Career Performance Graph for Chuck Liddell and Mauricio Rua

by Mike Fagan on Mar 24, 2009 8:55 AM EDT in News Comment 48 comments

Explanation of TPR

From FightMetric:

The Total Performance Rating (T.P.R.) is a statistic used to measure the quality of a fighter's performance. Scored on a scale of 0-100, T.P.R. provides an easy way to measure and compare performance in any single fight, whether 30 seconds or 30 minutes long. Consider T.P.R. to be for MMA fighters what the NFL's passer rating is for quarterbacks.

Rami provides a more detailed explanation on his site. While I have issues with it (just like I do with quarterback rating), it's a fairly good quick-and-dirty way to objectively judge fighter performance. The graph above is organized from best performance to worst. Suffice to say, they've had similar careers, though Shogun looks a little better when you eliminate the first Coleman fight.

0 recs | Comment 48 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Where are you getting the numbers from? Looking at FightMetric’s career TPR for Liddell, he has a bunch of scores in the 30-60 range from earlier in his career (even in victories) against guys like Randleman, Bustamante, and Suloev, yet your chart has him listed with 90s all throughout. What am I not looking at?

by dropkick101 on Mar 23, 2009 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Huh? He has two fights in the nineties, a handful in the 80s, and then another handful in 40-80 range before bottoming out.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 23, 2009 11:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dont like these kinds of stats..

IMO, it doesn’t really show anything important and valid..

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Mar 23, 2009 11:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Anybody with any knowledge of the sport can see that Liddell and Rua have sucked lately. No need for a graph to show that.

www.mma-elite.com

by Brad Ackerson on Mar 24, 2009 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

But it's pretty.

by pud333 on Mar 24, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This graph would be more interesting if it were in chronological order rather than descending order.

by EazyEismydad on Mar 23, 2009 11:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No, it wouldn’t. Trust me, it’s a mess in chronological order.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 24, 2009 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

at least label the rise and run.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe so but then that would highlight their inconsistency as fighters and it could show current trends so we could draw some conclusion as to how this fight will go

by EazyEismydad on Mar 24, 2009 5:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another way to look at this is that both fighters have struggled mightly the past 2 years…which we already knew.

http://www.mmaforreal.com

by Kelvin Hunt on Mar 23, 2009 11:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The graph isn’t in chronological order so you can’t actually deduce that from it. But you’re absolutely correct about them struggling in any case!

by zacd on Mar 23, 2009 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not in chronological order?

Then what’s the order used here?

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Um… it’s pretty?

by subo on Mar 24, 2009 12:29 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Information Fail

This is poor presentation of data. There is no information presented here because the legs of the graph are not labeled, or explained in any way. We have numbers, and data plots, no information. Somebody needs to take a stats class.

by dwv114 on Mar 24, 2009 12:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

cause i think you should follow the link before judging peoples..

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Mar 24, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I know is, if I turned that graph in to my professor, and tried to explain to everyone that Chuck Liddell scored a 60 at the 13th interval nobody, including me, would have a clue what I was trying to say.

by dwv114 on Mar 24, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This graph is a major violation of “math grammer”. Math grammer is a term I just made up to describe something like the graph above.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup i get your point. but mike pointed out that the details are in the link.. so the details are probably fully explained there..

(im too lazy and uninterested in the topic to click it)

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Mar 24, 2009 1:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The link is just a general link to fightmetric.com, which is fine, but you have to search for the full break down of TPR. The major fail is the graph is self, not TPR. You can’t gain any info from it. The trend down is very misleading because it is sorted to trend down. The axis’ are not even labeled, a major error in making any graph, but too often a forgiven mistake made by writers. The flaw I see right away in TPR’s compairison to QB rating is that, although NFL teams are in different divitions and play different teams, they mostly play the same teams and there are no huge mismatches. We all know that is not the case with fighting.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 2:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup i get you guys..i just thought since there wasn’t any labels, that there were full breakdowns and explanations on the graph on the link.. but i didn’t check it since i wasn’t that interested about it to begin with..

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Mar 24, 2009 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is the X axis variable?, I see 1, 2, 3.. but what does that correspond to? Is it fight number like Rua Fight #20 = score of 0 and Liddell fight #23 =17?

by Sokonojudo on Mar 24, 2009 12:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

apparently the post was made to entice you to go to their site and read their crazy explanation of Career Performance, not for you to walk away with useful information.

by dwv114 on Mar 24, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My fault for not labeling the axes. Vertical is the TPR score. Horizontal is just a running count. From the article:

“The graph above is organized from best performance to worst.”

