I'm getting tired of hearing that damage isn't a criterion in the unified rules. You even hear it from Dana and reporters. Seriously, wtf? It most certainly IS. It used to be called "effective damage", but they changed it to "effective striking" (to be more PC). This article lays it out: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/7/1...ns-abc-changes-unified-rules-scoring-mma-news "Judged by determining the impact of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the number of such legal strikes. Heavier strikes that have a visible impact on the opponent will be given more weight than the number of strikes landed. These assessments include causing an opponent to appear stunned from a legal blow, causing the opponent to stagger, appearance of a cut or bruise from a legal strike and causing the opponent to show pain. Cumulative impact on a fighter will also be weighed. If neither fighter shows an advantage in impact of strikes, the number of strikes will determine the most effective striker." That is all.