Statistics On Liddell Vs. Jackson...interesting read!..

[inyafacetapout6]

We are close from one of the biggest pay-per-view in the UFC. So big talk about the main event and who will win, well you must not ignore the #'s these two fighters have put up over the years. Ok so i'll give ya the #'s you must be aware of when thinking about these fighters.
You must, howver, ignore the big # tho, 100, thats the winning % that jackson has over liddell, the UFC uses that to boost the PPV sales, would have Randy vs. Chuck 2 or 3 if they never fought before that, UFC knows that since its a rematch, it puts questions in you head about if the fighter can over come his oppt. this time around. Think about it, would you think that Ken had any type of chance vs. Tito the 2nd and 3rd time around. Would you think that Red Sox vs Yankees anytime would be great if they never face each other, Or if Ali vs. Fraiser 3 would be that awesome if they never faced each other before...Its all hype and the media use's it. Also it was in a ring with different rules, its like saying that QB Peyton M still couldnt have beat'n the Patroits all those years if they have played in a dome. A Ring with Pride Rules in Japan(jet lag) is so different from a Cage with UFC rules and in home country.
Ok so if you look at thier winning % Chuck's= .869 and Rampage's= .813. Ok so I know what your saying well "Rampage has fought in more fights", 9 more, so if liddell fought in 32 fights his record would be (28-4) compared to Rampage's (26-6). Ok so you must be saying now, well Rampage has fought stronger Oppt. Well sorry no he hasn't. Counting the fight vs. Liddell, Rampage's Oppt win% is .613 and with out the fight vs. Chuck, is .603. Liddell's "strength of schedule" counting the match vs. Rampage is .699 and with out that fight its .694. So Liddell has fought a harder Oppt. Ok if you take their Oppt. Win % and said that if every person they fought had at least 30 fights Rampage would face a fighter that is (19-11) and Chuck would face a fighter that is (21-9). Ok now take how both fighters do in rematchs with oppt. Rampage vs. People he already has faced is (1-1)=50% and Chuck is a perfect (5-0)=100%. Also their record vs. Oppt faced more then once, Chuck is (7-2) and Rampage is (1-3). Ok now also look at their records. Rampage (26-6) vs. Liddell (20-3) and now take a look at thier record with out Oppts. that are below .500, Rampage's (13-5) and Chuck's (17-3).
Well now look at people who both of them have faced and how well they did. Kenneth Williams, both won by RNC. Kevin Randleman, Chuck Ko'ed him in 1:18 secs. and Rampage Tko'ed him in 6:58. Murilo Bustamante, Chuck won by Unanimous Decision and Rampage won by Split Decision. So Chuck has in all fairness done better vs. these 3 guys.
Seems like all the #'s go Chucks way and it seems that he is a tougher fighter then jackson and has done better vs. better oppts. So take what you want from this but just remember it when you lay down your money and see chuck as the underdogg....

[groda]

They are called paragraphs, you should use them.

[sennas]

*head asplodes*

[omfOdin]

Originally Posted by groda

They are called paragraphs, you should use them.

Nice counter-argument.

[mjbogrand]

Originally Posted by groda

They are called paragraphs, you should use them.

LMFAO No he needs to stick to baseball! They care over there!

[kronker]

Originally Posted by groda

They are called paragraphs, you should use them.

Yes I agree. I read about 3 sentences and gave up. Those three sentences didn't seem that interesting either.

[Colin]

Well now look at people who both of them have faced and how well they did. Kenneth Williams, both won by RNC. Kevin Randleman, Chuck Ko'ed him in 1:18 secs. and Rampage Tko'ed him in 6:58. Murilo Bustamante, Chuck won by Unanimous Decision and Rampage won by Split Decision. So Chuck has in all fairness done better vs. these 3 guys.

LOL


First, i duno if Chuck's win went down officially as a KO against Randleman (i dont see how it would- it was actually a premature stoppage) but it was a TKO!! So no difference there.

Also, against Bustamonte, many people feel Chuck lost that fight so no difference there really!


Add to that Chuck and Rampage have both fought each to once. 'Page won btw.

[In Transit]

I read the first sentence, then skipped to the middle sentence, then to the end. LOL

sounded boring.

Originally Posted by Colin297

LOL


First, i duno if Chuck's win went down officially as a KO against Randleman (i dont see how it would- it was actually a premature stoppage) but it was a TKO!! So no difference there.

Also, against Bustamonte, many people feel Chuck lost that fight so no difference there really!


Add to that Chuck and Rampage have both fought each to once. 'Page won btw.

hm argue what you want but it's the official result that counts.

[Colin]

Originally Posted by oh!bigrighthand

hm argue what you want but it's the official result that counts.

ok it is official -

5/04/2001 Win Kevin Randleman UFC 31 TKO (Punches) 1 1:18


so stfu noob.


as for judges - those are just opinions like anyone elses, Ramage did atleast as well as Chuck vrs Bustamante. Common sense generally prevails tbh.