Is a finish always a "domination"?

tricky business. You can look at the whole of the fight, take the parameters used for scoring points. Whoever outscored the opponent, dominates. But a KO, a change in momentum or a submission are also part of the fight, and a guy who is dominating can turn the table.

I really don't see what's so complicated to understand. Foreman dominated Ali, until he got KO'd? Did Sonnen dominate Silva, until he got subbed? There are the answers from obsessive fans, and then the observations from people who like the sport.

The "fight to the death" analogy does not apply to current-day MMA. They are in there to score points as well.
 
BrazilianDude said:
Lol
You can always count on the Internet to provide nonsense.

No, Anderson didn't dominate. You can't lose four rounds, get beaten by most of the fifth and dominate. He won, but that's as far as it gets from a dominant victory.

And Chael got caught and lost. Unless you have actual evidence of a fixed fight, don't throw accusations around.
Click to expand...
I asked Uncle Chael about it. He said, "I got paid more than my show money for that fight. Let's leave it at that."
 
skullmaskkid said:
People claim that Nate dominated Conor in their 1st fight. Certainly Nate finished Conor, but it was a competitive fight till that point, Conor won the 1st round, got tired, then got finished. To me that's not really a domination.

It's like saying Hughes dominated BJ Penn in their 2nd fight.

Can you be finished without being dominated?
Click to expand...
A finish is a dominant result, you know for sure who won (no questions of what happens if the fight went on or what else.) however it can not be an absolute proof of whom is a better fighter. Conor was finished by Diaz but it was very competitive and wasnt dominated per say.
Just as Aldo being KO'd in 13 seconds leaves the question on what itd have looked like in a longer fight. I personally prefer later fight finishes as generally there is less of a fluke involved.
 
Of course it is not always domination, like Anderson vs Chael, but Conor/Nate was a domination. Conor was getting beat up on the feet, didn't want to be there anymore, And wanted to submit.
 
This thread should be moved to the "help, English is not my first language and I can't use a dictionary" sub forum.

Finish and domination have two different meanings.
 
I don't think so. A finish can manifest itself as a consequence of a one-sided fight where one fighter dominates, but it can also be a consequence of a critical mistake at the right/wrong time, a very accurate guess or a complete accident.

I think for a performance to be classified as a domination, one fighter has to demonstrate that he's better in every area or that he can deny his opponent's strengths consistently.
 
Of course not. Sometimes a domination ends with a flash KO by the dominated.
 
skullmaskkid said:
People claim that Nate dominated Conor in their 1st fight. Certainly Nate finished Conor, but it was a competitive fight till that point, Conor won the 1st round, got tired, then got finished. To me that's not really a domination.

It's like saying Hughes dominated BJ Penn in their 2nd fight.

Can you be finished without being dominated?
Click to expand...

No a finish isn't always domination, but it is being destroyed.
 
skullmaskkid said:
so doesn't matter what happened leading up to it?

Silva dominated Chael?
Click to expand...
This was the first thing that popped into my mind

There's so many examples of come-from-behind victories - you can't say you "dominated a fight" where you got knocked down multiple times and were losing the fight on the scorecards until you got the finish
 
nah domination means a long period. like in b-ball you can dominate the 4th quarter while you're down at halftime, so people aren't gonna say that game was a domination. same with a finish if it's back and forth or come from behind, it's a moment.

Nate's win was a competitive one where he came from behind and did enough during that competitiveness to be able to finish. The finish didn't come from being dominant.
 
I's say domination would imply the fight is somewhat one sided.

But it seems this is turning into a semantic debate already.
 
Canned Tuna said:
He could have killed him. It was a domination.

That one is a tricky example because chael threw the fight, but it was still a domination. It was just a staged domination.
Click to expand...
Chael could have also twisted his balls off if it was a "real" situation.
 
MMAProfessional said:
Chael could have also twisted his balls off if it was a "real" situation.
Click to expand...
I agree that Chael is one of the GOAT, but he probably couldn't get Anderson's nuts out from inside his cup while trapped in a triangle, even if he did get caught in the triangle on purpose.
 
I see domination as like GSP vs Frank Trigg where one fight could hardly put up any offense against the other fighter leading to a finish.
 
No but a finish is more conclusive than any 50-45 you find out there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,458,906
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top