It seems like most of the utilization of the available data has been "See, Fighter X should have won!" The analysis is simply what the judges should have done.” Why not focus on what the judges will actually do? For example, if they were able to further disaggregate their data so it wasn't round by round, but instead minute by minute, we could explore the efficacy of fighters "going for it" in the final minute. Does action that occurs in the last 30 seconds impact outcomes more meaningfully? In this way, data would be produced that could actually impact strategies employed in the fights themselves. -- Scott from Texas
FightMetric, which describes itself as “the world’s only comprehensive mixed martial arts statistics and analysis system,” only came into existence in 2007. Its closest competitor, CompuStrike, arrived that same year, although CompuStrike’s cousin, CompuBox, has been around since 1985.
The two sites often vary significantly in their analysis. For example, FightMetric reported that Demetrious Johnson landed 103 total strikes in his majority draw with Ian McCall at UFC on FX 2; CompuStrike had “Mighty Mouse” connecting on 74 total strikes (McCall’s totals aligned better, with 139 for FightMetric and 140 for CompuStrike). That said, it only makes sense that the way MMA stats are compiled and examined will continue to evolve.
As you point out, a round-by-round glance can often be misleading when attempting to determine the complexion of a fight. If Fighter A lands 50 strikes in the third round of a bout and Fighter B lands 36, it is reasonable to hypothesize that Fighter A was more effective and thus deserves the round. However, it is possible to consider that Fighter B controlled the opening four minutes of the frame and outlanded his opponent, only to be blitzed by a barrage in the bout’s final minute. Without watching said hypothetical fight, only a minute-by-minute breakdown would reveal something of this nature.
A prime example of this would be the undercard matchup between Henry Martinez and Matt Riddle at UFC 143, which Riddle won via split decision. According to FightMetric, Martinez outlanded Riddle 29 to 14 in significant strikes in round one, while Riddle had a 30-to-11 edge in the third stanza. The middle frame was the most closely contested, with Riddle outlanding Martinez 30 to 27. If you watched the fight, you might remember that Riddle did the majority of his damage late moments of the round. Watching live, I gave Martinez the round and a 29-28 score overall, but it appeared that Riddle’s late flurry gave him the edge he needed to get the nod.
Would statistical evidence of this be a benefit to fighters as they put together scouting reports on future opponents? It couldn’t hurt, especially if paired with the scoring tendencies of each individual judge, but it wouldn’t trump film study and solid game planning by any means. If a fighter is significantly stronger in the latter stages and rounds of a fight, the proof will be identified on video. However, it would be a lot of fun to know facts like who ranks as the all-time leader in significant strikes landed in the final minute of five-round fights.
Is a statistical revolution that will spawn MMA’s equivalent of “Moneyball” looming? That is tough to say, but whoever can best put the numbers to use will certainly be at an advantage. At the very least, we’ll have more fodder for argument.
Finish Reading » Page Six: Cupcake’s Upshake