My short appraisal of both fighters, Lyoto Machida [Machida (Shotokan) Karate] and Shogun Rua [Muay Thai] is:

Lyoto Machida exemplifies the abilities confered by traditional maritial arts training, in his case a Shotokan karate base. It is Machida’s Shotokan karate and skill of level of black-belt competition champion that enables him to routinely defeat most sport-based MMA fighters. Machida’s sound karate base also makes him a consistently good fighter.

Shogun Rua is one of the all-time top LHW MMA fighters in the world. He is a highly skilled Muay Thai fighter which makes him a highly versatile and effective striker. What sets Shogun apart from most MMA fighters is his tactical ability to see as well as create openings, decisively counterattack, and to strike to multiple zones of the body with Muay Thai weapons (feets, elbows, fists, knees). Shogun has excellent training but does not display the consistency of Machida.

In terms of strategy, Machida [and Shotokan} have a defensive philosopy; Shogun and his Muay Thai base is more offensive in nature. I think this is one reason Shogun did so well against Machida @ UFC 104. However, I believe the better story on strategy is that Machida who is a defensive person, using a defensive stratey AND is holding back, is not a good approach against a an aggressive, world-class fighter, Shogun Rua. I also think Shogun was holding back, presumably both on instruction from the UFC.

There is a lot of controvesy over the UFC 104; Machida vs. Shogun outcome. My reading is this.

On a purely technical basis, I give a vote of 30% to Machida as winner. I later read on the internet an analysis BY UFC RULE that does, strictly speaking, support the judges decision for Machida. In support, I think Machida was very accurate in his strikes and was successful in defending against Shogun in the majority of times.

On an overall basis, I give a vote of 30% for a tie. In my broad view, neither Machida nor Shogun did enough to justify a decisive win. I felt, like most observers, that Shogun took the offensive and did better in overall strikes, yet Machida stymied or stalled out much of what Shogun attempted. Machida, on the other hand was too passive in the face of Shogun' active offense, and clearly Machida took too many strikes from Shogun to give Machida a winning score on his defense-only stratgy. I also read an analysis on the internet awarding Shogun as the more prolific striker--I concur.

Not looking strictly at the UFC specific rules, looking at the bout as a full contact fight, I vote 40% for Shogun as winner. The reason is that Shogun pressed the action, and while Machida defended well, Shogun keep Machida on the defensive most of the fight. While it is possible to win a fight on the defensive, certainly Shogun's ability to continue was never compromised by Machida's defense. Secondly, the analysis I cited details that Shogun was in fact, successful against Machida in achieving an effective striking score.

I think a fair outcome to Shogun would have been for the judges to 'bend' the UFC strict reading of the rules and call a draw. In my opinion, neither fighter distinquished themselves. And although one could say Machida won technically, Shogun's overall performance was somewhat better overall versus Machida's trademark karate style that night.

I believe an innovative karate fighter like Machida has the potential to defeat a Championship-caliber MMA fighter like Shogun Rua. When Shogun is at his world-class best, however, Machida had better be ramping up to 100% full power in both karate strategy and tactics against the aggression and versatility of Shogun's Muay Thai.

In the words of Chuck Liddell MMA trainer, John Hackleman, on Chuck's inital loss to Randy Couture for the UFC LHW Championship, "... against a MMA God [like Randy Couture], your game had better be AAA.”