Fluke victories = No such thing.

[IDL]

Give me an example.

For me a "lucky punch" was when Liddell KOed Couture in both the second and third fight. Couture was hurt and his equilibrium was out of wax after he got poke in the eye by Liddell in the second fight. Right as Liddell knock out Couture, Couture was holding on to the fence to gain his balance before he got hit.

In the third fight, Couture slipped as he was bobbing on the inside for a hook. As soon as he slipped, Liddell caught him with A hook that dropped Couture.

Those are good examples of "lucky punches". Another good example of a "lucky punch" is Sonnen catching an unbalanced Silva with a left in the fifth round.

Basically any time a fighter throws a wild punch and it lands clean on the button there is a large luck factor involved.

Or when by chance, the guy that gets hit was diving in with his head at the same time the other guy was throwing.

An extreme example would be if I was to close my eyes and wing a haymaker against someone and it landed clean and KO's the guy. Pretty lucky!

Your examples have luck factors in them, no doubt. All punches do, but some have larger factors than others.

When something can be considered to have a significant enough luck component to be deemed "lucky" is entirely subjective though.

 

[bubkusjones]

After reading the rest of your post, all I saw was excuses, hypothetical "if they fought this and this much out of that much than GSP would win this much" and more excuses.

Of course you do, otherwise you would actually have to admit that my arguments have merit. The point is, based on their careers up to that fight, and after that fight, how they performed, their wins, their losses, and their opponents, to think that Matt Serra had any legitimate chance of winning would be laughable. Yet it happened. To think that a fighter with absolutely 0 wins via strikes would be able to knock out a fighter who's never been stopped by strikes (or, IIRC ever in any real danger of losing via strikes) would've made bookies laugh as they expected to pocket all your money.

That is where it's different from Cain-JDS 1, even though it was a 1 minute knockout of a guy who's never been knocked out. JDS is a powerful and rather accurate striker who's knocked out several fighters. In fact, it's is main method of victory.

If Matt Serra was that good at game planning that he could beat GSP regardless, why hasn't he been able to do it against the lower-tier fighters he's lost to? Why was Chris Lytle able to beat him? Why was Shonie Carter? What about BJ Penn or Matt Hughes (both of whom GSP defeated twice, pretty easily making the case that GSP is superior to them)?

I am just focusing on that fight. Serra came with the perfect game plan and won. You say it is an abnormally. Yet what you are really saying is that GSP did not improved then since that fight.

What's the point of focusing on that one fight, like the others don't exist?

It is a fact that GSP changed his style drastically after that fight. He has become more cautious. Before he would be more aggressive with his kickboxing.

GSP also develop a strong wrestling skillset in him between the time he fought Serra and then the rematch.

By fact is, GSP was not flawless. No one is. Even a underdog can figure out the perfect game plan to beat a greater fighter. This is MMA, which is a sport, which deals greatly with strategies. This is not a bar fight.

Who said it was a bar fight? Who said anyone was flawless? Maybe you should try arguing the actual points I'm making, and not what you think/wish I was saying.

There's a difference between figuring out the game plan to beat a fighter, and actually being able to implement it. A lot of it does have to deal with skill, and based on skill, there is no way that GSP should've lost. He demonstrated superior striking, superior grappling and superior athleticism in his fights up to that point (losing only once to the division's then-champion and division GOAT, only to avenge it a couple fights later). Everything Matt Serra does GSP can do just as well, if not better.

And, yet, he did lose. So, there must be more to fighting and winning than just game plans, athleticism and technique. That's where luck comes in. The uncontrollable events outside of the cage that affect what happens inside. The cage floor being covered in logos printed on a material a little too slippery when wet. Old scar tissue opening up from a clash of heads, or your opponents blood/sweat dripping in your eye (distracting you and opening you up to attack). Hell, your cornerman accidentally tearing open the bag of ice, having it spill over the octagon floor, prompting Joe Rogan to lose his mind. Shit happens that no one has control over, that's where luck comes in.

 

[Igorreboucas]

There isn't lucky, just train. On the first fight JDS was better than cian, probably he trained harder than Cain to that fight, so he was better than Cain in that night. Now Cain was better than JDS on the second fight. It's just a moment question, this is a very dinamic sport, if you wanna be on the top for some years you have to keep trainning hard. There are some ways of training results be showed such as a punch, a submission or a dominant winning.

 

[Soul Slasher**]

Of course you do, otherwise you would actually have to admit that my arguments have merit. The point is, based on their careers up to that fight, and after that fight, how they performed, their wins, their losses, and their opponents, to think that Matt Serra had any legitimate chance of winning would be laughable. Yet it happened. To think that a fighter with absolutely 0 wins via strikes would be able to knock out a fighter who's never been stopped by strikes (or, IIRC ever in any real danger of losing via strikes) would've made bookies laugh as they expected to pocket all your money.

