^all your fussing about Shields beating Maia, he got whooped on by Hector Lombard and was promptly cut from the UFC his very next fight. Well conversely Nate Marquardt took Maia out in 9 seconds (granted this was at Middleweight, but same goes for your Shields-Lawler comparison which wasn't even at Welterweight)
nobody said it was an accident when Shields tapped Lawler, give that a rest. I'm saying, of course winning is important, but fair or not at times there's such an emphasis on winning impressively or being entertaining. Do you really think Shields was impressive vs Woodley?
Shucks even Dana White didn't think Shields won the fight vs Woodley. And that's what I mean, it's not "my personal preference", Shields won the fight vs Woodley. As he did vs Maia (I am not dismissing these wins, both happened and are reflected in both fighters win-loss record). But aside from wins, it's not like they were all time great performances
Again if you can distinguish Shields submitting Lawler at Middleweight ... why are you making such a big deal about these 2 decisions victories? Yes the opponents were better (Maia & Woodley) but in both cases these were close fights, so how is that exactly an attack on him?
Shields beat Woodley and Demian Maia by split decision. That's a fact.
Grappling fighters isn't the criteria I'm using, it's method of victory/how impressive was the performance. so method = split decision leaves us with how impressive was the performance?