Rousey vs. Carmouche: Breaking Down the Fightmetric Numbers
UFC 157 is in the books, the historic night now a memory, the queen of WMMA still on her throne.
Ronda Rousey entered the UFC Octagon for the first time with incredible expectations in tow, and she didn't disappoint Saturday night at the Honda Center in Anaheim, Calif. In truth, she looked to come pretty close to disappointing when Liz Carmouche was riding her back, squeezing her neck and turning her face red. But in the end, the obligatory result—Rousey def. Carmouche via armbar submission, Round 1—prevailed.
So how much of a fight did Carmouche really put up? According to Fightmetic, not a particularly strong one.
In a match that lasted just shy of a round, Rousey nearly outlanded Carmouche in both strikes (41-22) and significant strikes (7-4) by double. She also scored the only takedown of the bout, advanced position on the ground three times to Carmouche's one and ended the fight in the opening frame.
Those numbers spell blowout. But they also show why numbers don't always tell the whole story of a fight.
Admittedly, it's tough to say how much danger Rousey was in when Carmouche was plying her lone submission attempt of the night, a rear-naked choke from the back of an upright Rousey. It looked deep, and Rousey's face flushed noticeably, but precisely how close she came to passing out is something only she knows.
Aside from that one offensive initiative, the numbers really do tell the story, Rousey more or less controlling the action and giving better than she got back.
Still, this is a bout that will be more accurately recalled by human memory than statistical documentation. There's no denying that Rousey would have earned a 10-9 round if Carmouche had survived to the bell, but she certainly did not cruise to victory as the numbers claim.
Remember, never underestimate the number "one" when it falls under the column heading "Submission Attempts."
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?