Depends who you ask, if that includes Nick Diaz then certainly not.
After John Lineker’s split-decision victory (47-48, 48-47, 48-47) over John Dodson at Fight Night 95 the question has once again been raised as to whether or not the ‘run around’ fight tactic is cowardice or strategy. As we see below we know how the Diaz’s feel:
If you follow Nick Diaz on Snapchat @diaz5150nick (which usually consists of selfie videos of him shirtless with hot girls or at a bar) then you know he was watching and was none too pleased about how much dancing John Dodson was doing.
We can also safely assume how Nate Diaz feels, after he expressed that Conor McGregor did nearly the same thing against him. Here is a semi-humorous montage of Conor ‘running away’. Nate has even mentioned that perhaps a system of yellow cards could be warranted to those who don’t want to engage, whether foolishly or un-foolishly is in the eye of the beholder.
It appears to be a case of schools of thought; to use football analogies…one side seems to feel you need to stand in the pocket and prove yourself while the other feels rolling out of the pocket as to not get smashed is a viable strategy.
It doesn’t work for everyone however, case in point: Alistair Overeem vs Stipe Miocic. Perhaps he isn’t nearly as fast as a McGregor or Dodson, nevertheless he tried the same strategy.
Dodson was the quicker, more versatile striker than Lineker who prefers to stand in there and bang, McGregor also preferred to circle around as he got tired and stay away from Diaz’s elite boxing. Just the same, Overeem preferred to circle the octagon instead of stand in front Stipe’s obvious power which seemed to scare the Dutchman. However, it did not work out the same for ‘The Reem’ as it did for the aforementioned.
In a backstage interview Dodson pointed out of the most common arguments in MMA today, scoring the fight as a whole or round-by-round. Personally, I felt Dodson won the decision, but that is not to say that there isn’t an argument for Lineker due to pressure and octagon control. Basically, I wouldn’t be mad if you saw the fight that way, luckily judging a fight is not my job.
He’s right when he says:
“I look handsome as hell…he came out looking like Frankenstein this time.”
But damage is not always the decider, despite how violent it may be (did you see those head kicks?). For example, I think Conor beat Nate fair-and-square despite how their faces/legs looked after the fact.
In my mind where Dodson wins is not only in damage, but elusiveness and the effectiveness of his striking.
At some point it was decided that the UFC prefers the round-by-round judgments over scoring the fight overall…it’s probably a more accurate way to judge things. However, if the UFC is going to keep ‘giving the fans what they want’ (as we know styles make fights), then they might want to reconsider the rules on scoring for the very simple fact that the fans who prefer the ‘stand and bang’ style of fighting are certainly the ones who would embrace the ‘he who is made ugliest loses’ scoring system.
What do you think? Are you firm either way or as scatter-brained as me on the topic?