ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Temporal trends and weight-class differences in takedown density in professional mixed martial arts: a retrospective analysis of 8,461 UFC bouts, 1997-2025.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTakedowns are a central grappling action in mixed martial arts (MMA), but long-term evidence on time-normalized takedown output across competitive eras and weight classes remains limited. This study examined takedown density (TDpM; successful takedowns per minute) as a descriptive performance indicator in professional MMA.
methodsWe analyzed publicly available UFC bout-level records from 1997 to 2025, comprising 8,461 bouts and 16,922 fighter-bout observations. TDpM was calculated as successful takedowns divided by bout duration in minutes. Temporal trends were examined separately for men and women, with sensitivity analyses excluding bouts shorter than 90 s and excluding pre-2002 men's observations. Weight-class differences were evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis tests with Dunn-Holm post hoc comparisons. Division-specific percentile values were calculated as descriptive TDpM benchmarks, and winner-loser differences in TDpM, takedown success rate (TD%), and control time per successful takedown (CTRL/TD) were examined exploratorily.
resultsMen's annual mean TDpM declined significantly across 1997-2025 (β = -0.00426 takedowns·min⁻¹·year⁻¹, r = - 0.753, p < 0.001), and the negative direction remained in the 2002-2025 sensitivity analysis (β = -0.00202, r = - 0.712, p < 0.001). Women's TDpM showed no significant trend across 2013-2025 (β = -0.00252, r = - 0.394, p = 0.183). Men's TDpM differed significantly across weight classes (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.001), although effect sizes were small (ε² ≈ 0.005-0.007); women's between-division differences were not significant. Winners showed higher TDpM (median 0.067 vs. 0.000 takedowns·min⁻¹), TD% (50.0% vs. 20.0%), and CTRL/TD (99.75 vs. 78.88 s) than losers.
conclusionsTDpM provides a simple, time-normalized descriptive indicator of takedown-related performance in professional MMA. Men's TDpM declined over time and differed modestly across weight classes, whereas women's patterns were comparatively stable in the available sample. Percentile benchmarks and winner-loser contrasts offer descriptive reference values, but TDpM should not be interpreted as a causal determinant of victory or a training-prescription threshold. Future studies incorporating video-coded context and training data are needed to clarify its broader applied value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.