Trilogy fights (1-1) favor the person who won the second fight.

DeeDubb said:
I put (1-1) in the title. I didn’t want to use the term “rubber match”, because some people define it differently, and even include 2-0 trilogies in that definition.
Click to expand...

About your fluke comment, it seems to me that you're implying that 1-1 trilogies are likely to happen after a fluke in the first fight. As far as I know, flukes should be more or less equally common in the first and second fights, not sure why we should assume that it's more likely for a fluke to have occurred in the first fight than the second. Whether the first DC-Stipe fight was a fluke or not is a separate issue.

In any case, I think there are far too many individual factors specific to each trilogy, and not enough fights in the data, for any of this to have much influence in how we should see the DC - Stipe trilogy. That DC has gotten a bit older than Stipe is obvious, however it's hard to say how in shape he is. That Stipe has figured out some adjustments that DC is vulnerable to, is also obvious, without any help from statistics. Whether DC can adjust back is hard to tell. Statistics also don't tell us much about how the fights themselves went, a dominant performance or a split decision all count as the same number. It seemed like DC was doing better than Stipe and winning the fight, until he tired in the 4th and Stipe figured out the body punches, which explains why some people favor him.

We could speculate that the fighter with the most recent win has some positive psychological momentum and additional confidence, while the other is trying to redeem himself. Hard to tell.

Here is a list of trilogies in the UFC up to 2013, there were 12:
https://www.ufc.com/news/story-ufc-trilogies
Plus I looked at other lists including Pride.

I'll try to combine these with your data and see what we get. As I was saying, I'm not sure that this should weigh too much in how we see DC - Stipe 3, but I'll just list it to add to the topic.
  1. Cain Velazquez vs. Junior Dos Santos: JDS-Cain-Cain
  2. Nate Diaz vs. Gray Maynard: Nate - Gray - Nate (first fight was a TUF exhibition fight but ended in a finish)
  3. Randy Couture vs. Vitor Belfort: Couture - Vitor - Couture (this is a clear example of a "fluke" in the 2nd)
  4. Randy Couture vs. Chuck Liddell: Randy - Chuck - Chuck
  5. Tim Sylvia vs. Andrei Arlovski: Arlovski - Sylvia - Sylvia (they later had a NC in 2012, which we'll leave out)
  6. Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock: Tito - Tito - Tito
  7. Minotauro Nogueira vs. Heath Herring: Nogueira - Nogueira - Nogueira
  8. Georges St-Pierre vs. Matt Hughes Hughes - GSP - GSP
  9. Rampage Jackson vs. Wanderlei Silva: SIlva - SIlva - Rampage
  10. Matt Hughes vs. BJ Penn: BJ - Hughes - BJ
  11. Brian Stann vs. Steve Cantwell: Stann - Cantwell - Stann
  12. Forrest Griffin vs. Tito Ortiz: Tito - Griffin - Griffin
  13. Spencer Fisher vs Sam Stout: Stout - Fisher - Stout
  14. Cruz vs. Faber: Faber, Cruz, Cruz
  15. Melendez vs. Thomson: Thomson, Melendez, Melendez
  16. Bas vs. Frank: Frank, Bas, Bas
  17. Shogun vs Nogueira: Shogun - Shogun - Shogun
  18. Shinya Aoki vs. Joachim Hansen: Aoki - Hansen - Aoki
  19. Edgar vs Maynard: Maynard - Draw - Edgar
  20. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira vs. Heath Herring: Nogueira - Nogueira - Nogueira
  21. Wanderlei Silva vs. Kazushi Sakuraba: Silva - Silva - Silva
  22. Roger Bowling vs. Bobby Voelker (lol) : Bowling - Voelker - Voelker
  23. Cro Cop vs Barnett: Cro cop - Cro Cop - Cro Cop
  24. Gary Goodridge vs Don Frye: Frye - Frye - Goodridge
  25. Nick Diaz vs Jeremy Jackson: Jackson - Diaz - Diaz
  26. Chael vs Horn: Horn - Horn - Horn

Total trilogies: 26
Total trilogies 1-1 before the 3rd fight: 16
Total trilogies 2-0 before the 3rd fight: 9


Trilogies where the fighter winning the second and losing the first won the 3rd: 10/26. If we only include trilogies that were 1-1 then 10/16 (62.5%).

Trilogies where the fighter winning the first and losing the second won the 3rd: 6/26. If we only include 1-1 trilogies then 6/16 (37.5%).

Trilogies where the fighter winning the first and the second won the 3rd (3-0): 8/26. If we only include the ones that were 2-0 before the third then 7/9.

