Originally Posted by nixkid
Its hard to gauge how much damage a punch to the face does. A fighter might just have a really good chin and can walk through hard punches (doesn't mean his opponent isn't scoring). Another fighter might cut easily and show "damage" even though his opponent wasn't landing hard at all. Its not an exact science but we know strikes to the head, body, and legs can end fights (with head strikes being the most damaging). We also know that pressing someone up against the cage does ZERO damage. So if one guy is doing something that does damage and another guy is doing something that doesn't, it pretty easy to judge the round. Thats why virtually everyone scored the fight 50-45 (judges, media, announcers, essentially everyone). Its really that simple. You're over analyzing it.
I think I'm analyzing it in a very reasonable way, given MMA scoring criteria. You can't score a fight at 125 the same way as a HW fight if the 125'er isn't doing the same damage with his strikes. Shit, Ali's attempted toss when MM screamed in pain was probably the most damage dealt in the entire fight. Does anyone rationally dispute that?
MM won on effective striking, but he didn't score much for damage, and he lost on Octagon control. I weighed the striking so heavily as to give him the win overall, but it's not unreasonable to say it was close.
The media and judges just overvalue weak strikes. And what's funny is how fans tend to hate that when MW or above score with weak strikes (Rory won with just a jab; Chael's GnP didn't do any damage; Lyoto's counter-striking was point-fighting, etc.), but then as soon as the little guys land non-fight-ending strikes, the fans want those to be scored heavily. It's rather hypocritical, frankly.