Shah fought tonight in San Do – a 3 man free for all MMA fight.
He was able to use great foot work to evade his opponents while landing some great strikes. Shah landed a devastating liver kick to one of his opponents that left a huge welt across his rib (he later ended up going to the hospital, so I hope he is ok).
Shah also landed another solid kick against his other opponent that left him nursing his leg.
The best part though was that Shah never get a single time. Yet, he lost the fight.
I will admit that Shah wasn’t busy in this fight. He landed precise strikes and kept himself out of harm. His footwork was great and it left his opponents fighting themselves instead of attacking him.
But does aggression equal winning a fight? I think that of a good level of damage has been done, that should weigh heavily over just being aggressive.
Either way, Shah was able to walk away clean and he had a great time show casing his skills. That is more important than anything else.
What do you think? Comment below with your opinion!
I think it should definitely play a bigger role than aggression. But if seemingly equal amounts of damage are accumulated by both fighters than the more aggressive of the two ought to be the victor. But when you look at a fight like Kampmann vs. Sanchez, it’s hard to see how Diego won despite having his face smashed. Diego was the dominant aggressor for about 2/3 of the fight but sustained all the damage.
I think doing the most damage or at least looking like you did the most damage (The so called Stockton rules of judging) should play a big part. Though I think it comes together with 2 other aspects of fighting which are aggression and also control. In general when judging if you can see a fighter won out in at least 2 out of those 3 categories, they probably won the fight.