dominated the standup and Kos only shot in as an afterthought when he was in big trouble. Alves stuffed those tds too. Alves was in total control.
IIRC, in Edgar vs Fisher, Fisher may have looked like the better striker but he was never able to establish anything long enough before he was taken down at wil by Edgar. Edgar was in control.
Sometimes you have a fight like say Melendez/Kawajiri. Melendez scored more strikes but Kawajiri landed the better strikes. Both guys also scored tds but both guys got back up immediately. That was a very close bout to score.
In Machida/Shogun - Shogun probably landed the most effective strikes consistently with the leg and body kicks but Machida also went on the attack after with combos, straight left counters. The straight lefts were normally blocked by Shogun it looked though. But Machida also landed a number of knees to the body as well. I have no problem with Shogun winning that fight however it was close enough for Machida to get the nod as well too imo or close enough that it wasnt the dreaded call of "robbery." Fight control was pretty close in that bout.
I would have to watch BJ/Edgar again to make a better call but I do remember in Rounds 4 and 5. Edgar looked like the only guy really doing anything.
I do have to say and give props to people here for some seemingly honest discussion on some of the finer and detailed technical points of the sport though.
Since orcus agrees with Wasa-B on takedown defense, I'll start there:
"In itself, defense is not dictation."
Again, according to the rules (which should be what we're going on... yes?), it plainly spells out that if you stop your opponent from taking you down, you are in fact earning octagon control. Fact. It's that simple. I'm not sure how you can not acknowledge that; both because it's one of the few passages in the rules that's not really open to much interpretation, but rather clearly spelled out; and because if you're just some dude watching some people fight, and one guy is trying to take the fight somewhere, but the opponent punches him in the face and shucks him off, the latter guy is enforcing more control/dictation.
"In itself, defense should not win more points than offense."
I agree, as do the rules. I hope I haven't indicated otherwise. Maybe it's too detailed, but using defense obviously facilitates your offense. Penn is able to have more control of his offense while negating Frankie's attempt at his offense by stopping the takedown.
"But again, i dont think you can draw too much on tds by itself or 1 or 2 strikes. You have to judge in the entire context of the round/fight imo."
Again, agree, as do the rules. That's why control is a secondary category to striking. That's how I formulated my assessment of the fight.
great discussion, thanks Uncle Justice for picking apart my earlier comment.
I think the rules are biased against grapplers (they are of course since they stand fights up) if defending a take-down earns more points than avoiding/blocking a punch. Somehow getting in close in the middle of the octagon and going for a takedown is seen as octagon control for my opponent instead of me getting past his punches and giving him something to think about.
The rules define effective aggression for scoring purposes as "moving forward and landing a legal strike". Strictly going by that definition, I think it can be argued that BJ had virtually none, because as I said, he was almost entirely ineffective when he tried to go after Frankie and land punches; virtually all of his punches were when BJ was NOT moving forward but Frankie WAS. Frankie landed his punches when he moved forward (effective aggression), while BJ landed his when Frankie moved forward, not BJ himself.
I don't know how you can say BJ never moved forward when you plainly admit how much time Edgar was moving backwards and away. Did BJ do that? No. He was mostly going after Edgar.
Either way, let's write this off, because we're arguing "effective aggression" when the rounds should have been decided by the two most important criteria: striking and control. Even if you gave Edgar aggression, whoever landed the most efficient shots and controlled the action is the fighter who wins the round.
Anyway, that kind of distinction is pretty dumb to me. I don't think it should make a difference if you land your strikes moving forward or moving backward. The only time a strict counterpunching strategy should score less than a "moving forward" strategy is if all else is equal; i.e., if strikes landed are the same, etc, then I can see giving the nod to the guy who at least tried harder to make the fight.
It doesn't matter if you're moving forward or backwards in the striking category, only with aggression. Striking is just the volume compared to the efficiency of strikes. So, in that way, I think the rules are appropriate.
I see a big difference between Machida's style (or even Anderson's sometime style) and Edgar's. Machida often does not engage until his opponent comes to him. Edgar moves away when his opponent attacks, but moves in himself when he chooses to attack. He does not dance around doing nothing unless or until his opponent rushes in and gives him opportunities on a silver platter. There is a difference between moving away from your opponent's attacks -- but moving in to attack yourself -- and only attacking IF and WHILE your opponent is moving forward and you are moving away.
I agree. The reason I brought up Machida/Shogun is because Shogun was clearly pressing forward and trying to engage, like I feel BJ was (I do realize that Edgar wasn't retreating as blatantly or as often as Edgar though).There was a big question as to who would win octagon control because of this.
By the way, this is subjective... I don' think there's a clear cut, definitive answer, but again... you keep saying that Edgar was moving away, and it was not "only" when BJ attacked by any means. He would come in, throw punches, and get out. That's extremely different than moving away successfully every time your opponent comes in, and having success with offense every time YOU come in.
Were that the case, control wouldn't matter because Edgar would have clearly won striking beyond the shadow of a doubt. BJ was continuously moving forward, which means he is always trying to engage, where Edgar inarguably chose NOT to engage for a huge amount of the time.
I think it's important to reiterate that because Edgar moved in and out, when he finally decided to stop avoiding the action and throw, that doesn't mean that BJ is being defensive and Edgar is totally offensive. It means when one guy is for the most part choosing when to run away and when to fight, you can't say that he's controlling things when he finally decides to fight and not retreat. Otherwise... there's no fight, and one could easily win octagon control by moving away and avoiding things.
