Jay Jay
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2012
- Messages
- 532
- Reaction score
- 0
I am glad the majority are favoring Cormier to beat Mir, although Mir definitely is capable of pulling off this upset. But there's still a sizable contingent who claims Mir is going to outclass Cormier simply because of his long UFC tenure against "proven" competition as if that's the be-all-end-all in a match-up (it's more-so their rationale than the fact that they are favoring Mir)
Case in point:
My question is: why aren't we capable of showing more depth in fight analyses beyond comparing "who has more UFC wins"
It's funny how people in MMA can't come to grips with fight skill and a fight record not being necessarily synonymous. Like Renan Barao is going to lose to Urijah Faber because Barao has only beat Brad Pickett and Faber has lost to everybody. Sometimes, it's a red flag if a fighter has beat nobody, but if the actual skills are there, seems silly to cry about the resume.
Then again, I heard a million people talking about Jon Jones getting trashed by Shogun for the same reason. It's like, you know, whatever.
Boxing fans, by comparison, appear to have a more nuanced understanding of their sport. I understand that MMA as a sport is relatively young, but we can still definitely step up our game. Just my $0.02
Case in point:
People forget that in the past 5 years, Mir has only lost to the very best HW's in the world (Carwin, JDS and Lesnar), 2 of whom are former UFC champions. He broke Nog's arm, KO'ed Mirko, choked out Kongo, picked up a win over Nelson and subbed a relatively green Lesnar. Mir has beaten and lost to much stiffer competition that Cormier has faced.
At 5'11", Cormier is a tiny HW with great wrestling and decent striking. Mir, OTOH, is a big HW with great submissions and solid striking. He's a former world champion and a proven quantity.
If you pick Cormier in this fight, it means you like Cormier, dislike Mir or you don't know the definition of the word hype.
My question is: why aren't we capable of showing more depth in fight analyses beyond comparing "who has more UFC wins"
It's funny how people in MMA can't come to grips with fight skill and a fight record not being necessarily synonymous. Like Renan Barao is going to lose to Urijah Faber because Barao has only beat Brad Pickett and Faber has lost to everybody. Sometimes, it's a red flag if a fighter has beat nobody, but if the actual skills are there, seems silly to cry about the resume.
Then again, I heard a million people talking about Jon Jones getting trashed by Shogun for the same reason. It's like, you know, whatever.
Boxing fans, by comparison, appear to have a more nuanced understanding of their sport. I understand that MMA as a sport is relatively young, but we can still definitely step up our game. Just my $0.02