Whether they matter in terms of fighting ability are irrelevant. Obviously in an actual fight grappling ability is important. Just I saw this example seconds after me responding to your other post/me responding about people caring more about striking and viewing grappling as cuddling/humping.
The purpose of the study would be a marketing thing. In any competition, whether it be Pride, UFC, KOD, Karate Combat, WBF, etc., the most important thing to the people running them are how many people are watching. So if you could figure out what people are most interested in, you could change the rules to encourage that. If it's striking, you limit grappling to allow increased striking, encouraging what the fans are tuning in for. If it's grappling, you award more points to grappling, and you find ways to limit the impact of striking. If it's throws/takedowns, you award more points for throws/takedowns, while at the same time limit the ground game. If it's kicks, you limit the impact of punches (looking at KKW here). Even in boxing, if infighters are more exciting than outboxers, you give the infighters easier fights to let them advance. I'm sure Dana White and the heads of similar organizations have looked into this, and either changed their rules or promoted people who fit the ideal in terms of retaining audience/ratings.
Really? If I compare the popularity of boxing in the 80s (before UFC/MMA was a thing) with the UFC today...a lot more people were fans back then. If I asked someone who Jon Jones, Anderson Silva, or Georges St. Pierre was, or even Royce Gracie, I would be willing to place money that fewer people could answer that, then if I asked who Muhammad Ali or Mike Tyson (or even Floyd Mayweather). I would even be willing to bet, if you take into account people alive during the 90s, that more people know who Sugar Ray Leonard was then Fedor. So it's definitely worth, from a marketing standpoint, figuring out what sells best and changing your rules to fit that.
