Flukes. And does the better man always win? (somewhat long and wordy)

[Negative Zero]

Disclaimer: This isn't a long post that exists for the purpose of arguing that Luke is better. It's a genuine discussion about the subjects in the title and you can read on if you're interested in that.

Nothing is ever a fluke. The better fighter won. It's not like accidently punch Luke. I think he meant to make sure he wins.

This is what I dislike. I'm not one to use the term "fluke" often, partially because it's somewhat disrespectful but also because that would diminish the meaning of the word--but it exists for a purpose. It means a singular event not indicative of the typical trend for a situation. The word exists because that situation exists, whether you like the word or not.

Fight fans accept that "anything can happen", but many simultaneously believe that only the better fighter wins. This is impossible, these two things don't coincide. It's rare to have two top fighters that are so comparable in skill that you can imagine if they fought 100 times that one would win about 50. (Let's not get into the problems this hypothetical poses, I hope you get my point.) This means that there is usually one fighter of the two that will win more often.

Now, the "better" fighter isn't always going to be favorable in the matchup. Diverting to strictly personal opinion, I think Anderson Silva's striking is historically overall better than Weidman's, but for a variety of reasons Weidman does better in the standup when they fight. Also, as much as GSP/Serra I supports my argument, I'd like to say that if Serra had knocked out GSP a second time in similar fashion, and then Serra's career tapered off as it did and GSP's career resumed similarly to the way it actually did--I would argue GSP is still the better fighter, in a general sense as an appraisal of his skills.

So really we get into the theory that there are two different concepts of "better" that are being used interchangeably.

1. Who is the better fighter overall, if you had to rate them based on past performances
2. Who gets the better of the other fighter more often when they personally fight

And we can debate either or both. I would argue, (as would the majority of people before tonight, but fewer now, and reasonably so) that Rockhold comes out on top in both senses. His striking is more fluid, powerful, and diverse, his grappling is much more effective, and when he fights to the best of his ability he outclasses Bisping completely (as I surmise). Injuries and poor decisions are what makes this debate even more subjective because it can only be speculated (and argued relentlessly) as to what degree the outcome was affected by these things. I guess that's part of what makes these debates so difficult and ultimately pointless, but hey. It still surprises me that people lash out so passionately when it's implied either of these things affected the outcome at all. I don't know why this is so hard for people to stomach, without being insulting I find this to be common sense. Sometimes people are hurt. Sometimes people do dumb things.

Regardless, I think it's clear to those willing to consider it that Rockhold took Bisping lightly. Additionally I noticed during the fight that Rockhold was being insanely predictable with his head movement. He almost exclusively moved his ahead away in a straight line to the side as a response to every attack. Tomorrow I may add gifs here and show what I'm talking about but it was getting me worried and of course eventually he paid for it. I'd argue that's not typical of his skillset and consideration of this would help understand the argument that he may be better than this loss shows. But these things are just my opinion, I would have stated them as such even if Rockhold had won. It wouldn't have added anything to just have said "Rockhold won, that's why he's better". We don't learn how good someone is on Fight Finder, we do it by watching them fight.

I hope this comes off the way I intended. It's absolutely fine to truly believe Bisping is the better fighter but it would be nice to elevate the discourse beyond "He's better because he won", though, it's not unreasonable to say that's compelling evidence for the second definition of "better" as stated above.

I'm not sure if there was any value in this but maybe someone will find it interesting. Either way, congratulations to Dominic Cruz and Michael Bisping and I hope you guys had fun tonight, it was a great card.

 

[Emjay]

Terms like "better" are subjective. It's a fight and anything can happen. This is proven time and time and time again.

People thought Rockhold was "better" and was going to win. Since he didn't, they now don't know how to define "better".

Just like people say GSP is "better" than Matt Serra. I always remind those folks that they're 1 - 1 against each other.

 

[soulsstealer]

Its like 8-2 matchup. sometimes the other guy will win.

