Rashad wasn't looking to finish

Jimbo I agree. I would contend that even rashads missed strikes could still be seen as effective striking since they were faster, and constantly backed thiago up allowing the takedowns. He was constantly on the defensive. I certainly was shocked when I saw the fight metric data myself.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Jimbo I agree. I would contend that even rashads missed strikes could still be seen as effective striking since they were faster, and constantly backed thiago up allowing the takedowns. He was constantly on the defensive. I certainly was shocked when I saw the fight metric data myself.

It was effective in setting up the take down which is octagon control, but the actual strikes aren't doing damage and should only be scored as being the aggressor or controlling the action. Usually damage > just control IMO.

Thiago landed all these strikes but the seem to be so in effective that myself and the announce team(granted the ones that saw machidas counters as invisible) and others didn't think he landed a real effective strike until round three. Rashad's strikes however were effective in that they kept Thiago at bay, made him warry of his speed, and always set up a takedown.

I understand wanting to score strikes based on landing cleanly and damage done, like it is in K1 and boxing, but in an MMA fight, some techniques are used primarily to precede others. That is how it went in this fight I think so I would still see a strong case for Rashad to win effective striking since his strikes and strike attempts ultimately mattered more than Thiago's for two and ahalf rounds.

With only having watched the fight once, I can't say for certain. Often you see things on the second time though you missed before. I will say the fight metric data was a true shock to me.

An interesting line of thought either way.