Dominant Decision wins >> flash Finishes

TheRassler said:
Wrong.

Finishes > Decisions

It goes like this...

KO > (T)KO > Submission > Brittney Palmer holding round card # > Doctor's Stoppage > Corner's Stoppage > DQ > Arianny holding round card # > Decision.
Click to expand...

i think the really sad part is that you are serious.
 
Its like any sport.

A win is a win, no matter how you cut it. Anything can happen in MMA, Anderson flash KO's just about everyone, have we learned anything? Do you think he is just lucky?

I am more impressed by a KO or making someone physically quit. Yea, JDS got beat down, but he got right back up.

Im a little let down that Cain couldn't finish such a wounded man.

Jon Fitch wrestlefucks everyone for 15 minutes, is that fun and exciting, yea he can lay on people and dictate where the fight is, but thats about it. Would you be more impressed if he added a submission or enough GNP to stop somebody?
 
I agree, but think too much is made of both. Watch any sport that has teams or players compete in series. I can't count the number of times I've seen a hockey team outplay their opponent all night, only to get dominated in the next game. People have off nights. Sometimes people get lucky. Sometimes lady luck in on their side and they get lucky several times in a row. Am I to believe MMA, where one exchange can completely erase everything else that happens, and where only one guy needs an off night rather than an entire team, is less volatile? MMA doesn't have series because the physical toll doesn't allow it, but they'd be much, much more informative.

So instead, all we can do is watch guys in several fights over several years, do our best to account for their own development, and form an opinion over the course of a career. Then we can look back and say "This fight was probably a fluke" or "This fight wasn't." It's a far more accurate method of accounting for chance than is looking at decisions vs finishes, but it's not available to us nearly as quickly. We do the best we can to interpret from very limited information, but we should never make the mistake of watching one fight and thinking it tells us a whole lot all by itself. It's worthwhile to keep in mind that while quick KOs always have a reasonably high probability of being flukes, guys like Liddell made careers of falling behind on the cards but eventually landing that one big punch. Sometimes, the fight where the punch never comes is the fluke.
 
It doesn't really make much of a difference. A quick KO gives you a winner just as much as a dominate decision. There's a clear winner and loser either way. Not being able to walk away from a fight (being KOed) shouldn't leave a big question mark as to who won lol so shouldn't a dominate decision win though.
 
This forum is funny.

Fighter doesn't finish fights => He is not dominant

Fighter finishes fight => He is not dominant
 
JDS got caught early and never fully recovered. That's almost like the first fight, except that Cain was finished.
 
Saskatoonmike said:
agreed.

the question is around repeatability.

they often leave many questions as to who is really the better fighter.
Click to expand...

I dont think so. Since the first fight I was in as a small boy and even looking at professional level MMA, the point is to FINISH your opponent. Not leave it in the judges or publics hand as to who is the better fighter.

If, in the case like we saw last night, you have JDS holding a KO victory, and Cain holding a beatdown, I think it's a draw as to who is the better fighter.

In a trilogy, I think we have the equal opportunity of JDS repeating with a KO as we do with seeing Cains stamina and wrestling again.

In most of Tysons fights, did he leave you wondering who was the better fighter, how about Fedor's or Anderson's?

If you completely stop your opponent by KO or submission, that is incredibly telling. You finished him, he cannot continue. It is not a fluke.

Once again, in the end, a victory is a victory.
 
willthechill said:
I think that's pretty obvious though. I don't see how anybody would argue that lol
Click to expand...

Are you new here? Haven't you seen GSP constantly take heat for not finishing fighters? GSP gets a dominant decision win, and people crap on him.
 
Ah Man said:
I agree, but think too much is made of both. Watch any sport that has teams or players compete in series. I can't count the number of times I've seen a hockey team outplay their opponent all night, only to get dominated in the next game. People have off nights. Sometimes people get lucky. Sometimes lady luck in on their side and they get lucky several times in a row. Am I to believe MMA, where one exchange can completely erase everything else that happens, and where only one guy needs an off night rather than an entire team, is less volatile? MMA doesn't have series because the physical toll doesn't allow it, but they'd be much, much more informative.