The example that comes to mind is Bisping/Leben. That is effective evasion. That was NOT how Penn/Edgar played out.
How can the guy that walks forward wanting to trade be considered anything other than the catalyst versus someone who is moving equally in and out? And it really doesn't matter if BJ is countering or not when he tagged Edgar, there is no benefit to being the one who leads first in striking.
MOST IMPORTANTLY... we're probably being too vague. There were times when Edgar's movement was 100% succesful, and times it wasn't. There is no "across the board" label we can put on it, so maybe we can get into more specifics, if that's even possible. ;)
Wasa-B: "In Machida/Shogun - Shogun probably landed the most effective strikes consistently with the leg and body kicks but Machida also went on the attack after with combos, straight left counters. The straight lefts were normally blocked by Shogun it looked though. But Machida also landed a number of knees to the body as well. I have no problem with Shogun winning that fight however it was close enough for Machida to get the nod as well too imo or close enough that it wasnt the dreaded call of "robbery." Fight control was pretty close in that bout."
I agree, that's why I asked Nick Lembo about it:
Fighters like Lyoto Machida have changed the way we traditionally view “octagon control” with his evasive tactics of defense. His modus operandi can be fairly accurately described as the definition for effective defense (avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks), but how do you feel his backward movement and counterstriking fits into octagon control? Is a fighter using this strategy generally dictating the pace and location of the fight?
“It depends how it plays out, in the Rua fight, I did not think it was successful.”
I know there are different mechanics at play in Edgar's movement vs. Machida's, but we should draw on Nick's conclusion that Machida's movement for the most part was not effective for octagon control in Machida/Shogun.
sacredhate - great discussion, thanks Uncle Justice for picking apart my earlier comment.
I think the rules are biased against grapplers (they are of course since they stand fights up) if defending a take-down earns more points than avoiding/blocking a punch. Somehow getting in close in the middle of the octagon and going for a takedown is seen as octagon control for my opponent instead of me getting past his punches and giving him something to think about.
You're welcome, and thanks for your input as well.
On the part I put in bold, they are different because a blocked punch does not result in a total change of position (standing vs. grappling, the biggest reason for octagon control points) where a blocked punch simply factors into evidence for how effective striking is.
"Again, agree, as do the rules. That's why control is a secondary category to striking. That's how I formulated my assessment of the fight."
I'd say the decision really comes down to round 3. Compustrike had it dead even in terms of strikes landed, Fightmetric had BJ up by a single strike. So basically that round was as even as a round can get in terms of what was landed, and that's when I think you go to the more subjective categories. I give Frank the octagon control because he was simply doing more, controlling the space to move away from BJ's strikes and get in to land his own, while BJ was far more reactive as is his tendency. Again by a literal interpretation of the rules, Frank would also get effective aggression as his strikes were landed while moving forward, while BJ's counterpunching took place while Frank and not BJ was moving forward. If you want to get even more subjective, I think most would agree that the visible accumulating damage to BJ's eyes and apparent change in momentum and activity level this round also could quite understandably tip the scales in Edgar's favor.
How so many people are taking a round that was dead even in terms of strikes landed, where neither guy was rocked or dropped, and saying giving it to Frank is ridiculous and thus makes the overall decision "wrong", is mind-boggling. Especially since, let's face it, none of these complainers are going by a studiously strict application of the unified rules' scoring criteria.
Uncle Justice - Since orcus agrees with Wasa-B on takedown defense, I'll start there:
<i>"In itself, defense is not dictation." </i> Again, according to the rules (which should be what we're going on... yes?), it plainly spells out that if you stop your opponent from taking you down, you are in fact earning octagon control. Fact. It's that simple. I'm not sure how you can not acknowledge that; both because it's one of the few passages in the rules that's not really open to much interpretation, but rather clearly spelled out; and because if you're just some dude watching some people fight, and one guy is trying to take the fight somewhere, but the opponent punches him in the face and shucks him off, the latter guy is enforcing more control/dictation.
"Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout. <b>Examples of factors to consider are countering a grappler’s attempt at takedown by remaining standing and legally striking</b>; taking down an opponent to force a ground fight; creating threatening submission attempts, passing the guard to achieve mount, and creating striking opportunities."
I wouldnt really take too much by the above. Like the bible and koran, people misinterpret or interpret how they wanna all the time.
I dont think any person would agree that if Fighter A is outstrikng B but A shoots and a td to boot but gets stuffed by B, no one would say B is "controlling the action."
Im not saying Edgar dominated control or anything btw.
Also the example of Bisping/Leben is such a case of domination by Bisping that i dont think it really helps much. Bisping was moving back the entire time by was the only fighter to be landing as well. Leben was moving forward but being tagged left/right/centre. I dont think there is any question as to who was winning by any criteria.
Maybe the case of Bisping/Hendo is a good one to use as an example (until the KTFO of course). Hendo was moving forward and throwing bombs, landing at times but not that often but had Bisping in some trouble and retreat a few times. Bisping though was scoring more up to the KTFO iirc but his shots were not as quality as Hendo.
The fight was just on Spike a few days ago and i saw it pretty even until the KTFO. I did think however that it was going to be very possible for Bisping to outpoint Hendo like Misaki did...i guess the difference was that Misaki did not keep on circling into Hendo's power side?
Anyhow, that ws a very close fight to score up to the KTFO.
Shogun/Rog is a good example of where tds seemed to make the difference. When all else is equal, why shouldnt tds make the diff though? And the fight was prety equal otherwise wasnt it?
