But really all that matters in MMA is whether what you do is effective or not. Many fighters have ugly-ass technique but it works thereby making them good strikers. You can critique their technique till the cows come home but at the end of the day they're knocking out "better strikers."
So in that regard you look back at Sonnen and regardless of why Anderson got dropped, the fact is that Sonnen's striking was effective enough to drop him on multiple occassions. No matter how ugly, untechnical, or what have you - it worked.
While what you say certainly has some truth to it -- in fact, I'd say it's true. I think it's also important to consider why such things are effective. For example, if Chael came out with a game plan just to strike with Anderson the entire fight, despite how effective his striking appeared in some situations, it would soon appear far less effective. The fact is still there that there's a reason his striking was effective, and that reason is because he's so strong in another discipline of the sport, that there's a certain unpredictability that he brings to the table when he does decide to strike.
It's this same concept why, in my opinion, GSP is far more effective at striking than his raw striking technique would warrant in a pure striking match. It's because there's always that danger of being taken down. Which is where I think your point comes in. What you're saying is, it doesn't particularly matter if it's technical, if it works it's effective. And I think that's a valid point. I think it's a point that many people don't consider when looking at fighters like GSP, and then Chael. If Chael were to take his striking to the next level and incorporate solid jabbing, I think with those combination of dangers he would then present, could possibly make him just as dangerous as GSP, a bit more sub defense and we'd basically have a MW GSP.