The terrible problem with modern MMA.

Im guessin you are not a Kimbo fan then James

 

Any equivalent statistics for boxing? I've got a feeling the percentages of wins would not be that much different from the stats you stated for MMA.

 

Doesn't Nadal lead Federer 14–7.

Maybe it suggests when the best meet the best, it comes down to execution and dominance isn't as easy as some would like.

Maybe it suggests alot of combat rematches come down to revenge for bad nights or poorly executed gameplans. GSP over Serra for example!

Doesn't Murray lead Federer 6-4.

In history Arsenal have played Chelsea 169 times and their record is 69-49-51. Doesn't that suggest the same as what I said above. When the best face the best, it comes down to execution and being human, execution every time is not possible.

India vs Pakistan in cricket - Pakistan lead 12 to 9 in Tests and 69 to 45 in ODIs.

So when the best meet the best in Cricket and Tennis, is it luck or the hardship of perfection?

In the UFC, typically the best meet the best. To be perfect in every fight is incredibly difficult. This is why guys with near perfect records i.e. GSP and Fedor should leave us in awe.

 

Excellent, excellent post! ^^^ Very well written achilles.

 

the better fighter will prevail more often than not. Yes, there are many lucky fights out there, but overall they are probably a low percentage of the total

 

+1

Well said. Excellent post.

 

Very true. Some times, guys are really feeling it and are in the zone 100%, another time they can be 95%, and at that level, that may not be enough.

 

Also rematches usually happen when the fight was extremely close or could have gone either way, if the outcome was likely to be the same then why have the rematch?

 

id say liddell, penn, hughes, wanderlei, anderson, couture, gsp have had an era in mma.

 

At the highest level, it sometimes is not about skill and ability as both participants are usually very talented and skill THUS it is about execution.

You talk about the title changing hand but why overlook what Chuck has done at 205, Silva at 185, GSP at 170 and Penn at 155. Legendary status should be reserved for the chosen few.

What I love and hate about the UFC is that they will always put on good match ups but unlike boxing they will pit guys against each other multiple times. In boxing Jackson and Silva would not fight for a third time, nor would Ortiz and Shamrock, nor would Jackson and Shogun or Chuck and Ortiz. What Marquez and Vasquez doing is rare and known as old school. They fight to fight and because it's a good match up that makes sense at the time not on paper. The UFC is bringing the old school back into combat.

 

I kind of see your point, but on the other hand I think the precarious nature of MMA is what makes it great - it precisely because fans are aware that great fighters can fall foul of one great punch or one great submission attempt, that one loss does not dent a fighter's greatness.

One of the things that is wrong with boxing is that many fans have a hard-on for zeroes, so guys like Joe Calzaghe who retire after blatant zero-protecting for years and years having only taken on one or two legitimate challenges in an entire career are then referred to as 'legends' and 'ATGs', because boxing fans prize the zero above all.

In MMA, fans realize that the nature of the sport means it is almost impossible to retain a zero throughout a career of facing the very best fighters available. GSP is a bona fide ATG, and he has been knocked out. Anderson Silva is a bona fide ATG, and he has been submitted. Guys like Shogun Rua, BJ Penn, Wanderlei Silva, Mirko Crocop, Matt Hughes and Randy Couture have all suffered crushing losses in or around their primes. Yet no-one denies their greatness, because real fans know that in MMA anyone can be hit with the right punch at the wrong time, or leave a limb unguarded against the wrong guy.

That's what makes this sport great.