UFC Fight Night: Dern vs. Hill

@Baremaras ok, so this is what I mean. You actually don't understand how striking is tallied and scored. You're just operating on home-brewed wisdom. You are yet again definitionally, categorically wrong. And it's important that you learn why, because this is why you're not very good at scoring fights.

Now, pay attention here. This is going to help you.

UFC uses the fightmetric system, which defines significant strikes asAll strikes at distance and power strikes in the clinch and on the ground.

Absolutely nowhere, anywhere, at any point in history is there a clause which denotes "Standing" as a separate, unique category that is used in considering what validates a strike as significant. That's just something you've invented to try and save face.

The reason the definition is designed this way is that it ties into the scoring criteria. Impact is the primary criteria, and if a strike is significant it causes impact. If one fighter demonstrates dominance in the primary criteria in a round, they win that round. No other scoring aspects such as control may enter the decision making of the judges.

So let's look at the Brunson fight yet again, because it's a great case example of why you're insane. Here are the stats for that fight. It is your contention that Edmen has never been outstruck on the feet.



 But this is objectively false. As you can see, Brunson landed 60% of total sig strikes, while Edmen only landed 40%. You're also wrong about most of the strikes Brunson landed having been in GNP. He landed only 23 sig strikes on the ground--the majority came at distance,which is actually what you think a significant strike is.Even though it isn't.But event if it was, you would still be wrong.

Edmen has been outstruck multiple times in the UFC. In the above example, he literally got outstruck in every single category save body shots.

People, please don't take advice from Baremaras.Not only is he consistently in error, but he also lacks even a cursory understanding of what a strike is, how strikes are defined, and lies, deliberately, to support his own betting hypotheses.  It's the usual combination of rampant narcissism and Dunning-Kruger effect.  Always do your own research, and don't get taken in by faux-gambling-millionaire charlatans.

* Edited at 05.15.2023, 2:57 PM ET *

@Baremaras there is so many levels of fail here it is truly breathtaking. The last line in the very image you posted--which again is wrong, because that's not how fight metric defines striking--says that striking can be part of a fighter's ground game. In that instance, the strikes would be considered...well, strikes.Again, this is based on a misconception and isn't the official way striking is defined.

And all of this is moot because Brunson outstruck Edmen on the feet and you explicitly stated this had never happened.

It did, you just have no idea what you're talking about.

You know, I blame myself for getting into arguments with people of shallow intellect. It's like playing table tennis against someone who is terrible at table tennis. It doesn't matter how well you play, it's still going to be a bad game.

@Baremaras I have given you the official definition of what constitutes a significant strike as per fightmetric, which is officially what the UFC uses. I have disproved your contention that Edmen has never been outstruck by providing the stats of the Brunson fight, which show he was. Everywhere.

To answer your question--which amazingly you think is some profundity leading to some form of win--No, I don't think Khabib is the greatest striker of all time, and attempting to qualify him as that on his record of landing more sig strikes than his opponents would be a ******** way of doing that. They're totally unrelated. Your reasoning is based on a logical fallacy. You are affirming the consequent by conflating 'best' with 'most' and impact with position. It does not follow that because Khabib landed more significant strikes than his opponents that he is the 'best' striker of all time. There are and have been many strikers with greater accuracy and SLPM than Khabib, who are and have been far more technical than khabib. 


None of this changes that a significant strike is still a significant strike whether landed on the feet, or the ground. A significant strike is not qualified by from whence it is thrown. It is qualified on the basis of impact. If someone lands more sig strikes than their opponent, they have, both by definition and by every metric, outstruck them. It doesn't matter in what capacity that happens. This isn't rocket science. None of this changes that you explicitly stated that Edmen had never been outstruck both on the feet and the ground, and I proved you wrong.

* Edited at 05.15.2023, 3:47 PM ET *