Is a finish always a "domination"?

In the context of a fight it would have to be one sided.

dom·i·na·tion
  1. the exercise of control or influence over someone or something, or the state of being so controlled.

 
A dictionary could help you with the answer to this.

And of course not, you could be dominating and get flash Ko'd. So no, finishing a fight does not and should not inherently mean you dominated the fight.
 
No. It's not always, sometimes it's a lucky punch, lucky sub etc.

But your example is a bad one.

Nate didn't lose up until the choke.

He lost a round, but he roughed up Conor quite a bit, landed some quality punches, to the point where Conor had to use his "Panic Wrestling™", and then he choked him out.

The second fight was different cause this time around Conor used the "Panic Running™" strategy which worked much better with the judge since they don't deduct points from UFC stars.
 
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?
A choke is as dominant as it gets.

A limb / joint lock is also dominant.

5th round Robbie lawyer might not always finish, but he is dominant as they come.
 
inc Silva fan bois to tell you he's the most dominant fighter of all time.

Anderson was so dominant against Sonnen after getting his ass handed to him from the first second
 
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?
"...got tired, then got finished"

Sounds like you want to make excuses.
 
Back
Top