I respectfully disagree Don. How can you draw those kinds of broad based conclusions?
What is you methodology?
Why does everyone think losing or winning a fight has to do soley with technique as opposed to it's use by individual fighters ?
How many of the early contestants were masters aka experianced experts???
I do agree it may be a good place to start and that some of the observations over the years can be put into a hypothesis... which may lead to a premise.... which in turn may promote a theory...
The Martial Arts have been around for over a Thousand years. MMA stye combat existed during the Roman Empire for gosh sakes....
One would have to present more factual and solid based evidence backed with tons of data to support any emperical observation about the Martial Arts and keep in mind the hundreds of generations of practical application, tradition, and experiance.
You totally missed what Don was indicating. It's about effectiveness, not winning or losing. The MMA methodology has already proven the inherit fallacies of many martial arts. It's about using what works, learning it well and testing it in a fight. It's has been tried and tested over and over and over again. Get in the ring man, let's see what you've got.