WEC 47: Murphy's Law and the Underdog

via www.cdn.sherdog.com

With the exception of the Davis fight, the WEC delivered yet again on a night filled with beautiful knockouts, submissions, and yes, "upsets". Perhaps one of the more interesting stories besides Pulver potentially hanging them up was watching two recently former champs get hosed: but it wasn't the mere fact that they lost the fight, but how they lost it.

Upsets are typical in MMA. "Anything can happen" the cliche goes, but why is that? Why is it that Murphy's Law is as predictable as a Junie Browning brainfart when it comes to MMA? The reasons don't have to be explained to us: the amount of ways to finish or win a fight is directly proportional to the amount of ways to lose it. There's a raw number of possible submissions to be caught in, and strikes to be knocked out by that closes in on the same digits as the national debt. Even as an amateur keyboard warrior, it's difficult to understand how truly daunting a task it is for these athletes to grasp all that's involved in MMA as a sport.

At UFC 110, we watched former greats like Nog, Wand, and Mirko struggle. While some preferred to whitewash these struggles as fighters "not really having much left", it nonetheless neglected the very real fact that fighters are simply getting better: better not just in terms of technique, but in terms of education. Knowing is half the battle right? Nog never had to deal with a high level wrestler that could put together crisp, three punch combinations, and suffered as a result (Wand and Mirko's problems have less to do with UFC 110, granted). The former greats have an excuse, all things considered. What's the excuse of the current 'greats'?      

via www.cdn.sherdog.com

It wasn't that long ago when Miguel Torres was considered among the current pound-for-pound greats in the sport. Now he's coming off back to back fights experiencing his first knockout loss, and submission loss, respectively. It was interesting watching Benavidez essentially capitalize on Miguel's one big lapse in judgment: not throwing the jab. Torres might have lost regardless, as Benavidez looked stellar on the ground, more than capable of defending what Torres had for him on the ground, but at this level of the game, you can't abandon advantages.

But where it could be said Torres' loss was about what the loser failed to do, Bowles' loss was very much about what the opponent succeeded in doing. Yes, Cruz' striking is "awkward", but it's not "awkward" in the way Jardine's striking is awkward. For reasons that betray logic, Jardine is credited for being unorthodox, even though he seems to exist on a planet where boxing doesn't require footwork OR proper defense. Being awkward and being deficient are not the same thing no matter how many times Joe Rogan and Mike Goldberg try to differentiate. Cruz himself, on the other hand, seems to understand this difference perfectly.

In his post-fight interview with TJ De Santis, Cruz had this to say:

Angles, footwork, and elusiveness are always the gameplan. People don't know to handle feints...when you look at a good boxer, you see good footwork, handspeed, and good head movement, and you don't see that in MMA...

I don't think Cruz is perfect or anything, not by a long shot. But he clearly understands the fundamentals. Watching him frustrate and confound Brian Bowles was kind of a thing of beauty. 

Saturday night, along with being entertaining, was yet another display of MMA's evolution. Go back even 3 years ago, and Benavidez probably doesn't attempt the guillotine for fear of being on the ground against a 'superior grappler'. Knowledge elicits confidence, and Benavidez' knowledge of grappling allowed him to be great defensively while being selective offensively. Cruz, on the other hand, unlike Jardine, simply knows what makes a good boxer, in the process humiliating someone who even by current MMA standards, has very good striking.

The classic underdog - outmatched in every conceivable way - is a dying breed in MMA, and personally I couldn't be happier.