There are loads of flaws with TPR, some of which have been mentioned already, but I thought it was an interesting look at some of the only quantitative research being done in MMA.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 24, 2009 2:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you can’t compair it point to point. Its more of an average. A more intersesting look is to compair fights v commen opponets. Like Babalu?

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 2:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had someone mention this to me as well. He came up with this:

"Inspired by your BE post I looked at the TPRs for Shogun/Chuck. They’ve had 4 of the same opponents: Overeem, Randleman, Rampage, and Sobral.

Shogun is 4-1 against those opponents with an avg TPR of 66.2. Chuck is 4-2 with an avg of 68.8. This appears to support your post about them having very similar careers."

Ideally, we’d have TPR data for all fights (or at least UFC, Pride, WEC, etc.). From there we could find the average for, say, Alistair Overeem’s opponents and then compare that to Shogun or Liddell. For instance, if Alistair’s average opponent score is 50 and Shogun scores a 75, we know he is 50% than the average Overeem opponent. We could then total these numbers for each of Shogun’s fights and get a more complete picture.

FightMetric has hinted they aren’t far from having every UFC fight scored. I’m more interested in some of the other stats they’re working on, but TPR is an interesting start.

http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com

by Mike Fagan on Mar 24, 2009 2:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well that way, it makes it more interesting and valid.. rather than arranging it from highest to lowest..

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Mar 24, 2009 3:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

When I first saw the graph I thought it was a joke.

Hello, Japan!

by Mr.Kib on Mar 24, 2009 3:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rua is currently a Zero

According to the graph . . .

How does Chuck get any redemption beating a zero?

On the other hand, J. Hendrik Schon would be proud of that graph or could be suing you for copyright.

by bignerd on Mar 24, 2009 3:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he's not a zero currently..

that’s arranged from highest to lowest.. i think that’s the 1st coleman fight..

weoweoweo .deviantart .com

by Anton Tabuena on Mar 24, 2009 3:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FightMatrix to the rescue

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 9:54 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I suppose a moving average may have been better..

But I think the point gets across. They’ve both regressed to levels far earlier in their careers.

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

YES!

"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy

by thetakeover on Mar 24, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense.

What relevance does the earlier graph have? None. All it does is state that both guys have had good days and bad days — as all fighters have and as we all have. A chronological order at least puts into statistical form what we already know — both guys have had long periods of time where they were on top of their game and lately both have been sucking a bit.

by dropkick101 on Mar 24, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Without a time scale

the graf on top of this post merely establishes that the fighters have had good days and bad days, which is true of everyone (even Anderson Silva in his fight with Cote). The interesting data is to see how their fights related to each other at different points in their career over time. As the FightMatrix graf from JCS_FM above shows, the ideal time for the “best” Chuck Lidell to fight the “best” Shogun Rua would have been on New Year’s 2006. What we are getting now is a broken-down version of the match, with both fighters in significant decline from that height.

"It's like a flying knuckle sandwich." --Rogan
"And many men have eaten it." -- Goldy

by thetakeover on Mar 24, 2009 10:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My head hurts :-(

by Patrick79x on Mar 24, 2009 10:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Here's some possible trending for you?

Who’s for a Rua resurgence in 2010? =)

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So Shogun takes this fight according to the trends. A bold prediction for the TPR trend.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

=)

The trendlines are not very scientific…

But Chuck’s trend is always downward… while Rua’s varies depending on the power of the trend, so I went with this one.

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I mean the trend for shogun points to eternal life and super powers. Is it possible that you could provide a link to perfomance jump and no steroid testing in Pride? Or a jump when guys fight and get poped for juice. That would be awesome. Like Leben?

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It'd be hard to factor in the juice.

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe you could venture a guess at how much roids help your performance using numbers. Kinda like home run totals in the MLB durring the steroid era and now. Seeing a sharp decline when fighters fight under a good testing program.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fun fact: some of A-Rod’s worst years were while he was admittedly on steroids.

Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

by Richard Wade on Mar 24, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Steroids don't help you hit a baseball.

Creator of the FightMatrix rating system.

by JCS_FM on Mar 24, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They help you train, weights or anything you want. Like hitting a baseball, They will help you hit the ball further when you hit. The numbers provide support for it.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

admittedly on steroids and on steroids are two different ranges of time, but you are right. Could be not data supporting improvement, but also arod is just one blip on the area of data.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What steroids really help you do is stay on the field. They don’t make you better, but they do increase your playing time.

by Richard Wade on Mar 24, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

they do increase playing time and I think killed the utility infielder position, but they do help you play better. They help you stay in the gym and keep you preforming at your peek, i.e. bigger numbers at every turn.

by szucconi on Mar 24, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs