GUEST POST: The Inefficient Market of MMA Styles
Photo by Mike Stobe/Getty Images
The following article is a guest submission from friend of the site Sam (@StuffFromSam), an author of editorial work and founder of Southpaw. Sam is best known for his work on connecting ideologies and events in sports to leftist politics, focusing on topics of justice and equity. Check out his podcast, and subscribe on Patreon for analytical work and more original content!
Opinions expressed in this piece are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fight Site staff.
Variety is the spice of life, unless you're doing it wrong
The beauty of MMA is in its variety. Variety is why MMA is improvisational, where it does feel like anything can happen. Techniques are countless, and fighters pull from a diversity of martial arts. Variety is why a seven-course meal can be exquisite. Variety is also why you can put together terrible food combinations at a buffet. MMA is both fine dining and a lousy buffet, depending on the fighter. That gap is what economists call "inefficiency." In real estate, one house can go for a million dollars, and another home down the street can go for half that price. Why? Price discovery is inefficient.
A multicourse meal at a fine dining establishment might have hundreds of ingredients, then how is it different from a buffet? It's about what you do with those ingredients. A variety of martial arts creates mixed martial arts, but how well they fit together is what makes good mixed martial arts. The inefficiency is in discovering good mixed martial arts. This isn't domain-specific to professional MMA, for it can also easily apply to the gym. Wherever the ideology of MMA exists, this inefficiency exists.
A La Carte MMA
What is a buffet? It's a place where you get to dictate what you want to eat, regardless of whether you know anything about food combinations. The default then is to allow your preferences to dictate your decisions rather than maximizing food combinations and serving size for the best experience. Similarly, assembling MMA styles often uses the same logic as picking entrees at a buffet.
MMA Superstructures
Then, how does an MMA buffet turn into good MMA? Two things: systems and goals. An excellent Italian meal might have a variety of plates, but rather than a random menu, it's all still Italian cuisine. Similarly, Good MMA requires a system. MMA is so open-ended, it almost means nothing, just like saying "I'm opening a restaurant" is open-ended. The logical follow-up question should be, "What kind of restaurant?" This same logic also applies to MMA, "What kind of MMA are you doing?"
Stephen Thompson's system is based on karate; from the way he throws low kicks to his boxing and even his clinch is informed by his karate. He wrestles to get back to his feet and create distance. He doesn't have to guess what his defense, probing strikes, or power strikes are. It's all there in his system. Like a chef, he knows his menu. This allows undivided attention for execution.
Thompson is never in a situation where he's trying to decide on the spot whether he should block, flying knee, or spinning back-fist. The disparate formlessness of these options indicates a lost fighter who doesn't know what they want to do. It's MMA roulette, which is part of what makes MMA so unpredictable.
If karate were Thompson's MMA policy, kicking his opponent in the head would be his agenda. His policies push his agenda. Thompson can improvise, but in the same way, an Italian chef can improvise, all within context. Not only does this save precious time, but it also maximizes quality. You're never lost, because you always have a roadmap.
For example, if your system is muay Thai, then you practice muay Thai in every situation. Not necessarily muay Thai techniques, but muay Thai principles. In muay Thai, a push kick isn't just a push kick; it's part of an overall policy of defense and set-ups. Much in the same way, a boxing-oriented MMA fighter like Calvin Kattar uses his jab. These techniques don't appear randomly, but by design.
A roadmap needs a destination. In Brazilian jiu-jitsu, when you're the guard passer, your overall goal is to get to the other side of your opponent's legs into some version of the cross side position where you are perpendicular to your opponent. That's the goal, your system of guard passing is how you get to your goal.
When first learning how to pass, nothing might work, and you might think you'll never get passing. It's not because you don't know any passes. Rather, you lack a system of passing. You know random passes, but you don't have a way to impose your passes. Do you pass the guard from your knees or from your feet? What grips do you use to pass? What's your entry pass to gauge your opponent's defense? Which direction do you try first? What moves can you chain from your initial entry? That's your system of passing. That's why Demian Maia, Khabib Nurmagomedov, and Georges St-Pierre have articles and YouTube videos breaking down their guard passing. They have systems. Without a system, there's nothing to break down. Lacking a system means you're already deconstructed. There is no recipe to discover. A beginner can be analyzed, but that doesn't mean they're good at fighting.
