UFC Fight Night 53 - Nelson vs Story

Oregano_State · 07-10-2014 11:56am

Going back to Pendred's striking: while it will never be up there with the best strikers/boxers in the division, I definitely saw improvements in Stockholm from his last fight and TUF. If he keeps working on it, it will improve. He really needs to stop wading in with a lead uppercut throwing himself completely off balance though. He's a fantastic athlete, has great stamina, and is a beast strength-wise at WW, all of which will serve him well. If he can bring his striking offense and defense up to scratch over the next year or so he will be a problem for a lot of guys in the division.

p to the e · 07-10-2014 12:37pm

Ian Whelan wrote: »

I watched the fight again last night. I'm no expert but even I knew Nelson was losing. Surprised more was not said about this advice. The advice he should have been giving was: "You are losing, you have to knock him out/submit him". If I was Nelson I would be a bit pissed off.

Different fighters prefer different coaching methods and a good coach knows how to handle each of his fighters. Some like to get back to the corner and be reassured/calmed down and some need to go back and get a kick up the ass.

In my view Gunni is no fool and was matching Story quite well until that knockdown in the 2nd or 3rd (can't remember exactly). I think he spent the rest of the fight trying to shake it off.

DeVore · 07-10-2014 12:45pm

Hard work will get you a long way.

Natural talent will get you a long way too.

To get to the very top of any sport you generally need both because that's what you will be up against.

monkey8 · 07-10-2014 9:12pm

Mellor wrote: »

I'd like to think that John knew he was losing too. I assumed "keep doing what you are doing" meant "stay calm, takedown if the opening comes, submission"

That's bs IMO.

Don't know why people feel the need to cover up his mistake. It doesn't make him a bad coach as it's much harder to judge the fight objectively ringside as opposed to on tv.

Gunni is the most relaxed and calm fighter probably in all of mma.
John kavanagh knows that if he tells him he is losing that he is not going to freak out or let it affect him in any way so there would be no reason to say it if he didn't believe it.

Henry9 · 07-10-2014 11:11pm

Mellor wrote: »

But I also think talk if natural ability really undermines the sheer volume of work out in to get to that level.

But it doesn't.
You don't hear this argument during the Olympics, it's accepted that everyone there is very talented and worked their balls off to get there.

I think the fact that it's a dirty word in coaching circles is either due to coaches managing their athletes psychology so as not to give them an easy way out (fair enough IMO).
Or the coaches think they won't get enough credit.

Dtp1979 · 07-10-2014 11:19pm

Henry9 wrote: »

But it doesn't.
You don't hear this argument during the Olympics, it's accepted that everyone there is very talented and worked their balls off to get there.

I think the fact that it's a dirty word in coaching circles is either due to coaches managing their athletes psychology so as not to give them an easy way out (fair enough IMO).
Or the coaches think they won't get enough credit.

I'd say usain bolt is something special

darced · 07-10-2014 11:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Henry9 · 07-10-2014 11:24pm

DeVore wrote: »

Something very odd happens around the 10,000 hours of practise mark where the routine (be it piano playing to wood turning) goes from conscious thought at some level, to sub conscious routine. (There's a very good book about this topic called Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell).

Nothing 'very odd' happens at the 10,000 hour mark.

10,000 hours is just 10 years full time training. Athletes in technical sports would be training 4 or 5 hours a day from their early teens, so all it means is someone of that standard at age 25 has been training away for ten years. The ones who didn't make it to that level jacked it in earlier, so don't have that many hours.

That's not even what Gladwell said anyway.

http://gladwell.com/complexity-and-the-ten-thousand-hour-rule/

He clarifies:

achievement is talent plus preparation

He has talent by the truckload,” I wrote of Joy. “But that’s not the only consideration. It never is.

The point of Simon and Chase’s paper years ago was that cognitively complex activities take many years to master because they require that a very long list of situations and possibilities and scenarios be experienced and processed

You could argue about how 'cognitively demanding' MMA is.

Big Ears · 08-10-2014 12:04am

This is an excellent article on the amount of practice required to becoming an expert http://sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-the-secrets-of-success/ it also deals with not only some of the flaws in the original study, but the interpretations of the study which have been spouted by Gladwell.

For anyone who wishes to read the original study you can find it here:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice%28PsychologicalReview%29.pdf

More recent research tends to show that quantity of practice seems to account for ~1/3 of the difference in an individuals performance level.
I suppose the main problem with research is we cannot possibly quantify the quality of training or practice. Undoubtedly that is every bit a factor (and probably more so) imo than the actual amount of time.

Doug Cartel · 08-10-2014 11:25am

Big Ears wrote: »

This is an excellent article on the amount of practice required to becoming an expert http://sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-the-secrets-of-success/ it also deals with not only some of the flaws in the original study, but the interpretations of the study which have been spouted by Gladwell.

This is a brilliant article. The methodology in Ericsson's 10k hours paper always seemed unsound to me, but it's nice to see the problems laid out so clearly, and especially to see some well sourced counter-examples. The "go play outside" hypothesis is fairly interesting, and seems plausible enough. I guess it's kind of similar to gene-environment correlation, but I'm no expert on this.

There was a paper in Science recently on the influence of genes on students' exam results, and a version aimed at the public is available here https://theconversation.com/how-genes-can-influence-childrens-exam-results-32535.

One of the interesting things though is that in their conclusions, instead of saying "some kids are smart and some are thick", they emphasised that different people learn differently and you shouldn't try to shoe-horn them into a one size fits all model. Taking this to an MMA context, if someone is a strong grappler and for whatever reason their striking isn't stellar, it might not always be the best course to have them working more on their striking. (If this theory holds.)

califano · 08-10-2014 1:34pm

Story looked like a fighting dog. Cruelty etched over his face, kept locked up and worked hard but it all paying off in the pit.

Doug Cartel · 08-10-2014 1:56pm

califano wrote: »

Story looked like a fighting dog. Cruelty etched over his face

Well he had a broken ankle, that'll take the smile off anyone's face.

https://twitter.com/Rick_Story/status/519643022183514112

T-K-O · 08-10-2014 5:25pm

Predator?

califano · 08-10-2014 6:42pm

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Well he had a broken ankle, that'll take the smile off anyone's face.

Good job he isnt a horse.

UFC Fight Night 53 - Nelson vs Story

Comments