Does this statistic mean anything for Rousey's chances?

Only 2 out of 15 champions have been able to regain their title after having a dominant win streak snapped. By dominant win streak I mean 3 or more title defenses, except for heavyweight, where I mean 2 title defenses. 10 out of 13 failed comebacks were against new opponents rather than the opponent they originally lost to.

Does this mean anything for Rousey? Age shouldn't be a factor for Rousey, but in some cases MMA simply evolved beyond the capabilities of these champs; is this the case for Rousey? Why don't dominant champs make a comeback, and why is Rousey any different?

Spoiler: List of comeback attempts

RANDY COUTURE [beat Randleman, Rizzo, & Rizzo. Lost to Barnett, then lost comeback to new opponent Ricco Rodriguez].

TIM SYLVIA [beat Arlovski, Arlovski, & Monson. Lost to Couture, then lost comeback to new opponent Nogueira].

BROCK LESNAR [beat Couture, Mir, & Carwin. Lost to Cain, then lost comeback to new opponentOvereem].

ANDERSON SILVA [lost comeback to same opponent, Chris Weidman]

MATT HUGHES [5 defenses, lost to BJ, then won comeback to new opponent GSP].

BJ PENN [3 defenses, then lost to Edgar. lost comeback to same opponent, Frankie Edgar].

FRANKIE EDGAR [3 defenses, then lost to Bendo. lost comeback to same opponent, Benson Henderson].

BENSON HENDERSON [3 defenses, then lost to Pettis. lost comeback to different opponents; never earned title shot].

FEDOR [6 defenses then lost to Werdum. lost comeback to different opponentBig Foot, never given another title shot]

WANDERLEI SILVA [3 defenses, then lost to Henderson. lost comeback to different opponent Chuck Liddell; never earned title shot]. (Obviously Pride was different because their champions had many non-title fights).

TITO ORTIZ [5 defenses, lost to Couture. lost comeback to different opponentLiddell].

CHUCK LIDDELL 4 defenses then lost to Rampage. lost comeback to different opponent; never earned title shot].

CHRIS WEIDMAN 3 defenses, then lost to Luke Rockhold. Lost comeback to different opponentin Romero.

JOSE ALDO 7 title defenses, then lost to Conor. Won comeback to different opponent in Frankie Edgar.

PAT MILETICH 4 title defenses, then lost to Carlos Newton. Lost comeback to different opponent in Matt Lindland.

JOANNA (4) [n/a]

JON JONES [n/a]

CAIN VELASQUEZ [n/a]

DEMETRIUS JOHNSON [n/a]

RONDA ROUSEY (6 defenses, lost to Holm and then....)

 

its interesting but nah it's all random IMO. mma is hella-unpredictable.

 

Wmma
Honda is still young
Wmma
She has top tier Judo.

 

Nunes is younger, Nunes hits harder, Nunes is better on her feet, but also has decent ground skills......Nunes will either win by strikes or RNC!

 

Math doesn't equal reality, it only helps to explain it. From a statistical stand point, the data set is to small to derive an accurate representation. 2 out of 15 is to small of a sample. There might be a correlation, but there isn't necessarily a causation.

 

I would say, that it probably has to do with $$$ and drive. You don't need that big pay day as much the second time around.

 

I agree that the math alone isn't enough. That's why I thought it could be interesting to discuss it further based on all the other info we have. My belief is that the numbers here say something when we look at them along with more information.

There is a larger data set that supports a similar trend: UFC titles have been won 74 times. Only 10 of those times were the titles being regained. And it's not usually becaus they retired; most kept fighting but weren't able to regain their title.

Champs do not tend to regain their titles.

 

That's a good point. Fighters sometimes might not be as hungry once they have proven themselves by winning a title.

 

It's interesting for sure. I come from a numbers background, and I always enjoy looking at statistics. In fact, this is a gold post, and infinitely more interesting than the standard sherdog thread. I have wondered a lot of times, how fighters could fall out of favor so quickly. Benson Henderson, and Anthony Pettis come to mind. What gives? were their weaknesses not realized, or did someone find a formula on how to beat them? Did they get complacent on their skill development, or their training? There are a lot of factors, but it's definitely something interesting to look at.

 

Interesting. I think Matt Hughes should be on there twice even though he had a couple catchweight fights in his 2nd title run, if Riggs hadn't missed weight it would've been a title fight which would give him 3 successful title defences. In that case, Hughes has 4 fight streak with 3 defences, then a loss to GSP after which he fails to regain the interim title in the trilogy fight against GSP.

 

Jesus dude did u just take stats 101 and learn that some consider a standard minimum sample size to be 30 or something. Come on

 

Y'all's tripping. Applying stats to a once ever athlete. Ronda should slap you personally.
#fearthereturn

 

The stat is not relevant to this fight. But, it is a cool bit of trivia.

 

Very interesting thread. A lot of athletes hit a decline phase and then decline pretty quickly. I see this in baseball and football and I think Bill James has some decent statistical stuff on it in baseball. In Rousey's favor, she is probably younger than most of the others who were trying to make a comeback. In most sports, the peak age is about 27-29, so if you have a fighter who defends successfully at age 32, then loses at age 33, and then tries a comeback at age 34, there is a substantial amount of expected decline between his successful defense and his comeback. There are all sorts of pitchers who are stars at 32 and washed up at 34.

 

I think Ronda weathers the storm for a round or two, and ends up getting a submission win.

 

There is no such thing as a "Standard Minimal Sample Size", or Statistics 101. What you would look at, in this example, is the standard deviation of a population. The population being the UFC. I'm not trying to be "that guy" but it's something that came up. I have in no way been disrespectful to any poster, I was just listing a sherbros opinion.

By the Way, your picture of Platinum riding the ISS, had me rolling.... I can't take you serious with that, it's too good.

 

ronda will win easily.

nunes looked good vs meisha, but so did cat zingano.

 

I kinda just wonder if the game passed RR by, much like Royce was the top until next gen Matt Hughes came around. Many have felt that WMMA was as shallow as early UFC, where on trick ponies could by and that it would evolve similar to men's MMA. But in RR's case, the new gen is Nunes, Shevchenko and Holm. All of Ronda's best wins haven't been looking so great lately: Cat got dominated by a TUF'er, Meisha got clowned by Nunes and pulled out the Holly win in a hail mary, Bethe is Bethe, Davis just got choked out by a very hot/cold McMann that was fed to Ronda when she was an MMA rookie, etc.....

We just may have to come to that very cruel cross roads in MMA here you find out that one day you are the king of the mountain and the next day you are at the bottom. This game is kind to no one and the only way you will stick around is with a good mentality, learning everything you can and humility. And even then, your days are still incredibly numbered. Ronda not only is limited physically (can't wrestle, can't kick, can't run on pavement because of her knees) but she suffered a Rory MacDonald type beatdown and mentally broke for the first time ever......it seems to me that everything is going against her but who knows. Even if she pulls out the W, she wont be around much longer.

 

Well, we've got another data point, it's now 2 for 16 with Ronda's loss.
This stat looks to have legs and it's definitely something to keep an eye on.