There is no merit. You are just reaching for every single straw you can to consider that win a "fluke" when in reality, the only people that uses the term "fluke" is as a cop out to justify why their favorite fighter lost to a underdog. 45% of Serra's wins were by submission, because he s a great grappler. Yet because his primary skill set was grappling, no one was really aware of his punching power.

He came in with a different game plan against GSP and it worked. Did it worked the second time? No it didn't. That is because GSP studied his mistake from the first fight, while improving himself more and while knowing what Serra may do in the rematch.

If Matt Serra was that good at game planning that he could beat GSP regardless, why hasn't he been able to do it against the lower-tier fighters he's lost to? Why was Chris Lytle able to beat him? Why was Shonie Carter? What about BJ Penn or Matt Hughes (both of whom GSP defeated twice, pretty easily making the case that GSP is superior to them)?

This makes no sense. One can find the perfect strategy for a fighter and not be a good game planner in general. Now you are just looking at it from black and white instead of gray. You are basically denying that Serra had came with good game pl;an against GSP when anyone that trains in Boxing would tell you what he was doing.

You obviously have never train before. No offense. Just saying. You cannot say Serra did not have a good game plan. It worked against GSP and it worked well.

What's the point of focusing on that one fight, like the others don't exist?

Because that is the fight that we are talking about. You are reaching for straws bringing in other fights to discredit Serra's win here. When in reality you are just a fan of GSP who cannot tolerate that he got TKO by Serra because Serra was simply the better man that night.

The term "fluke" is the nuthugger's favorite word of denial.

Who said it was a bar fight? Who said anyone was flawless? Maybe you should try arguing the actual points I'm making, and not what you think/wish I was saying.

You are going by the logic that GSP is flawless and that Serra did not win with a game plan. Figure it out.

There's a difference between figuring out the game plan to beat a fighter, and actually being able to implement it.

And it was successfully implemented by Serra. Are you drunk?

A lot of it does have to deal with skill, and based on skill, there is no way that GSP should've lost. He demonstrated superior striking, superior grappling and superior athleticism in his fights up to that point (losing only once to the division's then-champion and division GOAT, only to avenge it a couple fights later). Everything Matt Serra does GSP can do just as well, if not better.

Athleticism can only get you so far. You can be good at something and execute the perfect gameplan to beat someone who is better than you without having a game plan himself.

In the rematch GSP had the right game plan and dominated Serra. Plan and simple.

And, yet, he did lose. So, there must be more to fighting and winning than just game plans, athleticism and technique. That's where luck comes in. .

No that is where game planning comes in. Again MMA is not a bar fight.

Go train in Boxing and BJJ. Go to a MMA school or even a Boxing or Muay Thai school. Talk to the coaches and trainers about the importance of game planning and strategies. I can also PM you links about the importance of game planning.

Hopefully than you will see that MMA is not a random bar fight where guys goes in there without strategies. Look up Greg Jackson. He is known for executing great game planning for his fighters. Hopefully as you know more about game planning and the skill set applied in MMA, you will appreciate MMA even more.

 

[MartyMcFry]

Something I've learned from some dumb fucks on the forum is that if you finish your opponent with a strike, it's a fluke. You can't prove you are a better fighter unless you have lacking finishing ability and can't finish your opponent unless you throw about 50+ strikes, only then are you allowed to finish your opponent. If you finish your opponent with less than 10 strikes, you have not proven yourself and are just a fluke. If you have finishing ability and are able to use it, you should be DQd.Seriously, you need to give a beatdown before a finish, it's a must! For fucks sake, fucken fuck, people are so fucken dumb.

 

[dildos]

i agree, every way you try to win isnt a fluke. if you win by knock out you meant to throw that shot. if you win by sub, you meant to go for it. decisions are iffy tho.

 

[magigong]

So if jds stayed down after the first punch, would that be a fluke victory? Jds did in 2 minutes what Cain tried and couldn't do in 25 min

 

[Hellscream]

Unless someone trips and falls into their opponent's fist, it's hard to call something a "fluke" or a "lucky" punch. If you swing at a person with the intent to hit them and do, that is not luck.

 

[maniacmatt1782]

After Velasquez' domination over JDS this weekend, I have seen so many refer to their first fight as a fluke victory. This makes me think.. There is no such thing as a lucky punch if you really think about it.

Cain's injuries in the previous fight had absolutely nothing to do with JDS hitting a punch he throws often. It had nothing to do with his ability to take a punch. It had nothing to do with where it was placed. It was thrown, with the intent to land and damage him, and that's what it did. Same goes for the Russow-Duffe fight.

So many say Duffee would win again because of how he dominated him, but really? Russow took all the damage and then landed a violent punch, intended to hurt. It wasn't just something he threw randomly. You throw every punch with intentions to damage your opp, or score points. That punch was clearly meant with bad intentions. So, does the domination make Duffee a better fighter? Maybe..

