A bad habit educated MMA fans should abandon

My apologies if this comes across condescending, "holier than thou" and I realize this post alone won't change everyone's opinions, but hear me out.

We really need to analyze fighter attributes/tendencies instead of relying solely on "Who has he beaten" as the sole barometer of gauging how good a fighter is. This bad habit is most pronounced when we discuss fighters outside of the UFC.

Alistair Overeem, Nick Diaz, and Gegard Mousasi are biggest victims of this phenomenon. Many fans think they would get obliterated by decent UFC fighters because they have a superficial understanding, at best, of what those fighters bring.

Educated prognostication can be made by objectively analyzing fighter attributes and going beyond a simplistic "who each fighter has beaten" approach (i.e. resume/accomplishment comparison)

For example, I'll use prognostication of Jon Jones-Rashad Evans fight as an example.

Of course there's no way of gauging how a fight plays out to the tee, that's not even the point. Saying GSP would beat a fringe WW like Kris McCray because of x, y and z isn't MMAth, it's sober judgment based on the skills both fighters possess, their history, tendencies in fights and so on. Just like saying Jones will likely ragdoll Rashad in the clinch because his leverage is bananas, he's disposed comparable wrestlers to Rashad in each and every single one of his outings and he's done so very easily. Obviously there's no way of knowing that'll happen until they fight, but there's a reason pundits break down fights with insight instead of yielding meaningless drivel like 'Griffin > Rampage, therefore Griffin > Machida'.

Is it a stretch to assume that'll happen? Of course not, but it may not happen at all, Rashad could land an atomic punch in the first 30 seconds and win the fight. For the sake of actually analyzing a fight because more often than not, if you know what you're talking about and understand the nuances of the game, you'll get it right.



And instead of picking few lines to argue about, try to understand the overarching message


 Fedor > everyone .... that's what you're trying to say, right?

My apologies - I rushed with this post so it didn't come out the way I wanted exactly.

UncleJustice is excellent, but it;s ignorant to say he's the only one. There are hidden gems here and there, that actually TRAIN and have the ability to breakdown fighters/fights objectively down to a tee.

Frat Phone Post

Your "analysis" of how Jones would do with Rashad sort of leaves out a few pertinent facts. The wrestlers who fought Jones really hadnt had to deal with his reach and length before and probably in their fights with him it was the first time. Rashad used to train with Jones, day in and day out. I feel confident its not "new" to him, and he knows where Jones is strong, but far, far more importantly, knows where he is weak.

Its also said Rashad used to drop Jones from time to time, but it was never the other way around.....so looking at it from a "how did Jones do against slow wrestlers who cant box and were not used to his reach" as a comparison to Rashad is folly IMO.


Also, who you beat is more important than how you looked crushing cans. This is why no one cares about overreem. Mma isn't k-1, not all the skills transfer, and you buy respect with blood. He's the same kid who kept getting blasted out at 205, just bulkier. That's not "failing to recognize skills and attributes", that's keeping it real. Phone Post

You've discovered MMA math.