The fact that there is a multi-faceted approach to scoring fights by different judges is no surprise to me. Having four different criteria to look at in effective striking, effective grappling, effective aggression as well as cage/ring control will certainly result in mixed feelings and different opinions on who won a round/fight.
They say grappling and striking will now be weighted evenly, but in some instances, there is a lot of failed grappling and minimal effective striking by either party. In those cases, should octagon control or aggression be more heavily favoured? Which criteria of those 2 should be more favoured? Don't they almost go hand-in-hand?
The first fight that comes to mind to me that fits those criteria is the recent fight between Gleison Tibau vs Khabib Nurmagomedov.
This was also the first time in recent memory where I completely disagreed with Joe Rogan. Rogan kept commenting on how Khabib was losing the fight and how this would be a great learning experience for such a young fighter.
I personally thought that he was dictating the pace of the fight, as well as being the aggressor. Gleison was throwing more technical punches as opposed to the hay-makers Khabib was throwing, but Gleison was always backing up. Khabib though unsuccessful was pushing to get the takedown. Glesion put almost no offense grappling together himself. It seemed like the entire fight Gleison was in defensive mode.
I personally thought Khabib won the fight but thought it was tough to score because there was little effective grappling or effective striking from either man that stood out in my mind, so most of the scoring weight went to cage/ring control.
Always Supporting Fighters That Fight to Finish or be Finished