Trilogies where the fighter winning the first and the second lost the 3rd: 2/27. If we only include the ones that were 2-0 before the third then 2/9.
 
Last edited:
giovanni002 said:
Jacare vs Camozzi has to have a trilogy. Time to settle it once and for all
Click to expand...
And Oliveria vs Lentz. Lentz will body him this time. Gained all the exp in the previous fight. It's a lock.
 
Conor - Diaz - Diaz :)

(pending of course)
 
george14 said:
Give the guy credit and stop being a cunt. This was a great thread.
Click to expand...

give him the credit for bringing up that this is a trilogy fight and they are 1-1? What the fuck?

There's been multiple threads about this over months. Go eat a dick.
 
DeeDubb said:
I've had a theory since I watched the Gatti vs. Ward trilogy (one of the greatest in boxing history), that the third fight generally favors the winner of the second fight in a 1-1 trilogy. I compiled a list of well known trilogies in MMA and Boxing to see if there's enough data for statistical evidence

MMA:
GSP vs. Hughes: Hughes, GSP, GSP
Cruz vs. Faber: Faber, Cruz, Cruz
Cain vs. JDS: JDS, Cain, Cain
Chuck vs. Randy: Randy, Chuck, Chuck
Penn vs. Hughes: Penn, Hughes, Penn
Forrest vs. Ortiz: Ortiz, Forrest, Forrest
Melendez vs. Thomson: Thomson, Melendez, Melendez
Stout vs. Fisher: Stout, Fisher, Stout
Bas vs. Frank: Frank, Bas, Bas
Sylvia vs. Arlovski: Arlovski, Sylvia, Sylvia
Total third fight record: Second fight winner 8 - First fight winner - 2

I'm sure I missed some 1-1 trilogies here, so let me know.

Boxing:
Gatti-Ward: Ward, Gatti, Gatti
Michael Carbajal-Humberto Gonzalez: Carbajal, Gonzalez, Gonzalez
Ali vs. Norton: Norton, Ali, Ali
Patterson vs. Johansson: Johansson, Patterson, Patterson
Griffith vs. Benny Paret - Griffith, Paret, Griffith (Paret died in the ring unfortunately)
Barney Ross vs. Jimmy McLarnin - Ross, Mclarnin, Ross
Barerra vs. Morales - Morales, Barerra, Barerra
Zale vs. Graziano - Zale, Graziano, Zale
Ali vs. Frazier - Frazier, Ali, Ali
Leonard vs. Duran - Duran, Leonard, Leonard
Duran vs. De Jesus - De Jesus, Duran, Duran
McLarnin vs. Ross - Ross, McLarnin, Ross
Pacquiao vs. Morales - Morales, Pac, Pac
Vasquez vs. Marquez - Marquez, Vasquez, Vasquez
Total third fight record: Second fight winner 10 - First fight winner - 4

Total: 18-6 75% wins for the winner of the second fight


Why is this the case? There are a few reasons.

1. A "fluke"
Example: JDS KO'd Cain in the first fight, and people were wondering if it was a fluke, so they had a rematch to see. If JDS had won, there would have been no trilogy, and the "fluke" talk would have ended (see Rose vs. Joanna, TJ vs. Barao). However, Cain won decisively. After two fights, it seemed kind of clear that Cain was the better fighter and the first fight was a fluke. However, because JDS won the first fight, it was enough to warrant a third fight, which Cain won the same way he won the second fight. Domination and fluke verified.

2. Too young/too old
Example: Cruz vs. Faber. Cruz was very green when he fought Faber the first time. He hadn't really come into his own and developed the style that would carry him to being one of the best 135ers of all time. By the time they had their rematch 4 years later, Faber was already on the decline (though still extremely formidable). The third match was another 5 years later, and by then Cruz had been through several injuries, but still proved to be fresh and strong, and Faber had clearly declined by then.

3. Making the adjustment
Example: Chuck vs. Randy. In their first fight, Chuck underestimated Randy (especially his power in the clinch) in their first fight, and was gassed in grappling exchanges, eventually leading to being taken down, mounted, and TKO'd. In the rematch, there was controversy with the eye poke prior to the TKO, but it was clear that Chuck had made adjustments with keeping range and counter striking against Randy's aggression, which is what won him the third fight.

Do these things apply to Stipe vs. DC 3?

