While the narrative of a fearless guy jumping off the couch to fight a killer with a week notice should be about how tough and willing they are, which it is in the short lead up, this seems to al was us get lost and forgotten immediately.
What should be a huge lift for the guy stepping up and a bit of a credibility hit for the other guy (opponent wasn’t training, not ready, can be a “lesser” opponent, etc.) often ends the exact opposite.
-
Conman was widely criticized for a coddled run to the title, “never fought a wrestler!” Then he got short notice Chad. We all saw Mendes fall off the cardio cliff, Conor won, and it was immediately twisted. Chad’s fearlessness forgotten and Conman praised for proving he was title “worthy” beating a top wrestler (albeit a handicapped one).
-
Khamzat similarly criticized for never fighting anyone really good, his best opponent was like 3 weight classes lower. Usman steps up to fight this feared guy having not prepared and with 2 bum knees. Heroic. Even shows more than most have outside of the 1st round, which itself wasn’t much beyond dominant control. Chimaev couldn’t really do much. But now Chimaev is the guy beat a solid ex champ and nobody will remember the rest.
-
Islam…Guy got his ass beat, looked defeated as all fuck. But now he gets his revenge on short notice Volk. One kick and the whole story has flipped. Nobody cares about Volk destroying his soul, they will just now quote this one handicapped fight as evidence that he is truly better once and for all.
There are example of guys winning (Bisping) with career narrative changing results.
Basically it’s all or nothing. It’s great if you win but if you lose nobody will keep the short notice thing in mind, it’s a double loss, but it shouldn’t be like that.
If you win as the short notice guy, context is everything and makes the win more epic. If you lose, the context is just lost forever and you get less than nothing out of it all.
Big risk.