Rickson: Striking is a 50/50 Bet

Since I'm on my horse (or at least, back in the stable), let me add that I think that Rickson had a great point when he said that the problem with striking as a strategy was that it was a "50-50 game."

As you might imagine, Master Hickson continues to catch all kinds of hell for this remark in ye olde MMA forums. And while a number of folks have embarked upon some major counter-argumentation on behalf of the non-randomness of victory in the striking arts, plenty others remain just plain pissed off that Mr. 400-0* was unimpressed by probabilities that made pugilism more sport than self-defense.

But I when I think of knockouts like Rashad Evans over Chuck Liddell, or Rampage's Third Time Charm against The Axe Murderer, I can't help but think that Rickson had a point. Sure, there was Matt Hughes' armbar off of GSP's failed kimura from bottom half guard in their first match up. And we all remember the 24-hour fever over the "Von Flue Choke" (reminder: avoid trying to guillotine from the bottom when in side control).

Still simultaneous submissions, moments in which two potentially finishing attacks are deployed at the same time, couldn't be rarer relative to those photogenic moments we know and love as fight fans when two sluggers have moved from locked and loaded to near-full extension with their heaviest haymakers en route ...