Common UFC Submissions: A Study By Numbers

**DaeHan** · Posted On: 10/09/2009 2:43pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

How'd Couture make out?

And what about Matt Hughes? I know, he's a dick, but won the WW title twice and defended it 7. I mean, come on, the prick was a fucking UFC champion.

**DaeHan** · Posted On: 10/09/2009 2:44pm

And Jack, you're the man. Awesome work.

**Jack Rusher** · Posted On: 10/09/2009 3:39pm

Originally Posted by 1point2

How'd Couture make out?

The answer turns out to be slightly more complicated than I thought.

The UFC rule changes over the years shake out into three broad eras: (1) the early years when every fight was open weight and their was no protective gear; (2) the bi-modal years when fighters were mostly either >= 200 lbs (heavyweight) or less (first called lightweight, but quickly switched to middleweight); (3) the modern era. Here are top fives for some periods/weight classes:

Early Years, Open Weight

1. Royce Gracie
2. Dan Severn (nearly tied with Royce)
3. Don Frye
4. Mark Coleman
5. Oleg Taktarov (nearly tied with Coleman)

200+ lb Heavyweight

1. Kevin Randleman
2. Randy Couture (almost tied for first)
3. Bas Rutten
4. Mark Kerr
5. Gary Goodridge (almost tied for 4th)

Modern Heavyweight (265)

1. Tim Sylvia
2. Pedro Rizzo
3. Randy Couture
4. Andrei Arlovski
5. Ricco Rodriguez, Fabricio Werdum, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, Cain Velasquez, Brock Lesnar, Shane Carwin (6-way tie!)

Modern Light Heavyweight (205)

1. Chuck Liddell
2. Rashad Evans
3. Lyoto Machida
4. Keith Jardine
5. Mauricio Rua

Originally Posted by DaeHan

And what about Matt Hughes? I know, he's a dick, but ...

The algorithm doesn't care if he's a dick. It only concerns itself with his record (wins, losses and the computationally derived strength of his opposition). He works out to be the 10th best Middleweight (up to 199 lbs), and the 6th best Welterweight (170 lbs). The best old-school Middleweight — by a wide margin — was Frank Shamrock (go watch his fight with Tito), while the best Welterweight — again with a wide lead — is GSP.

I stress again that these stats are all specific to UFC performance. Many of these fighters would be ranked differently if we were to consider their fights in other orgs.

**chinaboxer** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 1:25pm

nice job to the OP. the chart IMO just proves to me, how important the more basic fundamental subs are. and that you don't need to have thousands of submissions in your toolbox, but just a handful of the "tried and true" subs, knowledge shouldn't go wide, but deep. nice job with the charts! =D

**Conde Koma** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 2:00pm

Hm, I think I might disagree with you a bit there, CB. It's good to have solid skills in the "tried-and-true" subs, but they all have very well-known defenses and counters. If all you've got in your toolbox is a flat-head, what are you gonna do when you need a philips? I'm not saying to have only a cursory knowledge for every obscure submission out there, but it pays to have some unorthodox subs at your disposal.

**slaughterdon** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 6:01pm

Is it strange that the triangle sub varies +/- 5% from year to year? It seems that the occurence of this sub would go down as people learned bjj defense.

**Hesperus** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 6:09pm

People are also learning BJJ offense.

**chinaboxer** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 6:15pm

Originally Posted by Conde Koma

Hm, I think I might disagree with you a bit there, CB. It's good to have solid skills in the "tried-and-true" subs, but they all have very well-known defenses and counters. If all you've got in your toolbox is a flat-head, what are you gonna do when you need a philips? I'm not saying to have only a cursory knowledge for every obscure submission out there, but it pays to have some unorthodox subs at your disposal.

i agree with that, as long as you have the "quality" to always fall back on when you go for the "quantity".