 

[Negative Zero]

Terms like "better" are subjective. It's a fight and anything can happen. This is proven time and time and time again.

People thought Rockhold was "better" and was going to win. Since he didn't, they now don't know how to define "better".

Just like people say GSP is "better" than Matt Serra. I always remind those folks that they're 1 - 1 against each other.

This is a bit of what I'm talking about. I'm not sure I see the relevance of their record against each other without that being supported by an argument rooted in how their skills match up against each other. I sometimes get the feeling, and not necessarily in your case, that people are obsessed with pointing out wins and losses because it's a safe position. No one can call you wrong for pointing out that Serra defeated GSP but the context is the compelling thing here and we both know how much better GSP is, at least in the first sense defined above. In the second sense, again, you could be right (if you were arguing they matched up well) but the record alone isn't compelling.

 

[Emjay]

This is a bit of what I'm talking about. I'm not sure I see the relevance of their record against each other without that being supported by an argument rooted in how their skills match up against each other. I sometimes get the feeling, and not necessarily in your case, that people are obsessed with pointing out wins and losses because it's a safe position. No one can call you wrong for pointing out that Serra defeated GSP but the context is the compelling thing here and we both know how much better GSP is, at least in the first sense defined above. In the second sense, again, you could be right (if you were arguing they matched up well) but the record alone isn't compelling.

The whole point of all of this is the result of the head to head competition.

It's not a competition to see who looks prettier and can do more things while hitting pads.

 

[Negative Zero]

The whole point of all of this is the result of the head to head competition.

It's not a competition to see who looks prettier and can do more things while hitting pads.

That's fine as long as you understand that I didn't invent the concept of people being better than each other at things. I see that all you are capable of is regurgitating the idea that whoever wins is automatically better and you're completely incapable of supporting this with anything substantive, so I guess I'll give you the last word and move on to people who can participate in big boy discussions.

 

[Emjay]

That's fine as long as you understand that I didn't invent the concept of people being better than each other at things. I see that all you are capable of is regurgitating the idea that whoever wins is automatically better and you're completely incapable of supporting this with anything substantive, so I guess I'll give you the last word and move on to people who can participate in big boy discussions.

I never said anyone was "better". I think my level of discussion might be a little to big boy for you here.

What does "better" even mean then?

 

[Negative Zero]

I never said anyone was "better". I think my level of discussion might be a little to big boy for you here.

What does "better" even mean then?

I'll respond because you asked a question, but I'm very tempted to simply respond with another question which is "Did you even read the original post of the thread you're responding to?" I know you didn't, at least not in its entirety but I'll throw you a bone.

From the op:

"So really we get into the theory that there are two different concepts of "better" that are being used interchangeably.

1. Who is the better fighter overall, if you had to rate them based on past performances
2. Who gets the better of the other fighter more often when they personally fight"

If you follow this up with another question I've already answered I may not respond.

 

[tenniswhiz]

That's fine as long as you understand that I didn't invent the concept of people being better than each other at things. I see that all you are capable of is regurgitating the idea that whoever wins is automatically better and you're completely incapable of supporting this with anything substantive, so I guess I'll give you the last word and move on to people who can participate in big boy discussions.

It's a weird MMA fanboy thing.

Diehard fans want to feel smart by dissecting a win, acting like it was logical and scientific, and then claiming that the winner is "simply better".

Fans in all other sports are different. Nobody bats an eyelid when the top tennis player in the world loses to someone who is outside the top 100.
There are no idiot fans there who say the stupid line, "luck is when preparation meets opportunity." Some fighter said that once, and it sounds poetic, but there is nothing brilliant about it.
Hell, in a tennis match a hard first serve that lands in just wins you a single point. You have to win dozens more to win a set. And sometimes 100's of points to win a match. And winning a match doesn't make someone "simply better."
Yet in MMA, a fighter lands a single solid punch and half of Sherdog decides "they are simply the better fighter."

