- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 6,482
- Reaction score
- 695
All fighters mentioned are experienced and have been around for years.
And in the case with Rockhold an Werdum, they both made serious mistakes which allowed the ko to happen
All fighters mentioned are experienced and have been around for years.
That's a perfect way of putting it. I get sick of the overly literal approach:Yes i know if you intend to throw a punch and it lands then it's not luck but how many times can you do it out of a hundred
If i throw a dart at a dartboard and get a bullseye that i was aiming for, it's not technically luck because i aimed for it, but it is luck because i'm not skilled enough to repeat the feat as much as the professionals
You're comparing apples to oranges with your examples.
The intention of a fighter is to land a strike in close quarters. They are trained for it and do it with regularity. Woodley is a hard, explosive puncher, especially early in a fight. If he lands cleanly, you're in a lot of trouble.
Now, could this ever happen again in a rematch? If it was luck as you say, then the odds would be almost infinitesimal that it wouldn't. The problem is they are not, which is why luck should not be mentioned.
You want to know examples of mma luck? Belfort's eyescrape win over Couture. Shogun dislocating his elbow from Coleman on a takedown. Jon Jones tearing his toe almost completely off. These are odd circumstances that cannot be trained for or duplicated.
Pancrase?Yes, we should book fighters to not punch the head. Patterson, get in here.
with MMA you have the smaller gloves but more importantly, when a punch is landed, with the follow up, there is no chance to recover like a knockdown in boxing
That;s all good and well, but it is resulting in way too many upsets
Fighters are the top are all very skilled nowadays, there are no muppets
Anyone can land that one strike
Imagine if tennis matches were won by one great point won by the lesser player or one touchdown in the NFL or one basket in the NBA
I don't mind upsets in sport, its good for the sport but in MMA there are too many and they just do not feel earned
If someone outside the Top 10 beats Federer or Murray in a grand slam over 5 sets they have definitely earnt it
Werdum rushed in out of desperation. He was losing the fight up to that point.I'm not about to say any of these guys will reign long, but I don't necessarily agree with the fluke part. Luck is important to pretty much everything in life, but you can try to improve your luck.
Werdum rushed into Stipe and Stipe capitalized. Rockhold threw a shitty jab and Bisping capitalized. Alvarez had some good exchanges with RDA, defended the TD, threw the same right hook that he had been throwing, the same hook that he hit RDA with just before the one that dropped him, and then never let up. Woodley threw a right earlier in the fight that barely missed then threw a faint to the body and the same right again. He also arguably made Robbie respect his ability to use wrestling if he just moved forward willy nilly by level changing.
These guys weren't swinging wildly and had clear intentions and/or game plans. And capitalizing on a fighter's mistakes takes at least some skill imo. And neither Bisping or Stipe are bums either. Plus, Luke is known for not having the best boxing skills in the world. Mike tagged him up in the first fight before the kick. Can't recall how often Werdum bum rushes.
Sure, but, as I said above, Woodley threw a right earlier in the fight that barely missed then threw a faint to the body and the same right again. He also made Robbie respect his ability to use wrestling if he just moved forward willy nilly by level changing.
Woodley most definitely had a solid game plan and executed it very well imho.
with MMA you have the smaller gloves but more importantly, when a punch is landed, with the follow up, there is no chance to recover like a knockdown in boxing
That;s all good and well, but it is resulting in way too many upsets
Fighters are the top are all very skilled nowadays, there are no muppets
Anyone can land that one strike
Imagine if tennis matches were won by one great point won by the lesser player or one touchdown in the NFL or one basket in the NBA
I don't mind upsets in sport, its good for the sport but in MMA there are too many and they just do not feel earned
If someone outside the Top 10 beats Federer or Murray in a grand slam over 5 sets they have definitely earnt it
This is exactly on point. If I launch a basketball from past half court and it goes in, the fact that I aimed for it and had the intent to make it does not make it any less lucky. A lot of people, particularly those with unyielding, black and white mindsets are afraid to admit the luck involved with these sorts of things.I'm not even talking about Woodley specifically. I am talking about the idea that "luck", or favorable improbable circumstance happens and people who say intent is proof it isn't luck are wrong.
Baseball players and basketball players train every day too. And still rarely succeed at certain things. Like a short stop who hits a few home runs a year. Or maybe zero. If he hits one off a good pitcher it is luck. Just like many good basketball players make lucky shots. It happens.
And I agree MMA has a larger luck factor than other sports. A single second ends a game. One mistake. One score. Over. That instant.
And I think prolonged beatings are more decisive. Like Cain vs JDS. Cain beating him around the ring for however many rounds is more impressive than JDS knocking him out early. A prolonged ass beating is rarely luck.
That's a perfect way of putting it. I get sick of the overly literal approach:
"It's a punch meant to knock you out, it can't be luck."
Yeah, bullshit. Like you said, it can still be luck
I think its the nature of some people. They are petrified to admit that nothing in life is absolute and the fact that a fight could have ten different results in ten matches doesn't make sense in their "logical" brain.Agreed. There's a pretentious legitimacy to those arguments supposedly against excuses... some can't accept that a fight's outcome often is not absolute proof of anything or a clear display of who is superior. Like ts said, in a boxing match you could get a knock down in the first 10 secs and still dominate the rest of the fight, because you'll be allowed to recover.
By betting odds Woodley was considered to have less than 50% chance to win last night, yet he happened to win. In other words his variance happened to be on his side in the most important moment of his career despite it was (considered) unlikely. You can definitely say he was lucky in that sense. This should not be difficult to understand. Not going to explain it further, you either get it or you dont.