Numbers don't lie.
They don't get into the cage and fight, though, either. Statistics can be telling, but they aren't always 100-percent accurate as to what has happened or what will happen.
That aside, when Jon Jones takes on Quinton Jackson at UFC 135 this Sat., Sept. 24 in Denver, Colorado, who should be the favorite? Who has the edge in the striking game? Who is better served to take the fight to the mat?
Most of the time it's just conjecture and subjective opinion. Today, the nice folks at CompuStrike released a statistical comparison between "Bones" and "Rampage," highlighting some of the strengths and weaknesses of the two light heavyweights powerhouses.
Let's take a look at the numbers.
The following statistics are based only on contests each fighter has participated in within the confines of the Octagon. Fights in other organizations were not taken into consideration.
The numbers are averages, based on eight fights for Jones and nine for "Rampage."
The first comparison has to do with the time each fighter has spent standing, as well as how much time they've spent on the ground during their fights.
Jones (Total Fight Time) - Standing: 45:28 | Ground: 24:11
Rampage (Total Fight Time) - Standing: 106:06 | Ground: 27:56
An interesting statistic, but somewhat skewed because the majority of Jones' fights have been "don't-look-because-you-might-miss-the-entire-fight" quick.
The next category involves "Percentage of Total Power Strikes Landed."
The next category contrasts each fighter's percentage of arm strikes landed.
Big disparity. It could have something to do with the amount of unorthodox arm strikes that "Bones" attempts. It could also just mean "Rampage" is a much more accurate striker.
The next category details the percentage of leg strikes landed by both fighters.
I have to admit, this surprised me. The words "leg kick" and "Rampage" barely belong in the same sentence.
Next, we look at the percentage of ground strikes landed. Here, we see a large disparity between the two.
In the final category, takedown attempts, Jones runs away with it. Shocking, right?
None of this is earth-shattering. It may, however, show the areas that fans thought were close are, perhaps, even closer than they'd previously imagined.
It may also spotlight the fact that the areas we thought held lop-sided differentials, may be even more uneven than we'd initially suspected.
What do you Maniacs think? Anyone rushing to change their bets at the last minute with this new information?