Another thing in this sport is the amount of respect given to pro fighters, BJJ black belts, and great standup fighters, and the assumption that they must be brilliant people.
You don't have to be smart to be any of the above. Not at all. None of them turned down admission to MIT to become a fighter.

That all being said, I am kind of happy for Bisping that he gets to be champ.

 

[Jin Akutsu]

Didn't read.

 

[mangokush]

It is only considered a fluke when the fighter i don't like won.

Bisping vs Rockhold 2 was not a fluke

Aldo vs Conor was a fluke

 

[Emjay]

I'll respond because you asked a question, but I'm very tempted to simply respond with another question which is "Did you even read the original post of the thread you're responding to?" I know you didn't, at least not in its entirety but I'll throw you a bone.

From the op:

"So really we get into the theory that there are two different concepts of "better" that are being used interchangeably.

1. Who is the better fighter overall, if you had to rate them based on past performances
2. Who gets the better of the other fighter more often when they personally fight"

If you follow this up with another question I've already answered I may not respond.

Of course I didn't read the OP in it's entirety. That's not what's done here.

People just use the term (in this case "better") that fits their argument at the time they're making an argument. There are no flukes, because there are "no best of 10s" to test the fluke theory.

 

[Negative Zero]

It's a weird MMA fanboy thing.

Diehard fans want to feel smart by dissecting a win, acting like it was logical and scientific, and then claiming that the winner is "simply better".

Fans in all other sports are different. Nobody bats an eyelid when the top tennis player in the world loses to someone who is outside the top 100.
There are no idiot fans there who say the stupid line, "luck is when preparation meets opportunity." Some fighter said that once, and it sounds poetic, but there is nothing brilliant about it.
Hell, in a tennis match a hard first serve that lands in just wins you a single point. You have to win dozens more to win a set. And sometimes 100's of points to win a match. And winning a match doesn't make someone "simply better."
Yet in MMA, a fighter lands a single solid punch and half of Sherdog decides "they are simply the better fighter."

Another thing in this sport is the amount of respect given to pro fighters, BJJ black belts, and great standup fighters, and the assumption that they must be brilliant people.
You don't have to be smart to be any of the above. Not at all. None of them turned down admission to MIT to become a fighter.

That all being said, I am kind of happy for Bisping that he gets to be champ.

Well I'll chalk this up as a win. Someone gets it.

The idea of "elevating the discourse" here was a little tongue-in-cheek. I know what I'm dealing with. I still felt like getting my thoughts out though.

 

[Negative Zero]

Of course I didn't read the OP in it's entirety. That's not what's done here.

People just use the term (in this case "better") that fits their argument at the time they're making an argument. There are no flukes, because there are "no best of 10s" to test the fluke theory.

This is absolutely fair and part of the trouble with defining who is better in the second sense of the word "better" as I used it. It's the first sense I find easier to discuss, and it's the fact that people use the term ubiquitously that makes the discussion so difficult. And I'm sorry for insulting you but I found your second response to be non-sequitur.

 

[blaseblah]

When a fighter has glaring flaws in their striking defense it usually contributes to them losing fights we expect them to win. We had previously seen this from Rockhold in the Vitor fight and even in the Machida fight where he was caught right on the chin multiple times before it went to the ground and he dominated the Dragon there.

Cain is another example of this, incidentally Rockhold's teammate at AKA. Seems like those guys could use a better striking coach.

 

[Negative Zero]

When a fighter has glaring flaws in their striking defense it usually contributes to them losing fights we expect them to win. We had previously seen this from Rockhold in the Vitor fight and even in the Machida fight where he was caught right on the chin multiple times before it went to the ground and he dominated the Dragon there.

Cain is another example of this, incidentally Rockhold's teammate at AKA. Seems like those guys could use a better striking coach.

I noticed this deficit tonight but I haven't really in the past. I'd like to go back and rewatch his most recent fights and if I see him doing the same stuff he did tonight then I was mistaken about his striking ability.

 

[Negative Zero]

One bump.