What exactly constitutes a “significant strike?”

Is it a punch that makes the other fighter step back or snaps his head? A kick that buckles or bruises her leg? A body shot that makes an opponent briefly double over? A kick to the ribs that produces a thumping sound that a fan sitting 25 rows back can hear?

It’s a debate worth having in light of Robbie Lawler retaining his welterweight title despite challenger Carlos Condit landing 75 more “significant strikes” than Lawler over the course of their five-round title fight (and Condit also attempting 237 more “significant” strikes than Lawyer, according to stats from FightMetric).

Key question: Define “significant strike.”

UFC commentator and former No. 1 contender Dan Hardy, who scored the rounds 3-2 in Lawler’s favor, defined it thusly on his Twitter page: “I score significant strikes if they upset their opponents balance. Not the peppering point-scoring stuff.” 

I trained alongside Dan Hardy in years past at Robert Drysdale’s Jiu Jitsu gym in Las Vegas and am quite fond of him. Beyond Dan’s definition, many fans harbor an intuitive I-can’t-exactly-define-it-but-I-know-it-when-I-see-it notion of what qualifies as a significant strike.

But as it happens, two cageside judges’ eyes deceived them on Saturday night, and fight fans who deemed Lawler the victor also ignored the existing Unified Rules for scoring a pro MMA fight.

What do the Unified Rules say? Glad you asked … 

Under the Judging section of the Unified Rules, fighters, trainers and judges are advised:

1. “(Give) the most weight in scoring to effective striking, effective grappling, control of the fighting area and effective aggressiveness and defense.”

Ok, so how should we judge “effective striking?”

“Effective striking is judged by determining the total number of legal strikes landed by a contestant” the Unified Rules state.

This seems to be a gray area of the rules. They make no mention of “significant strikes” or how to resolve situations where one fighter lands harder shots but is heavily out-struck by his opponent. Which is unfortunate and a vagueness that leaves a lot of room to interpret the rules.

Taken at its strictest interpretation, however, you simply recognize that Condit landed more legal strikes than Lawler, by a whopping 198-78 margin. Condit threw and connected on more strikes than Lawler did in each and every round, though most (including myself) awarded Lawler rounds 2 and 5 because he clearly rocked the challenger. In Round 3, Condit attempted 52 more strikes than Lawler and out-landed him by a 2-to-1 margin.

Effective Striking Advantage for Round 3: Condit.

The Unified Rules also advise: 

“Fighting area control is judged by determining who is dictating the pace, location and position of the bout.” 

This one’s easy too. Who spent 20 to 21 minutes of the fight backing up?

Answer: Robbie Lawler.

Who spent 20 or 21 minutes of the fight charging forward, daringly taking risks and throwing shots, leaving it all on the line in the pursuit of victory?

Answer: Carlos Condit.

So who consistently dictated the pace, location and position of the bout?

Answer: Carlos Condit.

Yet another key provision of the Unified Rules: 

“Effective aggressiveness means moving forward and landing a legal strike.”

I remember minutes of the fight — entire minutes — where Robbie Lawler didn’t throw a single strike or attempted just one. The most feared puncher in the welterweight division hesitated to come forward for much of the fight.

Advantage: Condit.

Now, none of this settles the “significant strike” debate. It’s still up in the air for interpretation — under the Unified Rules and in the court of Public Opinion (Twitter Land, Facebook, etc…). But again, as I mentioned in a previous story, if Carlos Condit is so light with his punches and kicks, then why did Robbie Lawler spend the vast majority the fight backing up and not throwing punches? Surely Robbie Lawler was respecting Carlos Condit’s power and skill on some level. And if Carlos Condit didn’t land many “significant strikes” then why was Robbie Lawler in so much trouble late in that fourth round?

And if Carlos Condit is such a pillow puncher, as is being alleged, then why have 28 of his 30 wins come via finish (an unbelievable 93% of his wins), 15 of them by TKO? And how was such a soft striker able to batter Rory McDonald, Martin Kampman and Dan Hardy?And how come former UFC champ Johny Hendricks also didn’t seem to want any parts of a toe-to-toe war with Carlos Condit?

Because the truth is, Carlos Condit hits plenty hard enough to take his opponents out with a barrage of punches. Condit wears you down with volume and pace. Robbie Lawler knew it. That’s why the champ picked his spots and spent 20-plus minutes dancing about the cage on Saturday night — and still got hit nearly 200 times.

If you think Carlos Condit is a pillow puncher, ask Robbie Lawler how his body feels today, one day after the fight. I guarantee you he’s feeling the effects of five rounds with Carlos Condit.