Damage is scored by using the word "effective." Effective striking is supposed to trump number of strikes.
Being in the centre and pushing forward sounds more like a definition of aggression.
Octagon control refers to determining the pace and position of the fight.
Damage doesn't equal effectiveness though. It's obvious GSP bruises and cuts fairly easy. Even when he fought Shields, his face looked wrecked and Shields has 0 power or even solid boxing. Guys like A. Silva or Hendricks just don't for whatever reason. Doesn't mean GSP's shots were less effective. Jones basically retained his title with knee kicks. Even when Silva/Sonnen 1 happened. Sonnen barely got touched in that fight and he looked wrecked.
At least the judges got the Lawler fight right. There will always be bad decisions because everyone has a different opinion on what is considered more effective or dominant in a fight. Just look at everyone else's responses in here considering who won what round. If the fight is close, the champ usually retains, just the way it is.
The round in question is round 1. Most agree GSP won 3 and 5. It could have went either way.
I agree, I disagree with anyone who had Hendricks winning 4 rounds. I guess the judges thought the GSP takedown and Guillotine attempt were enough to give GSP the round? Even the judge that had Hendricks winning only gave him 3 rounds.