Quote:
Originally Posted by 86'd
Their IS a science behind it. Read my first post. I'm not a believer in this "fighters improved so much" theory thats always being said. It's true when it comes to guys coming off TUF show or if their still up and comers or if they haven't found a good camp. But both guys have always had good camps, and Rampage is a bad style for him. Even fighters like Couture and Griffin say it. Their is a science. Just like Liston was a bad match up for Patterson and Ali to Liston etc. Sweent Science is fighting. I'm a fan of both and I'm never biased I just see things with my own two eyes and call it like I see it
|
There's a science behind fighting yes, and its easy to sound like an expert when talking about a fight that has already happened.
On paper... Nog should either outbox Herring or sub him in 10 seconds..... The refs ass itching could have been the reason behind him not stopping the fight when Herring caught Nog... who knows... that one instance shows how quick a better fighter.. even won thats already won 2 can lose.
If you stand behind your science theory... than you know there's too many variables in MMA to be so confident in predictions... fighting isnt a math problem where the same numbers stick every time.
It also baffles how me how people are so quick to right off a guy like Liddell who has made a career of catching people. Liddell hasnt changed much at all.... he still fights relatively the same way now as he always has... and i dont recall a single fight on chuck's 7 win streak other than maybe horn where there wasnt someone like you talking about how bad chucks boxing was and how he was gonna get caught.
If i call the bengals are gonna win the superbowl every single year... eventually it might happen... then i can sit back and talk about the science of football and how right i was.
