This is a false dichotomy, and a longstanding dumbass training myth -- that you have to choose strength or endurance.
Take a look at a guy like Alex Viada:
http://tonygentilcore.com/2015/06/a...eakest-slowest-and-smallest-human-being-ever/
He squats 700+, benches 450+, deadlifts 700+, runs ultramarathons, runs Iron Man triathalons, runs a 4:30 mile. It's within human capability to have both. It's just poor, inefficient, and/or antiquated training that would allow a top athlete -- in a sport that benefits from strength
and conditioning -- to neglect one or the other.
A fighter like fikerstance should know from experience (at least watching fights) which hurts a guy worse; stepping into the cage weak or stepping in with low cardio. Anyone who has followed this sport for any length of time knows of instances where a fighter has lost by being overpowered, and of instances where a fighter has lost due to poor conditioning.
We're not here to say that any fighter should neglect one entire portion or segment of the training that's helpful to win fights. People should enhance their strengths and shore up their weaknesses with the training they need, and enter the cage or ring prepared. Any trainer that would tell a fighter to train this but not that, when both would be good to have, is cheating their fighter.
The "what's better, strength or conditioning" question is at best a silly hypothetical. It's asked by children, the inexperienced, and the weak minded. Any fighter who wants to win would want to have both strength and cardio, and it's perfectly reasonable to train for both.