The way I posed to the scenario was for A to pretty much outstrike B thoroughly but not dropping him. A couple power shots and nice combos to fighter B's 2ish jabs and totally missed lead hooks. Then for B to Fitch A for the remaining 2:30 with only arm punches with no posture from guard while A interrupts with couple guard raises and sweep attempts, though none are close to successful.
I just wanted to bring to light my perception that if the round is split between two fighters (timewise) with one having some standup success, and the other having grappling success, the nod usually goes to the grappler. Main point I'm trying to get at is, if there is pretty dominant striking period, is that negated by the same amount of time controlling the action/grappling and landing less/less damaging strikes? In most cases in seem judges opt for the latter (especially if the round ends with fighter B doing their GNP work) while it seems slightly counter intuitive to me. There is the weight of octagon control added into the grappling/gnp just wondering if there were varying opinions on this.
Would you rather take 2 combos from say Paul Daley on the feet of 20 punches from fitch in your guard. Seems like the former has much more risk for damage/changing the fight, just wondering what people's opinions are.
Both Paul Daley and John Fitch could probably kill me by breaking wind. What I as a fan perceive to be more painful/devastating is immaterial. The question that should matter for a judge, IMO, is what results actually arise in the cage.
If one fighter tags another a bunch of times on the feet, but hasn't been able to put him away, then I, as a judge, have to concede that he won the stand up battle, but hasn't actually gained a significant tactical advantage. for a fighter to appear to be losing the stand up battle and then change the tenor of the fight with one punch is far from uncommon.
However, your "fighter B" may have done no more damage from the top position then he took in the standup, but by gaining position he achieved a tactical advantage that fighter A never had. he's limited his opponent's offense significantly.
So, in the absence of any other factors, I would give fighter B the nod in what is essentially a tiebreaker - tactical success as opposed to actual, physical, ass-kicking success.