UFC fight night 36 topic

Am I wrong, though?
As you pointed out, both of their finishing rates are higher when you include all of their finishes in the other smaller orgs. I think that demonstrates that the lower level of competition inflates the finish rate.

As impressed as I was with Shogun's early career run of 4 finishes of 4 Brazillian guys nodody has ever heard of, 3 Japanese guys nobody has ever heard of, and Akihiro Gono (a welterweight for Christ's sake), as well as Machida's work in some shit called "Jungle Fight", "Ultimate Crush", and "Inoki Bom-Ba-Ye", maybe it's best if we narrow the scope just a bit.

Actually... Shoguns finishing rate in the UFC is 100%, if you lost to Shogun in the UFC you got KTFO! Period.

If you lost to Machida in the UFC its about 50/50 chance you were finished or decisioned.

Yeah, you're actually right about that. I think I confused myself with stat overload or something.

Yes, Shogun has a 100% UFC finish rate when he wins, Henderson has a 25% rate, and Machida has a 46% rate. But when getting back to the actual topic at hand here, a guy who finishes nearly half of his fights in the UFC may not be as all-time boring as he's being portrayed.

My point of this wasn't "finish rate"...my point was exciting fighter. Perfect example to illustrate my point...Gabriel Gonzaga vs........maybe Kevin Jordan? Back in the day...2.5 rounds of disgusting boredom and then BAM Gonzaga gets a KO. Based upon that would you say "wow what an exciting fight...Gonzaga got he KO!!"....of course not. Same with Lyoto...if he went out looking for the finish EVERY time and 50% of those fights he got it then yeah, I'd label him an "exciting fighter"...but the point is, he doesn't. Plain and simple he's a boring fighter with a boring...albeit generally successful...style that sometimes is able to lure his opponent into his chess match trap.

Also let's not say machida fought nobody's pre ufc.....coming into the ufc he had wins over bj Penn, rich franklin and Stephen bonnar(was still a prospect at this time).....so I don't think its fair to bring up pre ufc and not mention this on machidas behalf when talking about finish rate and competition levels

Yes, Machida did fight some good fighters, along with a lot of nobodies, just like Shogun fought some good fighters, along with a lot of nobodies. So did Hendo, and so did a bunch of other guys. Which is exactly why I chose to focus solely on their UFC careers. It's just kind of misleading to do otherwise.

Sam, that's kind if an extreme example, don't you think? lol
Gonzaga/Jordan was shit because it was two disgustingly out of shape HWs throwing sloppy punches and slow-motion, half-assed takedown attempts. You would never use any of those words to describe a Machida fight.
My point with using finishes to defend him is that it highlights the difference between him and some notoriously boring fighters, like GSP for example. Machida will get his finishes almost half of the time because he is a sniper who will take his shot when he has the chance. GSP will always fight to a boring, lopsided decision, no matter what openings his opponent does or does not give him (with the exception of the last fight where Hendricks didn't allow him to do that).
I just think there's a better word out there than "boring" to describe a pinpoint striker who gets the finish in almost half of his fights.

The only thing I know is that Machida and shogun both has never fought Bisping before which tells me they are scared of the count.   

I hear ya trigger...I just get very bored by the sniper fighting style. I think to most people it's just very un-entertaining.

the only problem here is the difference in definition of "boring".
think of it as warfare. any battle that consists of the two armies charging each other a-la braveheart is exciting to watch, but, the wars are usually won by technically superior armies that study their enemies. instead of charging, the best generals set the enemy in a trap, using their weaknesses against them.
and that is also very exciting to watch, if you have the objective understanding of warfare.

Yeah, but the Machida offensive has some Braveheart elements in it, too. That's what I was trying to say. It's not all just strategic jockeying and careful defensive fighting.

thats what i meant. at some point, most wars are fought charging at each other, but before that, one should use everything available to him to win (of course, in a fair manner)

I'm not sure, but I think we're on the same page;

Machida uses defense as a means of creating opportunity for offense.
When the opponent realizes his planned offense is not working (due to Machida's defense), he abandons his planned offense and gets reckless.
At that point, Machida has the opportunity to go sniper and go for the kill.

Does that sound about right?

thats pretty much it

I get it...I really do. But when I watch fights I want to see a fight. Not a "greatest offense is a best defense" tactical battle. The talent is soooooo good these days that many fights HAVE to become a defensive tactical battle. I know what they're doing, I know why they're doing it...I just don't like it and it bores me.

Yep. I hate the "technical" battles where nobody is ever close to being finished or rocked.
Just counting jabs for the win..... meh

I hate the technical battles where nobody is ever close to being finished, too. That's why I dislike fighters who only put on those kinds of fights every time.