It could be that the better fighter won on the specific nights in the examples mentioned above. Or it could be that specific qualities in those fighters shined on those very nights. Russow showed his durability and power, JDS showed his speed and power. Cain showed his relentless pace. Point is, there are no lucky shots or victories. It's all about what you put out there, and what openings you capitalize on. If you leave openings like in these examples, you obviously have holes that need to be covered, that hinder you from being the better fighter.

Discuss.

I agree that it was not a fluke, but I disagree with the injury being a non factor. Look How aggressively Cain over committed to takedown attempts early which flustered JDS. he did not and I believe could not implement this gameplan in the 1st fight due to injury. Once JDS was too worried about the takedown, his hands were down and Cain landed with power. In a straight kick boxing match, I would favor JDS every single time. But a heavy handed wrestler who can land will always have a fighting chance vs a pure striker in MMA. Even in the stand up because the threat of the takedown changes the defense. If Cain can't commit to a takedown due to injury, he loses 99 out of 100 to JDS, he isnt as good a striker. But if he can have the takedown threat there, he can outstrike JDS due to the threat of the takedown and landing powerful shots when he overcommits to stuff it,

 

[boss429]

After Velasquez' domination over JDS this weekend, I have seen so many refer to their first fight as a fluke victory. This makes me think.. There is no such thing as a lucky punch if you really think about it.

Cain's injuries in the previous fight had absolutely nothing to do with JDS hitting a punch he throws often. It had nothing to do with his ability to take a punch. It had nothing to do with where it was placed. It was thrown, with the intent to land and damage him, and that's what it did. Same goes for the Russow-Duffe fight.

So many say Duffee would win again because of how he dominated him, but really? Russow took all the damage and then landed a violent punch, intended to hurt. It wasn't just something he threw randomly. You throw every punch with intentions to damage your opp, or score points. That punch was clearly meant with bad intentions. So, does the domination make Duffee a better fighter? Maybe..

It could be that the better fighter won on the specific nights in the examples mentioned above. Or it could be that specific qualities in those fighters shined on those very nights. Russow showed his durability and power, JDS showed his speed and power. Cain showed his relentless pace. Point is, there are no lucky shots or victories. It's all about what you put out there, and what openings you capitalize on. If you leave openings like in these examples, you obviously have holes that need to be covered, that hinder you from being the better fighter.

Discuss.

I sort of disagree, when you have your head down and eye's closed just winging punches if one happens to connect you could argue it was a fluke. For clear examples of non-flukes see JDS/Cain 1, Silva/Belfort and Cung/Franklin, look at there eye's the shot's land right were they're looking, meaning it was an intentional, perfectly placed shot.

The only example off the top of my head that I can think of right now as a possible fluke( and I know this isn't going to be popular) is Cain/Nog, eyes closed throwing punches. Nothing against Cain it's just the first one that came to mind that I know can be supported with a GIF.

 

[daniel san]

Can't recall if I've already replied to this threads, but here goes:

Matt Serra vs GSP 1. That was a fluke.

No discussion necessary, it's the truth, which means fluke wins do exist.

 

[IIIIIIII]

shogun breaking his arm after coleman's takedown in their first fight was a fluke, in my opinion.

i understand that coleman wanted to take shogun down, but no one in the world expected shogun's arm to break because of the takedown.

 

[osudude]

MMA fights, just like most of existence, are an exercise in probability. So, yes, there are fluke wins. If you matched up Cain and JDS (or any two fighters) 100 times under the same conditions, and one wins 95% of the time, then the 5 victories the other gets could reasonably described as flukes.

The problem is we hardly ever get 3 fights, much less than the 20+ we need to make a halfway decent probabilistic prediction of all future fights that would help us determine who is truly the better fighter.

So we make guesses based on what we saw during the fight.

 

[magigong]

MMA fights, just like most of existence, are an exercise in probability. So, yes, there are fluke wins. If you matched up Cain and JDS (or any two fighters) 100 times under the same conditions, and one wins 95% of the time, then the 5 victories the other gets could reasonably described as flukes.

The problem is we hardly ever get 3 fights, much less than the 20+ we need to make a halfway decent probabilistic prediction of all future fights that would help us determine who is truly the better fighter.

So we make guesses based on what we saw during the fight.

Great way of explaining it.

 

[magigong]

Gsp and Serra is still 1-1
Cain and Jds is still 1-1
Accomplishing a finish is a lot better than trying to finish and not succeeding Are you going to say that Cain was not trying to finish jds

 

[Otto!]

Serra vs. GSP 1 was a fluke. GSP wins that fight 9 out of 10 times. We just saw the 1 out of 10 fight.

I'd say GSP wins that 49 out of 50 times....