In grappling, a goal might be to take your opponent down and win on points by passing the guard and maintaining position. Everyone knows Nurmagomedov's goal in an MMA fight. In fact, every UFC champion has an approach to winning. That's a good thing. If their MMA approach were a mystery, it's highly improbable that they would be champion. Their experience would be going into a vacuum, they're never building or perfecting.
If you only ever watch UFC main events, you'll develop a particular bias. You will only used to watching the highest-ranked fighters, nearly all of whom have clear goals and systems. Constantly seeing this uniformity might have you believe this is a hindrance. Seeing the top fighters is like seeing the struggles of the 1%. It doesn't represent the common struggle.
If fans were to watch all the prelim fights of a UFC card, a whole regional show, or a day of typical sparring in an MMA gym, they would witness the common problem: picking things at random and being dominated by a plan. When something as simple as a jab or push kick can stifle fighters who don't know what they want. If neither fighter has a system, then it's about physical attributes and/or mistakes.
In boxing, you only have to worry about boxing. Many of your decisions have already been made for you. You have a system, now you need a goal and to tailor your boxing system to get you to your goal.
Process Is Not the System
With MMA being as open-ended as it is, the sport inherently creates more inefficiencies than other combat sports. Whether boxing, muay Thai, or karate, all the participants will have a system. It's whatever combat sport they're competing in. That is their system. You can be efficient if the parameters are clear. Knowing the constraints, you can develop a game theory. How two boxers engaged only in boxing can differ, beyond physical attributes, are in their process. Process is HOW you express your system. You can have two Italian chefs and while their cuisines are the same, their individual processes can differ. Picture an Italian cooking show where everyone is given the same ingredients, from the different dishes they make to the order of food served are examples of process. Following suit, Stephen Thompson's MMA karate process is different from that of Lyoto Machida.
A process exists within a system. Therefore, in the context of pure boxing or wrestling, process should be the primary focus. However, since MMA is zoomed out, then MMA analysis must also zoom out and start with systems.
MMA Inequality
In MMA, the parameters are indefinite. Having one fighter with a defined system and one fighter without could only happen in MMA. In economic terms, inefficiency is the inability for everyone to get to the right consensus. Other sports are much more efficient than MMA because they have fewer variables. For example, in basketball, all teams quickly got to the consensus that three-pointers are the best means of scoring points. There is only one way to win, whoever scores more. If basketball were an inefficient market, most teams would reach a consensus that two-pointers are the best way to score points, and only a few would see three is better than two. This is MMA.
There is a dominant belief that the best style for MMA is no style. Training everything from as early as possible would make the best MMA fighter. The MMA superstructure then is the dominant belief which people mistake for confirmed reality, that specializing early in generalization makes for the best MMA. Primary styles like boxing, wrestling, muay Thai or even a simple amalgam represent substructures. Fighters who challenge the superstructure with a bottom-up primary style approach (a substructure) have an advantage over the rest of the MMA diaspora. What that leads to are fighters who can speak MMA with a primary language, who can also pull words from other languages for strength and clarity.
In contrast, the MMA superstructure will create fighters who struggle to put together nonsensical sentences using words from various languages that is impossible to understand or translate. Your opponent might not know what you're doing, but neither will you. You're gambling.
Try Everything, Do Nothing
Having a system doesn't mean fewer moves in a move-set than a formless fighter. A Japanese restaurant might have over a hundred items in a menu, whereas a generic restaurant that serves "everything" might only have various pancakes, burgers, and bad pasta. Without a system, you might default to a few random moves. You might think you look like The Matrix when you're more like a generic build MMA fighter from a video game.
On the other end of the spectrum, you can have the pizza dilemma. Similar to MMA's openness, pizzas can have a nearly infinite number of toppings. A rookie might believe putting everything on a pizza might make the best pizza. You ever had pizza made by a child? It's a hot mess. A better pizza has fewer toppings. The better the dough, sauce, and cheese, the fewer the toppings needed.
