The truth about Jose Aldo vs Conor McGregor

As we inch closer to the much anticipated, and very heavily advertised UFC 194, MMA fans eagerly await  the showdown between the UFC Featherweight Champion and UFC Interim Champion.

Jose "Scarface" Aldo is the proven commodity, the methodical assassin in the Octagon capable of chopping opponents down with vicious leg kicks and cranium cracking jabs. The Interim Champion however is the flashy new kid on the block, snazzy dresser, accurate striker and bold trash talker. The consensus is that Conor McGregor may actually be a decent fighter but might not necessarily have the tools to deal with the wily Jose Aldo. This may very well be true, and honestly, it's my take as well, so let's analyse.

From a statistical standpoint, the single biggest disparity between these two fighters would be takedown defense. Jose Aldo is by far the better fighter at stuffing takedown attempts than Conor McGregor. Seeing however as both fighters tend to rely more on their striking game, that's probably a moot point to begin with. Below is a breakdown of Jose Aldo (on the left) and Conor McGregor respective striking games.

STRIKING (SIGNIFICANT STRIKES)
Strikes Landed per Min. (SLpM)	3.29	5.44
Striking Accuracy	43%	44%
Strikes Absorbed per Min. (SApM)	1.94	3.01
Defense	72%	64%

                                                                                                                             
   While their striking accuracy is remarkably similar, the numbers clearly demonstrate the tendency of Jose Aldo to be the more cautious and defensive fighter landing 2 fewer strikes per minute than McGregor. Clearly the increased "Octagon control" comes at a cost for "The Notorious", who takes far more damage than "Scarface". Of course these numbers are a bit skewed with Jose Aldo having a larger sample size to draw from, however they're still indicative of the styles of each fighter.

Truthfully when the fight was first announced I was in the camp of people that felt that the UFC was rushing their precious cash cow into a title fight that he was not ready for. Especially against a champion as methodical in his destruction of opponents as Jose Aldo. However, this match should come down to game plan implementation. Something Conor McGregor is deceptively good at. Should Conor successfully push the pace and pressure Aldo, he could ultimately walk away the victor.

On the flip side, Jose Aldo's best chance at success is slowing McGregor down and keeping him at bay with his signature leg kicks. Should the fight hit the ground I give a small edge to Aldo, however as previously mentioned, that's an unlikely scenario. With McGregor's superior reach, ability to push the pace and Aldo's sometimes suspect cardio, my final prediction is Conor McGregor by split decision.

Thoughts?

*Stats provided by FightMetric*

Follow me on Twitter

@TerrorFists


See you there!

Anderson Silva is a cheater. Does it matter?

Collectively, a sigh of disappointment could be heard around the proverbial MMA world as news broke that Anderson Silva failed a drug test. Not "The Spider", pretty much anyone but this guy. A huge part of what makes sports amazing is that we occasionally get to see a once in a lifetime talent awe us with their jaw-dropping abilities. Basketball had Michael Jordan, golf has Tiger Woods, boxing had Muhammad Ali, and MMA has or had, depending on your level of cynicism, Anderson Silva.

Much has been made on whether or not this tarnishes his entire legacy. Will he still be remembered as an all time great, or was he just a very good cheater? Honestly though, I think the more important remains, does it, or should it matter? Journalists and fans alike have participated greatly in the "cheating is worse in combat sports" argument. Understandably so, it's an easy argument to make, you get into a cage and try your best to literally beat your opponent into submission. Any chemical advantage can only increase the odds of a devastating finish to your opponent. The only trouble with this argument is its arbitrary nature. Is "doping" bad because it gives the cheater an advantage, or is because the advantage is "chemical"? If it's the former then why not ban caffeine, whey protein, and carbohydrates while we're at it? All of those are proven to enhance athletic performance, and if that's our main concern it seems hypocritical to ban some substances and not others. If doping is bad because it's a chemical enhancement specifically, then where do we draw the line?

Hypothetically if a fighter creates a concoction that enhances performance using ingredients that have not been previously discovered by scientists, is he/she cheating?

This is not to say that there shouldn't be rules, or even banned substances, but the stigma attached to cheating in athletics is a bit unfortunate. The media and society at large has the tendency to assign deeper moral implications with fighters and athletes in general that are caught cheating. Cheating in sports in the sense that the rules aligned with any particular endeavor are an arbitrary set of guidelines that its participants agree to. Breaking those rules is what we call unsportsmanlike behavior. However it's not as if they (said cheater) has violated an infallible set of rules written in stone.

To bring it back to Anderson Silva, it is unfortunate for the fans that he cheated, or that he got caught cheating if you believe that ignorance is bliss. Many will replay his highlights in their mind's eye and wonder how much of that was steroid fueled? Is Anderson Silva a great fighter who just happened to take steroids on a single occasion? Is he just a pretty good fighter who propelled to greatness with the assistance of banned substances? Or is he, as he still claims, an innocent fighter that is the victim of a tainted lab test. Those questions may never be answered, but maybe it doesn't matter.