Strength vs Technique

[Mike C]

This surely can't be new information to you. Consider this. Someone comes in at you low and shooting for the legs, judo might call it morote gari. Unless the rules have changed, you the defender cannot drop a hammer fist on the attacker's neck.

The rules have changed to make it ILLEGAL. When the gracies had their hands on the sport it was LEGAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXoPkFhJgkI#t=3m25s

You are also not allowed to grab the head and chin and twist.

I'm almost certain that neck cranks of all sorts were and are legal. If the twister is perfectly legal I don't know why that wouldn't be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFTirAxYhNs

Aaand you are not allowed to clap your hands together over one or both ears.

This? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44E-lW3aYhM#t=1m02s

All of these will pretty much put paid to such an attack. Gracie knew it and so made rules that would benefit the kind of attacks he could win with. You can argue that they are there for safety and that's true enough, but let's not overlook the self serving aspect too. That's why he did so well for so long.

The thing the gracies did in the early UFC days was a two fold approach....they purposely had Royce fight Art (the boxer) in the first ever fight, and the refused to include high level wrestlers until UFC 4 (severn) because Royce wasn't very good and they knew he would probably lose - even though he beat Severn at 4.

"

The first UFC had no rules. The closest they got were fines for groin shots and biting.

Correct.

[Mark E. Hurling]

Very well then, I stand corrected. I did not know the history of MMA as well as I thought.

[Mike C]

Heard that Miller actually tore a tendon in his foot in round 1. Apparently luck did play a part in this victory.

[Patrick]

Heard that Miller actually tore a tendon in his foot in round 1. Apparently luck did play a part in this victory.

He was limping like crazy on the way into the post fight presser... I was wondering what the heck happened to him because I hadn't seen it happen in the fight. I hope he doesn't take the Patrick Cote trajectory after this.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Seriously though...thousands of hours of training, coaching, and watching the sport. Obviously, there may be different opinions, specifically about cardio vs game plan, but I think nearly everyone would agree with skill > cardio > strength > luck.

But then again, when I took my cousin, who is pretty fucking strong - only about 170 lbs, to my old gym, he choked out the head trainer, who is a relatively famous fighter. And my cousin has almost no experience training - he trained a little with Master Lloyd in DC. So, who the fuck knows. But then again - maybe he's a skillful fuck and I didn't know it.

The implicit null hypothesis in this entire discussion, on my read, can be summed up as:

Given two fighters of similar anthropometry, skill and luck, the stronger one will NOT have an advantage.


I am unaware that any empiric, robust, controlled demonstration or refutation of this hypothesis is available. But I will say this: I am very skeptical that the null hypothesis is correct. Very.

[PressesPeople]

I agree.

[Simma Park]

i don't know how it works in mma, but in wrestling, skill always trumps strength when there is a significant disparity

We should have prepared an award for most obvious fucking statement of the thread.

Thanks, Spar. I think my girlfriend would tell you the same thing about me.

That wasn't a knock on you. I was just pointing out how weird it was that anyone with a decent familiarity with athletic activity would find this fine question:

The question is more "Is Miller a better fighter than he otherwise would be if he didn't lift weights and wasn't as strong?"

"interesting" rather than "the crux of the matter".

The implicit null hypothesis in this entire discussion, on my read, can be summed up as:

Given two fighters of similar anthropometry, skill and luck, the stronger one will NOT have an advantage.


I am unaware that any empiric, robust, controlled demonstration or refutation of this hypothesis is available. But I will say this: I am very skeptical that the null hypothesis is correct. Very.

Yes. As for the question of whether any given fighter should train for strength or not...

With something as complex and fraught with as many variables as competitive fighting, the answer boils down to an oh-so-unsatisfying: "It depends."

[Greg C]

The implicit null hypothesis in this entire discussion, on my read, can be summed up as:

Given two fighters of similar anthropometry, skill and luck, the stronger one will NOT have an advantage.


I am unaware that any empiric, robust, controlled demonstration or refutation of this hypothesis is available. But I will say this: I am very skeptical that the null hypothesis is correct. Very.

I didn't get this, even after re-reading Mike C's post. I got this:

Given two fighters of similar anthropometry, skill and luck, the stronger one WILL have an advantage.


His end statement just leads me to believe that luck sometimes prevails (good or bad). Kind of an "Any Given Sunday" type of thing.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

I stated the NULL hypothesis, not what I believe or what Mike may (or may not believe). That's all.

[Jonathon Sullivan]

Gedankenexperiment addressing the null hypothesis:

We create two MMA androids. They are of identical anthropometry and skill. Here, "skill" refers to a "broad domain" of attributes: speed, tactical ability and cunning, observation, reaction time, "courage," judiciousness, proper deployment of combatives and defensives, and aggressiveness.

One android posseses Global Strength Index x. The other android posseses Global Strength Index 2x.

We pit these two machines against each other on PayPerView for a series of 20 matches.

The null hypothesis states that both androids will win an equal number of times.

I believe the null hypothesis will be disproven.

Make your popcorn and place your bets.

-