The old martial art adage, "size is not a factor" appears to be diminishing in the ever-evolving world of MMA.
In the past, martial arts practitioners have argued that any physical advantage of an opponent could be negated by superior skill and technique. This was proved to be correct in the infantile stages of the UFC, when Keith Hackney defeated Emmanuel Yarborough (although one could argue against Yarborough's size being an 'advantage'), and when Royce Gracie defeated many larger opponents due to his knowledge (and his opponent's lack thereof) in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
Fast forward 10-15 years, and the sport of MMA has evolved. Many of today's competitors are extremely well-versed in a number of disciplines. With the decrease in disparity between fighters, does this mean that many of today's victors are determined by being 'bigger and stronger' than his opponent?
Part of me wants to say yes. After watching Yoshiyuki Yoshida being mauled by Anthony Johnson, Andrei Arloski demolished by Brett Rogers, and Brock Lesnar beating Frank Mir against the cage, there appears to be a legitimate argument that size and not skill is the determinative factor in fights.
On the other side of the coin, watching Fedor beat Brett Rogers, Big Nog submitting Sylvia, and virtually anyone who has beaten Bob Sapp has left some hope that the old adage remains true. However, the problem is that hardly anyone would argue that Rogers or Sylvia are evenly matched in terms of skill as Fedor or Nog.
So has MMA evolved in a circular sequence of Size < Technique < Size ?
I appreciate your thoughts and opinions on this discussion.