I never disputed that. My question is the correlation between guillotine attempts and wins/losses. Obviously there are guys who are great at it. But for so many it seems to put them in bad position with gassed arms.
Well, if Chael Sonnen were to get a fight with Anderson Silva, i wouldn't recommend he go in with a strategy looking to try and outbox him. If you understand my meaning.
Alternately, if Michael Bisping got a fight with Anderson Silva, then i would recommend
he try to outbox him. I'd wager if he tried to spend the fight shooting single legs though, he wouldn't look so good.
I know what you mean, and i've seen it happen, i just don't agree with the conclusion you're drawing from it. It's kinda like saying... people who fail takedowns tend to lose in fights where they failed to get a takedown. Well, no duh.
Does that mean they should stop training takedowns? Or rather, that there is no
benefit to doing so? It's
precisely so that they might succeed that it'd be valuable to increase their proficiency with it (or in particular, start doing it in ways that
do lead to success and do
not lead to failing in such ways).
Really, the thing with guillotines is that it's not really 'just' a 'grappler guy' move, pretty much
everyone can benefit from developing a stronger front headlock attack, whether they are an out-fighter, clinch-fighter, or ground-fighter.
Take Cody McKenzie for instance. The guy was practically a complete bum (literally), but because he had a good guillotine, he was able to pull bullshit wins off against many fighters who could quite well have been more ultimately talented than him and were superior in many other facets of fighting... but for that.
Just as an aside, another interesting statistic; out of the 20 fastest submissions in UFC history, the most frequent came by way of front headlock chokes; twice as many in fact (8) as the next runner up (arm bars [4]). (The others were ankle locks/heel hooks [2/2], RNCs [3], and calf crusher [1]).