- Joined
- Jul 13, 2015
- Messages
- 6,602
- Reaction score
- 2,133
It happens in all sports. Sometimes, the better team does not win. We've all seen a game where a really good team plays like total shit or a star athlete just has an off night, maybe they even chose the wrong strategy. And before you say:
"Well if they were the better team, or he was the better athlete, he wouldn't have had the off night."
Just stop yourself there because that is ludicrous. You're favorite athlete has had an off night before. Humans tend to be prone to it.
In fighting, the stakes are only magnified. You can have a guy who is one of the very best fighters in the world, and all he has to do is make one mistake to piss it down the drain. Once he makes that mistake, for that second, he may as well be an amateur because none of his previous accolades follow him into the octagon and the other fighter can capitalize.
Some good examples of this are Jose Aldo-Conor McGregor, or Chris Weidman-Luke Rockhold, or even Luke Rockhold-Michael Bisping.
Jose Aldo had a ten year run, but that doesn't mean jack shit on the night of his next fight. Fighting has nothing to do with what you've done or who you are, it is only what you do during the fight. In that moment when he lunged in chin up, hands down, and face first, his undefeated dominance didn't mean jack shit. It doesn't matter if he was Jose Aldo or Cody Mckenzie, Conor can catch anyone who makes a mistake like that.
This has nothing to do with who's necessarily the better fighter. I'm not saying those are lucky breaks or that the winners didn't deserve to win. I am more addressing how easily people believe those results are concrete and immovable. People act like just because something happened the first fight, there is no conceivable way that it doesn't happen again the same way in the second fight.
I think this type of logic is the origin of MMA math. People need to apply the current data available to make predictions and draw concrete conclusions. I was reading through some forums prior to Pettis-Barboza, and it seemed like 80-85% of people found it physically impossible for Barboza to outstrike Pettis because Pettis beat Cowboy who beat him in turn. The same people who believe a Cerrone-Pettis rematch would go exactly the same. I'm just thinking:
"Man, who gives a fuck what happened before."
I am curious to hear some opinions from people who actually played sports growing up. I'm not saying its conclusive, and I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but most of the people I see who say those things are people who have never played sports before and just don't understand the variables.
Thoughts? (I apologize ahead of time, I've been working 8 days straight and this is probably a disorganized, scatter-brained mess).
"Well if they were the better team, or he was the better athlete, he wouldn't have had the off night."
Just stop yourself there because that is ludicrous. You're favorite athlete has had an off night before. Humans tend to be prone to it.
In fighting, the stakes are only magnified. You can have a guy who is one of the very best fighters in the world, and all he has to do is make one mistake to piss it down the drain. Once he makes that mistake, for that second, he may as well be an amateur because none of his previous accolades follow him into the octagon and the other fighter can capitalize.
Some good examples of this are Jose Aldo-Conor McGregor, or Chris Weidman-Luke Rockhold, or even Luke Rockhold-Michael Bisping.
Jose Aldo had a ten year run, but that doesn't mean jack shit on the night of his next fight. Fighting has nothing to do with what you've done or who you are, it is only what you do during the fight. In that moment when he lunged in chin up, hands down, and face first, his undefeated dominance didn't mean jack shit. It doesn't matter if he was Jose Aldo or Cody Mckenzie, Conor can catch anyone who makes a mistake like that.
This has nothing to do with who's necessarily the better fighter. I'm not saying those are lucky breaks or that the winners didn't deserve to win. I am more addressing how easily people believe those results are concrete and immovable. People act like just because something happened the first fight, there is no conceivable way that it doesn't happen again the same way in the second fight.
I think this type of logic is the origin of MMA math. People need to apply the current data available to make predictions and draw concrete conclusions. I was reading through some forums prior to Pettis-Barboza, and it seemed like 80-85% of people found it physically impossible for Barboza to outstrike Pettis because Pettis beat Cowboy who beat him in turn. The same people who believe a Cerrone-Pettis rematch would go exactly the same. I'm just thinking:
"Man, who gives a fuck what happened before."
I am curious to hear some opinions from people who actually played sports growing up. I'm not saying its conclusive, and I'm not trying to sound like an ass, but most of the people I see who say those things are people who have never played sports before and just don't understand the variables.
Thoughts? (I apologize ahead of time, I've been working 8 days straight and this is probably a disorganized, scatter-brained mess).
