One of the things that amazes me about the Shogun v. Machida 2 fight was the vast number of MMA experts who assumed that Machida had the upper hand in the rematch. To some observers, it was almost a done deal.
I liked Shogun. For my money, when things you are accustomed to change suddenly and dramatically, you need to pay attention. Everyone thought that Machida was invulnerable. Then Shogun showed, in a very methodical way, that that was not the case.
I liked Shogun, but what really made me pick him was the massive consensus in favor of Machida. Even people who had seen the first fight and thought that Shogun had won were back on what I call the Mean Reversion Bandwagon (i.e., nothing has changed, everything will be back to "normal").
But who knows what normal is in the context of a fighter like Machida and general? Isn't it arguable that the only quantified test we've run showed that Shogun outperforms Machida - or is at least his equal? If so, why were so many people insisting that Machida would win the rematch?
No one had enough information to be so confident that Machida would win that rematch. There was no evidence to support the kind of conviction I heard in the days leading up to that fight in favor of The Dragon.
Being contrarian isn't a 24/7 gig. But this one seemed like a relatively easy call. Shogun picked the lock once. Why assume that it would be impossible for him to pick the same lock again?
