Countless examples is irrelevant as I explained. You ignored the logical fallacies, but you can't just pick and choose from anothers argument the bits you like.
Your whole argument is that because fighter b defeated fighter a, that the current mma belt holders are proof of what are the best techniques to use. But this is not a good argument. Current mma is not superior to previous mma just because it came after (this is your first logical fallacy), and lots of examples does prove anything. You see a fighter win and you rationalize why he won. But you can only say you know why he won if you predicted his win beforehand.
You are using fanboy logic.
Shinya Aoki uses a single style.
A normal person would look at Jake Shields and say this is a wrestler, who throws strikes and submits opportunistically. It doesn't matter what he says, all fighters have to be delusional and confident to step into the ring. The fact you can repeat the rationalisations others have come up with is irrelevant. Sakuraba never trained striking, his striking was better than Jake Shields' .
You are repeating yourself.
What the top mma gyms do is irrelevant, they do it from superstition because no one knows how to make a winning fighter. No one knows why Fedor started losing, they just rationalize afterwards as if they knew, that's why he came in as the favourite for the fights he lost.
If you think the way to win is just to emulate the winners, you miss the fact that they are just emulating previous winners, this proves nothing but that a series of random events has a narrative placed on it. This is not complicated it's just that you refuse to admit the logical fallacies you are committing.
Fighting does not begin and end with the ufc. Only fanboys think that. A normal observation leads most people to think boxing is just as good and ancient Roman Pankration fighters where just as good.
How many times are you going to repeat yourself when I have completed exposed the fallacies in your posts?