1. A "fluke" - The first fight's KO certainly had the feel of a fluke. Though the second fight didn't really do much to confirm the "fluke", as DC was holding his own in the second fight until the end. Still, there is still somewhat of a fluke feeling around the first fight, especially after Stipe's quick turnaround from fighting Francis Ngannou, and people speculating that his chin hadn't had ample time to recover. (I don't really understand the biology of all that, but whatever).

2. Too young/too old - Stipe certainly wasn't too young or green in their first fight. He had already established himself as a Heavyweight GOAT candidate. However, DC is fighting his final fight, and he is quite old with a lot of mileage on him. He took a LOT of damage in the second fight both to the head and the body. Though Stipe also got beat up pretty badly. I still see DC as fading in his career, and DC's age could be a major factor.

3. Making the adjustment - Interestingly, we saw the adjustment factor in during the fight. Stipe found DC's body which led to a fast and sharp decline in DC. That adjustment played a major role in Stipe's win. If DC has no answer for Stipe's body shots, it will be an ugly fight for DC.

I'm shocked that so many experts are picking DC to win the third fight. It could certainly happen, but all signs, in my mind, point to Stipe winning the trilogy.
Click to expand...
Great fuckin thread

I'm actually leaning Stipe but wouldn't be surprised if DC wins
 
Blayt7hh said:
He didn’t necessarily use the word theory wrong. There are more definitions to the word than the scientific one.
Click to expand...

yes, I definitely used the casual version of “theory” rather than the scientific one.
 
Well I guess that is a kind of logic in that outcome considering that:

-in most trilogies the outcome is 2-1 ( it's supposed to be competitive) there are exceptions of course like Crocop-Barnett

-After the 2 first fights usually the outcome is 1-1 ( again in most cases no point to make a trilogy if a fighter has 2-0)
-having 1-1 it's more common that the fighter considered better or the titleholder lost the first fight and gets a rematch, because if the favourite wins the first match usually there is no rematch.
-it could happen the case that the fighter that is considered better by the public gets the first fight but he isn't actually the better fighter (the other guy hasn't reach his full potential yet is still too young or inexperienced etc)in this case usually won't be an immediate rematch but the 'underdog' being actually the better fighter will make his way through the ranks and eventually deserve a rematch.

These arguments are complementary to the things that TS wrote ( a fluke ,too old to young) and I think that there is an underlying logic to the fact that trilogies end the way that TS described.
Now every match up is different and in the Stipe - DC things are pretty even plus the UFC is letting DC get away with the eyepokes and the smaller cage...
but I hope that Stipe takes the W
 
BBMN said:
The thread title posits his speculation as fact. It's literally the thread title. I'm not trying to be a semantic asshole, but I didn't even make it past the faulty title. It may appear slight on the surface, but it matters. I just glanced at the thread itself and he uses the word, theory, wrong in the first sentence.

That's not how this works. I've worked on peer reviewed research. I guarantee you, he is not presenting his thoughts correctly.

And I'm bored with this. Probably won't respond further.... Sorry if that sounds rude. I'm just over it.
Click to expand...
No, you're just an insufferable pedant. Nothing you've said is of any consequence.

Pro tip: if you don't want to respond to someone anymore don't respond at all. Don't be a passive aggressive bitch trying to get the last word.
 
Did the UFC just use my post in the broadcast?
 
Talon81 said:
You do raise some good points, and made a reasonable analysis overall of trilogies. However, you made two mistakes in analyzing this fight as I see it.



Frankly, DC was sonning Stipe in that fight, he was not "holding his own". Until the body shots that changed the course of that fight, DC was CLEARLY winning and landing almost at will. The fact that Stipe had not already been KO'd after all the shots he took was always surprising to me.
Then there is the matter of your own point: 3. Making the adjustment
Why would this only apply to Stipe? Is it impossible for DC to make an adjustment against Stipe's body shots, which are the only reason they are not 2-0 right now? I see these odds as being very accurate, with DC the very slightest of favorites, but pretty much a pickem. I'm not saying DC wins this by any means, but you have to look at the second fight truthfully. DC was pretty clearly going to win before those body shots changed it up. Now the question is whether DC can properly defend them or does Stipe make this a continuation of their last round?
Click to expand...

I actually entirely disagree and think this narrative of DC domination to be a total fabrication. I think it was a lot closer than most people seem to think and Stipe was holding his own throughout most of those rounds.

 
Evangelion said:
Lol at Dc "holding his own" in fight two. He dominated 95% of that fight.

When two fighters have fought 23 minutes and one guys won 22 of those minutes he deserves to be favored.
Click to expand...

It was far from a domination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,714
Messages
55,436,701
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top