I’ve recently spent a lot of time thinking about two of Robbie Lawler’s three recent title defenses and the controversy that surrounded them. Sure this is old news but I’m thinking more in terms of how this reflects the mechanics of the sport and what really makes a champion.
On December, 6th 2014 Lawler pulled a split decision victory over Johny Hendricks. Like the judges, the fans where split; many divided by their fan-boy biases and others by the ferocity of the final round. I look back on the stats and see Lawler landed 22 more total strikes and 5 more significant strikes than Hendricks. Over five rounds that doesn’t seem like much a difference. Hendricks shined with 5 successful takedowns and over 10 minutes of control; compared to Lawler’s 1 minute of control and 0 takedowns, one can assess Hendricks took a pretty big lead there. I mean 10 minutes of control is 2 entire rounds! Now when we get into individual rounds it gets interesting. Lawler lead in significant strikes landed in the first and last rounds of the fight. Hendricks, on the other hand, led in strikes the second, third, and fourth round. After re-watching the fight, I recall having a similar feeling as when first viewing it: that Hendricks was playing it safe and Lawler had been very unsuccessful until he went for broke the last round. 

​See there are two ways to win a fight in MMA. One is by straight finishing it. You land your opponent with either a K’O or a sub. Some guys just catch one in the fray and others hunt for one as quickly and aggressively as possible. The second way is the marathon route; the battle of attrition. George Saint Pierre is famous for this as, through patience, precision, and skill, he would chip away and pick apart his opponents. This can lead to some long and sometimes boring fights, but it serves to showcase true octagon control and a get the fighter a W. I saw Hendricks pick at Lawler, take him down, showcase control, and play it safe. I saw Lawler get controlled, get picked, and in the finishing moments of the fight, throw everything he had left in him at his Hendricks.
If we are looking at fighters as athletes (which of course they are) one would think we would judge and reward them based off their consistency and effectiveness. If we look at them as entertainers (which they are) one would think we would judge them on their aggression and showmanship. There has to be a line though, somewhere in there, where we don’t get caught up in the intensity of a fighter swinging fences, and, in turn, lose sight of the one striking him out. I can’t say undoubtedly that Lawler should have lost that fight. I am aware judging is grey and we must respect the rules of the sport, but still I can’t stop questioning it.

In Lawler’s most recent title defense victory over Carlos Condit, he threw 178 punches (landing 93); Condit landed 177… I find that amazing. In the first 3 rounds Condit just about doubled the number of significant strikes Lawler landed and quadrupled that number in the 4th.  It is no surprise that in the 5th round Lawler frenzied and landed more strikes than all previous rounds combined! That 5th round stat was still 10 shots shy of Condit’s 62 landed shots. I look at those stats and am confused at the split decision going to Lawler. On paper almost anyone can see Condit won. Did the judges and people watching at home get distracted by the raging bull that Lawler is and were more appreciative of his tenacity and toughness rather than that of the matador? Lawler is winning fights by being a monster and one of the toughest guys in the sport and probably on the planet. I wonder though, will Lawler be able to form a coherent sentence in 10 years? Is he going to eat thousands of punches over a decorated career and find himself broken in retirement? Is that what we want for our champions? Does toughness make a champion? How do we not give the belt to a man who almost landed more shots than the residing champ even threw?

​If fighters are awarded wins by being able to weather their opponents we are going to see more of them rise through the ranks. I can’t help but feel that judges are being pressured by cheering crowds and ‘wow’ factors to favor the “bulls”. We as fans can’t help but encourage this because we love seeing the Lawler’s pummel and get pummeled for 25 minutes of chaos. I too lost interest in the “play it safe” style of GPS in the later years of his career. I don’t really have answers to all the questions in this post, but I feel they need to be addressed. In other sports the best players put the ball in the hoop, in the goal, or in the N-Zone. We know who wins, we know who loses. In MMA it can be never be as cut and dry; especially when victory rest in the hands of bystanders watching from the sidelines.