Nicklas B

[0hm]

LOlz @ 'barely over chance'.

Your entire argument presupposes a trend that you have failed to prove and is filled to the brim with logic fails. I look forward to seeing your paper on topic.

The trend is self-evident and taking place around you, right now. The overwhelming majority of successful fighters with stellar careers never experienced an out-cold event, and when they did their career was negatively impacted (could be a by-product as previously mentioned); and those that experience an out-cold event have a more difficult time reaching the top of the sport (for very obvious reasons).

I am not entirely sure what you think is wrong with this logic, it is quite cogent. It should not be crazy to state that fighters that can take hard shots may experience greater success in combat sports relative to fighters that cannot take hard shots.

Also, Hunt has a 55% win rate. Not sure why you are laughing aloud at my comment about his record.

 

[5Rounder]

The trend is self-evident and taking place around you, right now. The overwhelming majority of successful fighters with stellar careers never experienced an out-cold event, and when they did their career was negatively impacted (could be a by-product as previously mentioned); and those that experience an out-cold event have a more difficult time reaching the top of the sport (for very obvious reasons).

I am not entirely sure what you think is wrong with this logic, it is quite cogent. It should not be crazy to state that fighters that can take hard shots may experience greater success in combat sports relative to fighters that cannot take hard shots.

Also, Hunt has a 55% win rate. Not sure why you are laughing aloud at my comment about his record.

The problem with this logic is that it confuses correlation with causation and the further problem with this argumentative theme is that you've ignored that counter-argument.

And I'm laughing at you because you seem to be implying that an MMA fight is a chance event like flipping a coin and that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

 

[0hm]

The problem with this logic is that it confuses correlation with causation and the further problem with this argumentative theme is that you've ignored that counter-argument.

And I'm laughing at you because you seem to be implying that an MMA fight is a chance event like flipping a coin and that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

There is nothing about the quoted logic that assumes causation over correlation. It is you providing that connection.

I had quotation marks around the word chance, so I did not imply that the fight game is analogous to a coin toss. oftentimes, chance - in this context - is used in place of 50/50. I am sorry that common writing techniques elude you.

 

[flanellograf]

Standard definition of the term works (relating to the stars; exceptional/outstanding): Hunt has not had a stellar career (thus far); Rampage did well thereafter (noted); Overeem is questionable; Nelson did okay (not stellar); Bisping has yet to earn even a title shot in the UFC; Machida has been noted; Cub Swanson was never out cold and neither was GSP; Lawler may have been out cold and he is on his way to a stellar career, indeed.

The latter part of your post is very telling of what I am talking about.

I feel the question might be misleading to start with. Very few fighters have stellar careers, in your definition. You can take any factor, any setback or whatever, a fighter has had and point to it and say "look, that's why they haven't succeeded". When the reality is , they didn't succeed simply because very few do, whether it is about skill or luck.
It just strikes me as dicey to attribute (or just correlate) their lack of success to just one factor, when in fact it likely is a multitude.
Unless you establish a sensible, provable hypothesis as for why it is because of that factor, it's not much more than an interesting tidbit.

 

[0hm]

I feel the question might be misleading to start with. Very few fighters have stellar careers, in your definition. You can take any factor, any setback or whatever, a fighter has had and point to it and say "look, that's why they haven't succeeded". When the reality is , they didn't succeed simply because very few do, whether it is about skill or luck.

I would agree with all of your comments. Very few fighters experience a stellar career, that appears to be factually accurate.

My comment was always more (than anything else): "Fighters with weaker chins may have a harder time in the fight game relative to fighters with solid chins."

Seems axiomatic, I admit, but worthwhile nonetheless. If Niklas demonstrates this physical property again in the future, we will have more answers.

To you edits: To be fair, I am not sure I ever said it was based on one factor (others have said that in my place, however). If I did allude to such a thing, that was not my intention as I would never make such a claim about this sport. I never meant it to be more than a "tidbit."

 

[flanellograf]

I would agree with all of your comments. Very few fighters experience a stellar career, that appears to be factually accurate.

My comment was always more (than anything else): "Fighters with weaker chins may have a harder time in the fight game relative to fighters with solid chins."

Seems axiomatic, I admit, but worthwhile nonetheless. If Niklas demonstrates this physical property again in the future, we will have more answers.

My point was merely that getting knocked out cold does not necessarily mean you have a weak chin. Being knocked out cold seems just as much a matter of inches and bad luck, as it is about the strength of your chin. And fighters with iron chins, have been knocked out. And again; I didn't see anything in that knockout that led me to believe Nicklas has a bad chin. Pretty much anyone would have been knocked out, imo.

 

[0hm]

My point was merely that getting knocked out cold does not necessarily mean you have a weak chin. Being knocked out cold seems just as much a matter of inches and bad luck, as it is about the strength of your chin. And fighters with iron chins, have been knocked out. And again; I didn't see anything in that knockout that led me to believe Nicklas has a bad chin. Pretty much anyone would have been knocked out, imo.

We do need more data on him, that is certain. However, going out-cold like that is more often than not a bad thing for a fighter's career (and the health of their brain moving forward).

 

[flanellograf]

We do need more data on him, that is certain. However, going out-cold like that is more often than not a bad thing for a fighter's career (and the health of their brain moving forward).

It for sure wasn't good. It was mostly the floor hitting him in the back of the head that put him out cold, I believe. Which is bad in and of itself. There is a reason for why back of the head strikes are not allowed.
But I feel he would have to be really unlucky for that one time to affect the rest of his career very negatively. Sure, it sets him back a bit, but there is no reason for why he can't get right back on that train. Now, does he go back to the gym and happens to get knocked out again in the near future, then it's a lot, lot, worse. Hopefully they are smart at Allstars about that sort of thing.

 

[5Rounder]

There is nothing about the quoted logic that assumes causation over correlation. It is you providing that connection.

I had quotation marks around the word chance, so I did not imply that the fight game is analogous to a coin toss. oftentimes, chance - in this context - is used in place of 50/50. I am sorry that common writing techniques elude you.

If you're not arguing for a causal connection, then what's the point of your argument? And agree to disagree that using the word 'chance' in this context is appropriate or a common writing technique.

Edit: I see you've reduced the substance of your argument to fighter with shitty chin = less likely to succeed than fighter with good chin. Innovative.