A primary system has more functionality because you are the primary system. MMA, on the other hand, is a nebulous idea. You can be a quarterback, for instance, but you can't be football.
Talk about being like water, like Anderson Silva did, but fight with a primary style, also like Anderson Silva did. You don't become the world's greatest chef by trying to learn all cooking styles all at once. Try to be like water, formless, and you'll end up Applebee's.
How You Want to Win—Best Way to Win
MMA is distinct from all other sports because there are numerous ways to win, which creates another layer of inefficiency. Winning is a desire, but how you plan to win—that's the goal. In a UFC prelim or an amateur MMA fight, you might see a fighter clearly losing. You know they want to win, but you're not sure how they plan to win. Are they building toward something, or are they laying random bricks everywhere? What's the goal? Do they want to win by knock out? By ground and pound? By a finish or by points? Or is it, "I just want to win, and I'll be happy with whatever the winds of destiny bring me."
In the case of Nurmagomedov, it means winning by grounding his opponent and causing significant discomfort, which means winning on points, ground and pound, or submission. The submission, however, will still be a result of the pain caused on the ground. He will "smash you." Nurmagomedov doesn't chase submissions, but sometimes they appear because of the "smash." Even his striking is grappling-centric, as he leads with his hip, much like an entry for a hip toss, making his face furthest away from his opponent's punches. This grappling approach to boxing becomes the Philly shell. His opponents reach for his face, allowing Nurmagomedov to clinch and meet his opponent hip-to-hip. (Even in boxing, the Philly shell naturally transitions to the clinch.) Then from hip control, Nurmagomedov begins his chain wrestling. He's boxing through the lens of grappling. Everything he does is building towards his goal.
Misaligned Incentives
Nurmagomedov's system and goal are aligned. Sometimes you might find a fighter who's system is grappling, but their goal is to win by knock out. An example would be Daniel Cormier in his second fight with Stipe Miocic. Cormier had a defined map but a different destination. When Miocic threw body shots, Cormier was lost. Systems and goals only work when they're aligned.
St-Pierre used the jab to set up his blast double by keeping his opponents upright and forcing their hands up. He didn't rush his takedowns but instead racked up points with his jabs then secured the round with his takedown and control. Since his opponents feared the takedowns, the jabs landed. Since the jabs landed, his opponents were out of position to defend the takedown. His system reinforced his goal.
If the system is a roadmap, you should never be lost, and everything you do should push you to your destination. Deiveson Figueiredo recently defeated Joseph Benavidez for the UFC flyweight title by setting Benavidez up for his right hand. Conor McGregor did the same throughout his career with his left. A system and goal work together to paint opponents into a corner they cannot escape. An MMA buffet doesn't do that. Much like bad writing, it has loose ends, plot points with no payoff, and an overall aimlessness. In good fighting, much like in good storytelling, everything matters, everything belongs, everything makes sense, and everything drives the plot.
Zoom Out
If you watch enough MMA, I'm only articulating what you might have already understood. This demonstrates the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of the supposed right ways to lose. You might see a young fighter's stock rise after losing to a veteran. Why does this happen? They lost the right way. They were doing all the right things—a system and goal were in place. The prospect just lacked enough experience to execute. A prospect is a young fighter who already shows systems and goals. This is often referred to as "championship qualities," which is why it is rarely seen in most MMA past a certain threshold.
"Losing the right way" is about probabilities. In poker, going against probability is a cardinal sin. If you make a calculated play based on probabilities and lose, that's okay because if you play enough, that same call will be right more times than not. You lost the right way. You just got caught. Flukes happen, but the pros don't count on them.
Watch every fight on two full MMA cards, regardless of whether it is amateur, regional, Bellator, UFC, or even The Ultimate Fighter. You will see fighters who challenge the MMA superstructure with distinct styles winning the majority of the time. Limitless decisions create confusion, and confused fighters tend to lose to opponents who know what to do to win. This is the ultimate chasm of MMA; guessing vs. knowing.