I don't have any real scientific evidence for this post; I was just thinking back on the Aldo/ Edgar fight, and how to best evaluate the effectiveness of different types of strikes thrown and landed in fights. Don't get me wrong, I definitely thought Aldo won the fight. But the one round that (even after several rewatches) befuddles me is round 3. Fightmetric has Frankie landing 19 strikes to Aldo's 15 (all considered "significant," although not all SS's are created equal)- Edgar outlanding Aldo in body shots (4-0) and strikes to the leg (7-1), and Aldo edging FE in headshots (14-8).

I'm a firm believer that the target of a strike, and the limb used to strike are less important considerations than the actual impact a strike has. The true impact of a strike comes from it's precision and velocity. Which really means that every strike should be judged on a case by case basis, which is daunting because there are so many strikes, and human kind's abilities of sight and perception simply aren't perfect, especially if/ when the camera angle isn't right, you're not paying attention to the right area at the right time.

I figured this round was a good example of the debate of volume vs. power. Frankie landed the greater number of strikes in that round, but I think Aldo landed the harder, more damaging strikes (the most memorable of which was a beautifully vicious front snap kick that busted FE's nose up, and drew blood). Personally, I had that 3'rd round scored as a 10-10.

What are your thoughts on the value of strikes? Are you in the Cecil Peoples' school of thought, espousing that "leg kicks don't win fights"? Do you score like a Muay Thai judge, and give extra weight to knees/ elbows/ round kicks? Do you value proficient defense as they do in boxing? How about a fight like Overeem vs. Werdum, where Fabricio clearly landed the greater quantity of strikes, but Overeem seemed to landed the harder, cleaner counters?