To go off on a tangent here (not directed towards anyone specific), I was reading elsewhere people griping about this decision and almost exclusively the main gripe was that they felt Dan should've won based on the fact that he was pushing forward a majority of time. That not only isn't how a fight is scored, but actually doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Everyone should know that. For some reason, people seem to assume that the very "effective aggression" and "Octagon control" criteria refer to carelessly plodding forward and ignore the tangibles of the fight. It's why Diaz lost against Condit, and why Dan lost Saturday; if you can't mount any offense, you're not doing anything to win the fight. If you're moving forward, getting picked off, whiffing on punches almost exclusively, and unable to get your opponent to fight the way you want them to, how exactly is that effective aggression or Octagon control?
There's a real disconnect between some people and their understanding of how judging works. I mean, look at any time someone rightly loses a fight (on paper or not) and the people that complain about it; they'll almost exclusively cite criteria that doesn't factor into the scoring whatsoever. Look at the debates about decisions here, be it Condit/Diaz, Rampage/Griffin, or Overeem/Werdum. All 3 subjects are rife with statements that Diaz/Rampage/Overeem should've won the fight followed by illegitimate and illogical reasons. It boggles my mind that people would care enough about MMA to, you know, discuss it and such, but a lot of people have no idea how a fight is scored.