So instead, all we can do is watch guys in several fights over several years, do our best to account for their own development, and form an opinion over the course of a career. Then we can look back and say "This fight was probably a fluke" or "This fight wasn't." It's a far more accurate method of accounting for chance than is looking at decisions vs finishes, but it's not available to us nearly as quickly. We do the best we can to interpret from very limited information, but we should never make the mistake of watching one fight and thinking it tells us a whole lot all by itself. It's worthwhile to keep in mind that while quick KOs always have a reasonably high probability of being flukes, guys like Liddell made careers of falling behind on the cards but eventually landing that one big punch. Sometimes, the fight where the punch never comes is the fluke.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Quick KO's aren't flukes. And yes, Liddell came back a lot, so did Fedor and Nog. Further proving their badassery and never quit attitude. Overcoming adversary and still being able to win, like Silva vs Chael, is one of the greatest things a fighter can do.
 
Saskatoonmike said:
agreed.

the question is around repeatability.

they often leave many questions as to who is really the better fighter.
Click to expand...



Furthermore, a submission or KO, a finish of any kind..... is hard to pull off, even a stoppage. So, you are correct, to repeat it is incredibly hard, these are all professionals. Thats what makes a finish that much more telling and special.
 
PlayboyMixx said:
You could also make the argument that while one punch for Junior defeated Cain, one punch from Cain also defeated Junior. Junior was doing quite well in the first half of the first round (you may have had to mute Joe Rogan to see that) by stuffing take downs and landing solid jabs. Cain was flying around flopping on the floor, but when Cain landing that big overhand right, the fight was basically over. Junior never fully recovered. So, one could argue that a single punch won both fights.
Click to expand...

No, it was a barrage of punches, takedowns, GNP, Clinching etc. that won the fight. Cain proved that he had a more well rounded toolbox in the course of 5 rounds.
 
Mikeydontgiva said:
Quick KO's are almost never a "Fluke"
Click to expand...

Well, a discussion about what is or isn't a "fluke" will almost inevitably bog down into semantics about what the word fluke means. The framework I'm using, at least, is based on the somewhat oversimplified, but I think mostly accurate, assumption that given two fighters' set of skills and abilities, each has a certain % chance of winning. As I'm using the term "fluke," it refers to any fight where a guy with a lower than 50% chance of winning does so. So it could be 49%, and it'd still fit under my argument.

As I said before, I think dominance is demonstrated over a career, or at least several years. Never in a single fight. Taking a probabilistic view of fights, it really highlights how impressive something like what Anderson Silva has achieved really is. To have a greater than 50% chance of winning 16 in a row, as Silva has in the UFC alone, you need a better than 95.7% chance of winning each one (if your odds of winning were the same for every single fight). That implies you're way better than most of your opponents, and his opponents are the rest of the best in the world at his weight. But most guys, even if they're the best in their division, could never manage a streak like that. You need to be more than the best. You need to be head and shoulders above your competition.

Mikeydontgiva said:
This is ridiculous. Quick KO's aren't flukes. And yes, Liddell came back a lot, so did Fedor and Nog. Further proving their badassery and never quit attitude.
Click to expand...

Right. That's more or less my point. If a guy shows, over and over again, that he's going to get the finish eventually, even if he falls behind, at some point it stops looking like a fluke when he does it, and starts looking like a fluke when he doesn't.
 
willthechill said:
I think that's pretty obvious though. I don't see how anybody would argue that lol
Click to expand...

People are stupid. They'll say that JDS performance in the first fight was a lot more dominate than Cain's 5 round destruction.

I picked Cain to win the first time. They didn't even get to fight, so I picked him again in the rematch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,053
Messages
55,463,960
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top